Tobacco Documents Online

. I ~ .-•r ~+.J:.~- - :' .. PHILIP MORRIS U. S. A. INTER - OFFIICE C ORRESPONDENCE RICHMORD, VIRGINIA To: . Mr. X. G. Daniel From: • J. E. Tindall October 1, 1979 . C 79-4;szt;1 Date: Subject: . Perceived Deficiencies of Ultra-Low-Tar Brands I have analyzed the results of the Present Brand vs. Idea1 Brand Study* for relevance to the current development work on ultra-low-tar cigarettes. The results of the study contain information pertaining to areas other than ultra-low-tar, but for simplicity and conciseness this memo deals only with apparent irregularities in the 0-5 mg category. It seems natural to expect that for some characteristics smokers' ratings of their present brands and of their ideal brands and the differences between their ratings of present and ideal brands will vary depending on the deliveries of their present brands. For example, as the delivery of the present brand decreases, one might expect the rating of mildness for the ideal to increase, the rating of mildness for the present brand to increase, and the difference in ratings of the present and ideal brand to decrease. The results below deal not with what would be expected from the ratings but with those areas in which the ratings of 0-5 mg smokers were inconsistent with the general delivery-characteristic trends. On the attached page all of the characteristics which were analyzed are listed. Two characteristics, "Bright" and "Crisp," intended for non-menthol smokers were not examined since, to my knowledge those characteristics have never appeared on a product ballot. A number of characteristics relating to menthol cigarettes were also not analyzed. The characteristics for which discrepancies were found for 0-5 mg smokers are listed below along with the nature of the discrepancies. For all other characteristics, no irregularities involving 0-5 mg smokers were found. ;: The 5-10, 10-15, and 15+ mg smokers all rated their ideal brands , ,. Does not have a good tobacco taste - Has a good tobacco taste about the same, they all rated their present brands about the same, and the differences between their present and ideal brands were about the same. The 0-5 mg smokers rated their ideal bands less than the other smokers and the difference between their present and ideal brands was significantly greater than for the other smokers. *In this study by Myron Johnston and Peggy Martin, National POL panelists rated their present brand and an imagined ideal brand on each of a number of characteritics. Responses were received from approximately 1500 menthol and non-menthol smokers. Except for 0-5 mg menthol smokers all eight flavor-delivery (0-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15+ mg) categories were fairly uniformly represented.

Page 2 2. Is not satisfying - Is satisfying Is not refreshing - is refreshing Does not have a tobacco-like aroma - Has a tobacco-like aroma Does not have an easy draw - Has an easy draw For each of these characteristics the ratings of the ideaT brands by all four delivery groups were about the same. The 5-10, 10-15, and 15+ mg smokers all rated the present brands about the same and about the same amount less than the ideal. The difference between the present and ideal brands was significantly greater for the 0-5 mg smokers than for any other group. . Does not have a special looking filter - Has a special looking filter The 0-5 mg smokers rated their present brands as having more of a special looking filter than their ideal brands. In summary, for Tobacco Taste, Satisfaction, Refreshment, Tobacco-Like Aroma, and Ease of Draw, the 0-5 mg smokers appear to be getting even less from their present brands than the deliveries of those brands would justify. The ana3yes leading to the conclusions above were done on rating averages to As Dahny Ennis correctly observed, the ratings in this study were considerably distorted because so many ratings were at or near the end of the rating scale. had been applied.• In my opinion that transformation did a reasonably good job ..~,,. . _ . _ . _ _ t,.of overcoming the distortions in ratings..,_ included in the study nor on panelists' abilities in rating thir own brand and imagined ideal brands. However, I think the data and'the conclusions have been which the transformation ,~ .. I can't comment on the relevance to smokers of the particular characteristics `"%handled in such a way as to minimize the importance of the second part of that :~:i: , . • -fnconsistent with the trends ofdeficiencies perceived by 5-10, 10-15, and 15+ ability, 0-5 mg smokers perceived deficiences in their present brands which were .° question. The resuZts above snow areas in which, in spite of any lack or 'mg smokers. JET:fs cc: R. Seligman P. Gauvin R. Thomson W. Claflin F. Daylor . D. Ennis L. Meyer M. Johnston W. Gannon J P. Martin

CHARACTERISTICS ANALYZED 1. Does not have a mild taste - Has a mild taste 2. Does not have a strong taste - Has a strong taste 3. Is irritating - Is not irritating . Does not have good tobacco taste - Has good tobacco taste . Is not satisfying - Is satisfying 6. Is not refreshing - Is refreshing . Is not cool smoking - Is cool smoking • Does not have a special looking filter - Has a special looking filter . Causes coughing - Does not cause coughing Is not easy on my throat - Is easy on my throat Does not have a tobacco-like aroma - Has a tobacco-like aroma ~t. ....... is high in tar and:nicotine - Is low in tar and nicotine Is not soothing - Is soothing Does not have an easy draw - Has an easy draw 18. Does not Zeave a good aftertaste in my mouth - Leaves a good aftertaste in my mouth