Product Design
[Consumers, Tobacco, Smoking and Health]
Abstract
Overviews the tobacco industries response to the smoking and health issue, says non-smokers and smokers are increasingly concerned about smoking and health and lists the critical elements of brand selection. Describes consumer's preceptions of full flavor, low tar and ultra low tar cigarettes, attributes higher tar to harshness and tobacco taste and forsees the Ultra Low Tar [ULT] market as one to pursue. States the number of adult smokers has increased but not in-line with population growth, addresses the issue of quitters restarting and describes smoker personality studies. Restates the need for Brown and Wiliamson [B&W] to recruit smokers from these segments.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Hypothesis
- Behavior TargetingCigarette's effect of enhancing/mitigating specific behaviors
- Health effectsDesign changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.
- Perceptions of ETSDesign changes to reduce perception of environmental tobacco smoke among smokers and nonsmokers in response to public concerns about the dangers of ETS.
- Product design targets (women/minorities)Design changes targeting specific demographic segments such as women or minorities (slims/menthols/etc).
- Smoke constituent testingDevelopment of methods for measurement of gas and particulate yields in mainstream and sidestream smoke.
- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Use of additivesModification of tobacco products through use of additives and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.
- Use of filters, paper, and ventilationModification of tobacco products through use of filters, paper, and ventilation, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.
- Women TargetingCigarettes designed to target women
- Sensory targetingTargeting of smokers through changes in sensory characteristics
- Keyword
- Aftertaste (Attribute measure)
- Brand differences
- Burn rate controlBurn rate is controlled through use of burn additives, density, paper, etc.
- Flavor/ Taste (Attribute measure)
- Low delivery (Reduced delivery)
- Menthol delivery (Smoke menthol, menthol yield)
- Passive Smoking
- Perception of draw
- Quitters/ Quitting
- Satisfaction
- Sensory response
- Smoking and Health Controversy
- Tobacco taste (Attribute measure)
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Younger adult smokers
- Additive
- Menthol
- Smoke Constituent
- Menthol
- Total particulate matter
- Design Component
- Pressure drop (PD, Resistance to draw (RTD), Flow rate or Draft)
- Butt length
- Named Organization
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W)Subsidiary of BAT U.S., located in Louisville, KY.
- Census Bureau
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. (American cigarette manufacturer)American cigarette manufacturer; makes Kent, MaxSatin, Newport, Old Gold, Style, and True cigarettes.
- MSA
- Philip Morris Companies Inc. (Parent company of Philip Morris USA, Kraft, Miller)America's seventh-largest industrial enterprise in 1993, owns Kraft, Miller Brewing, General Foods, and more.
- *R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral brands))Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral brands)
- Roper Organization (Consumer Research/Public Relations Org.)Interested in finding out what drives consumer behavior; surveys consumers on their prime areas of concern; assists corporations with reputation-building and public image based on its findings.
- Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).
- Subject
- Circumference (Design)
- Effects—Smoking Behavior (Effects)
- health effects
- Menthol (Additives)
- Paper (Design)
- secondhand smoke
- Sensory Effects—Taste (Effects)
- Smoothness/Harshness (Effects)
- Target/Young Adults (Target Groups)
- Brand
- Barclay
- Barclay Menthol
- Benson & Hedges (PM)
- Benson & Hedges Deluxe Ultra Lights
- BISTRO
- Carlton (ATC)
- Kool (BW (1933-2003)/RJR (2003-present))First Menthol cigarette line, released in 1933. Premium priced brand.
- Marlboro (PM)
- Maverick
- Merit (PM)
- MERIT ULTRA
- SALEM LIGHTS
- Viceroy (bw)
Document Images
I.
What does the =onsumer expect ~rOm the toh~cco mombanies in
Overall, the consumer, both smokers/non smokers, are not
particul~rly satisfied with th~ t~bacco industry's respons~
to the smoking and health issue. In general, this dissatisfaction
has increase~ from 1970 to 198D.
. In 1970~ 42~ of the public held an unfavorable
attitude towards the tobacco industry's reaction
to the controversy on smoking and health• This
has increased to 54% in 19@0.
• Additionally, the public ccntinues to believe that
the cigarette industry is mot working very hard £o
find an answer to the health problems associated
with smoking []8~ reported working hard in 1970,
8~ in 1980).
Relativ= to other industries, consumers do not believe the
tobacco industry is very interested in th~ safety and welfare
of their customers.
• In General, the tobacco industry is tied wlth the
liquor industry for having the ]east interest in
their consumers (7~ and 6~ "very interested"
respectively),
• For comparative purposes, the drug and food processing
industries were belleved to be the most interesued in
the safety and welfare of their customers (26% and 25~
respectively).
1980 Roper Study on "Public Attitudes Towards Cigarette
Smoking and the TObacco Industry' sponsored by the Eobacco
[nstitute~
0D
2. Is thcre an incroasinq awareness of the consumer ~s to health
COnSlderatlODS for the Qassive S~oker?
Overall, consumers are becoming in~re~singly aware of the
potential impact smoking may have on the passive smokers. This
enhanced awareness is manifested in a gre~ter n%~mber of non-smokers
r~portirlg that it is ~nnoyiD~ to be around others wh£1e s~oklnq
Even smokers themselves h~ve been impacted by the increased
aw@reness ~nd ~re more likely to ask c%hers if they mind before
lighting up indoors•
• In 1974, 46% of all adults felt that it was "probably
hazardous" to be aronnd others who are smoking. In
1900, 58~ of all adul£s held tb~s same bel&ef.
• In addition, the proportion of non-smokers who feel
it is annoying to be around smokers has increased
from 53% In 1970 to 61% in 1980.
• Smokers ~av~ become much mGre conscious Of others and
are more willing to ask first before li~ht~nQ up a
cigarette (igx in 1974 vs. 29Z in 1980).
~ou~ce~
1980 Roper Study on "Public Attitudes Towards Ciga~@tSe
Smokino and the Tobacco Industry" sponsored by the
ToPacco Institute.
g
~j
3. What are the most critical factors in a consumer'~ brahe
9 = eive de r~ s
taste?
• ~nere are many factors which individuals consider -n chooSlng
a brand. These factors include:
Filter/Non-Filter
Menthol/Non-Menthol
Tar Level
Length
Taste
Image of the Brand
Personal Identiflc~tlon
Male/Female
P~esti~e
Familiarity
Fashionability
Age of Smoker
Availability
Price
Pdper ~n~ Filter Paper Color
S~oothness
Satisfaction
package constructlon-Box/Soft Pack
Package Appearance
C~gar~t~ Thickness
F~iter Co~position
Ease of D~w
Burn Rate
A~tertast~
Arom~
Tobacco Quality
Loyalty t~ Brand
Redeemable Coupons
DisCount Coupons
Different individuals place different ii~ortance on these factors
a~d ~ay maMe trade-offs between attributes. A major strategic
study is now being condu=ted to obtain the relative importance
of these f~ctors. The results Of this study are scheduled be
be available mid-August, 1982.
ConSumers believe that they are able to perceive degrees of taste
and that they can differentiate brands based on taste differences.
ConSu~ers can differentiate major product d-ff~rences s~ch as
full flavor and low tar. For example, i~ a blind fe~t Of
Marlb~r~ ve~ua Merit, th~ ~ull-taste ~okers will prefer
Marlboro while the lights smok~r~ will prefer Merit. More
subtle dlffe~e~ees can be discerned by a smaller pecentage of
So~rce: ~UMM pretest, ~W product test~
\
4. HOW would most consumers describe the difference between full
taste low tar and ultra low t~r cigarettes in terms of ta~
numbers?
Two studies are currently in field, which in part addresses
this question . . . one for KOOL and the other for VICEROY.
Data will be available July 27.
Two studies conducted in the last few years provide some
insight into this question :
- full-taste and hi-fi smokers associate (based on ~ set
of attribute ratings) higher tar with greater harshness,
strehgth and tobacco taste.
- A s1~hstant~ml p~rc~nt (45%) of consumers do not know
Qr pay ~h=ention to actu~l t~r numbers. C~nsum~r~
in a blind tar level perception study either
incorrectly recalled (16~) %he actual tar level on the
pack or hadn't even noticed [29~) the tar level.
- Consumers perceive low tar cigarettes as being less
satlsfylng and harder to draw relative to full-taste
cigarettes.
Sources: 1976 Tar Level Dif£eren=e Study
1982 BARCLAY West Coast Qualitative Study
~D
5. If smokina incidence has in 9act declined sharply, what h~
causea the decline and wher~ laqe, sex, etc.) is ~he chanue
occu~rinq? What about per capita consumption?
Since 1970, the n~mber of adult s1~ers has actually increased,
but not at the sa~e rate of po~ulatio~ growth. Therefore,
incidence is down ~pproximately 4-8~ from 1970, depending on
~hich source~ are examined. Dat~ from the Roper Study and
Switching Study are in agreement as to where the decline is
occurring. ~ncidence ~mcng youn~ smokers (under 85~ h~s
decreased slnce 1970. Hcwever~ incidence ~monq other age
~ro~ps ha~ re~ained relaeively constant. ~otal male and
female smoking incidence do~s not ~how ~ decline.
Rope~ Studies show rel~tivQly ~onsistent cigarette consumption
over a i0 year period when ~i~l~kers w~r~ asked to report
their average daily ciqarette cons~ption. Yet industry seles
dat~ ~h~w that per capita ~on~umption has increased since
1980, when c~iculated by both industry sales~ U°S. Population
and industry sales "--- smoking population.
Reported Daily Cic~rette Consumption
Number of Respondents
1-9 Cigarettes
I~-19 Cigarettes
20-39 Cigarettes
40 or more
Don~t Mnow/No Answer
Total Smokers
9~ 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970
91~ 920 937 1001 969 969
I00~ 10O~ i00~ i00~ i00~ i00~
i0 12 ii 12 12 14
25 25 23 22 22 26
51 51 50 47 53 48
12 Ii 12 13 i0 8
2 1 3 5 3 3
1970
1980
Per capita
Cons uiuptio~l
(Cigarettes Per Year)
3,582
Smoker Per Capita
COnsumption
(Cigarettes Per Year)
9~185
3,684 I0~067
Source:
&a
1980 Roper Study on "Public Attitudes Towards Cigarette
Smoking and the Tobacco Industry" sponsored by the
Tobacco Institute, MSA, U.S. Census.
6.
DO we know what motivates smokers to quit? Start after
The best data available on quitting behavior is from the
Tobacco Institute studies conducted by The Roper Organization.
In 1980, 31% of smokers responded that they wished to
continue smoking, while 68~ expressed some degree of desire
to quit.
Ex-smckers were asked why thsy had quit smoking. The most
£raqu~ntly cited reason was "heaifh problems" with "doctors
a~vlsing against smoking" second. These two reasons have
been cited as the primary motivations slnce 197g. The most
increasingly persuasive ~rgument since 1970 is "government
reports on the effects of smoklng on health" which was
ranked third in 1980.
Amonq current smokers, 39% re~or~ having stopped smoking
for an extended period of time, that is, at least three months.
S&xty-twc perce~t of smokers said that they had tried to
quit smokinq and had qi%'e~ ~t ~p for as lo~g as a week.
There is ~o spe~iflc data on ~hy smokers restart after h~ving
quit. A related question from the Roper studies askec
s~okers why they continued to smoke desptts health warnings.
Smokers responded to o~e or more of the following items:
"~ enjoy smokin~ and don't ~ant to qive it up' (38%~, "I'd
like to quit, but I don~t hav~ the willpower" [37%), "I
don't think s~okin~ is the only cause of the d~seases they
warn you about" (30~), 'These d~y~, they say everything ~s
bad for you so I might as well smoke" (Z2~), "If I quit
smoking, I'd gain a let of weight, and that would be worse
for my h~alth than smoking" {19%), "I just don't believe
smokin~ is all that dangerous" (15~], and 'only heev~_
s~eking is dangerous and I don't smoke that much" (14~).
19B0 Roper Study un 'Public Attitudes Towards
cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco IndUstry"
sponsored by the Tobacco I~stitute.
B&W Awareness and Usage Monitor, April 19~2
O
O
7. ~%at are the Dossible ramifications to B&W and competitors
of the "personality" research data?
The Smoker Personality Study divides smokers into nine distinct
personality segments. The Smoker Personality Study has shown
that the nine segments have different smoking Debavior patterns,
type/style and brand preferences. Given this information, it
is possibl~ to provide infor]natiQ~ on the present o~ potential
user's needs and asperations. This i~formation makes it
possible Eor advertising tQ speak more directly to that
potential user.
Given a personality s~gment (in which ~&W wishes to Lmcrease
its market share), it is possible to descrlbe the type/style
of products they are pro-disposed toward and the brands which
will be B&W'S maser competitors. With this information, it
is possible to select the existing or potential new B&W
brand which will most likely meet the type~style and personality
needs of that segment. Thus, the function of the
personality study is to provide information to i~crease the
likelihood of positively influencing the consumer. This is
done by targeting the product, advertising and brand personality
at a parti=ular subgroup o~ ~he total smoker population.
An examination of the nine segments shows that 48~ of B&W's
smokers are concentrated in three segments which represent
37% ef a]l smokers. Philip Mo-ris' business is overdeveloped
in two personality Segments where B&W is underdeveloped.
R. J. Reynolds is overdeveloped in two difzerent segments
which also represent opportunities for B&W, The personality
data should provide insight into how to t~rget strategies
against competition while minimizing cannibalization of the
current B&W franchise.
The cigarette industry is ~ mature market with a large number
of brands. Future growth wili depend on B&W's ability to
attract subgroups of competitive smokers. The use of the
personality segmentation should provide a nnique insicht into
the underlying personality feelers that motivate consumers
and thus give S&W an advantage over competition.
Source: B&W Smoker Personality Study, April 1981
&1
8. W at do we kno ut the "Ultra" smoker? What motivates
him to smoke Ultra products? %~nat are the demographics
of the segment? Does he want taste?
Compared to total smokers~ "Ulzra" smokers tend to he!
More ~emale
More Married
Better Educated
More likely to be white collar/professional
HiQher income
More White
Ultra smokers seemed to be motivated by at least four factors:
i. COnCern for their 9erson@l health - perceiving that
ultra cigarettes are safer.
2. Motivation to quit smoking and see the use o£ ultras
as one step towards that coal.
3. Response to the cencer~s of other people about their
smoking.
4. Desire to smoke new, more modern cigarettes.
There appear to be at least two segments within the group of
ultra smokers:
i. Those who are satisfied with light delivery products
and feel the taste is right for them. For example,
86~ of Carlton smokers identify carlton as e brand
with best taste. These smokers recognize that thole
are brands with a stronger taste, but %hey do not
personally desire the stronger taste.
2. Those who are dissatisfied with light delivery products,
Dut feel that they ought ta be s~oking an ultra. They
are searching ~o~ the cigarette with strong taste, Dut
• ~till ultra low %~r; Some of these u~ers exhibit a
high degree of trial of new products and occasional
use of ~ull flavor products.
Qualitative Research, Brand Switching Behavior July 1982,
Future
1982 A&U, Switching Study.
Research: Model of Brand Choic~ will quantify the size
of these two segments of "ultra" consumers
and determine whether other ~egment exist.
O
C%
-j
What hoes latest data show en share ~ositlon of qenerics?
Where ~re areas of greatest strength? Share in these areas~
Nationally, generic market share continues to expand (.04
3rd quarmer 1980, .69 4bh quarter 1981 and .83 May 1982).
Non-menthol accounts for 80% of this volume (menthol was
introduced in June, 1981).
In general, for both non-menthol and menthol Styles, this
generic phenomena began and coat!hUeS to grow in the Northwest
and Central areas of the country.
Trading Area Share Trading Area Share
Portland 2.6 Omaha 2.2
Seattle 2.5 Little Rock 2.0
Leuisville 2.5 Aitoona 1.8
Spokane 2.2 Mobile 1.5
B£111n~s 2.2
These ereas contribuhe 8.7~ of mi! cigarette sales but 24.6~ of
~eneric sales; almost 3 times the share their market contribution
would suggest.
Currently Marketing Research has fielded 2 studles deslgned to
explore the motivations, purchase behavior and smoklng patterns
of generic s~.okers. A presentation reporting this znformation
is planned fcr mid-August.
source: MSA
O
O
10.
What is latest data on lights s~.nt7 What is current segment
trend overall? W~at's str~nq/weak? Any GaDS in Seament?
The most recent ~rcnds suqgest continued ~rowth i~ the lights
segment. Over the pa~t 12 ~.onth period, the lights segment
accounts for 31.41 share of market. Current year-to-date
sales indicate the lights segment holds a 31.g6~ share.
The current da:a and most recent forecasts 1~dicate a greater
strengt~ in th@ non-menthol styles versus menthol styles.
Additionally, Greater strength is expected among the menthol
i00'~ r~lative to kings (a~ this time, the s~llt ~s about even).
Longer ter~, both menthol ~nd non-menthol 100's are ~oreca~t
to grow at the expense of k±ngs.
There are no apparent gaps in the lights segment at thi~ tlme.
Source: ~A
&7
-J
