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 effects
Design changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.- Perceptions of ETS
Design 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 testing
Development of methods for measurement of gas and particulate yields in mainstream and sidestream smoke.- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Use of additives
Modification of tobacco products through use of additives and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.- Use of filters, paper, and ventilation
Modification of tobacco products through use of filters, paper, and ventilation, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.- Women Targeting
Cigarettes designed to target women- Sensory targeting
Targeting of smokers through changes in sensory characteristics - Health effects
- Keyword
- Aftertaste (Attribute measure)
- Brand differences
- Burn rate control
Burn 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
- Brand differences
- 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). - Census Bureau
- 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)
- Effects—Smoking Behavior (Effects)
- 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)
- Barclay Menthol
Document Images
Ii.
~at recent competitive new product activity do w~ see
i~ test markets? In which~
Since January, 1981, 14 brands (4 line extensions) have been
introduced in test markets. Of these 14 brands, only Bright
(6 mg) and BLH Deluxe Ultra Lights [6 mg) h~ve been in the
ultra category. The remalnlng i0 are in the low bar segment,
ranging from 8 to 14 mq tar.
S&H Deluxe Ultra Lights has been the only successful product
introduced into test during this time period. Currently
B&H Deluxe has a 1.1~ ~hare of market in the original test
markets for the month of May. ~hJlip Morris has begun to
roll out B&~ Deluxe Ultra Lights but ~s believed 5o b= h=wing
manufacturing problems with the embossed paoka~e.
It is interesting to note %hat F, Lorillard w~s responsible
for 8 of the 14 prod~cts in tesZ market. Of these 8, two
have been withdrawn from test (Maverick ~nd Bistro Lights)
and the remaining 6 each hold less than a .3% sha~e in their
respective markets.
Source: MSA
-J
12.
What do we know abo~t the BARCLAY smokers?
BARCLAY regular ~nd BARCLAY Menthol are comprised of different
~em~g~phic groups.
Male
Index tc NM/M Ultra S~gment
F~male
Index to NM/M Ultra Segment
Under 34
Index to NM/M ultra seqment
35-55
Index to NM/M Ultra Segment
Over 55
Index to NM/M Ultra Segment
52~ 32X
122 110
48% 68%
95
32~ 26%
iii 69
45~ 44%
105 1O3
30~
iSS
• The BARCLAY franchise appears te be composed of two separate
a~d distinct person~ilty types:
1. Assertive, impulsiv~ and self-lndulgent (index 157)
Boe~alI? dependent and self of{acing [index 125)
• The assertive, impulsive and self-indulgent smokers
are individuals who are confident, success oriented,
manipulative and attracted to products which have:
- strong i~gery
- appeal to personal pleasure
- deliver on th@ promise
. Therefore, BARCLAY's strength in hh~s segment fs
probably due to it's distinc%ive image (successful
and discriminating) and the smoker's identificatio~
with "The Pleasure is Back."
• The socially dependent and self-effaci~g sxokers are
low in self-esteem and are:
- ultra 10w tar smokers
- group dcpcndent
• Consequently, BA~CLA¥'s appeal to this seg~n~ is
probably due to their identification with "99~ tar
free."
on.
~D
(The Personality Study was conducted prior to BARCLAY Menth~l's launch)
Sources: Switching StKdy
Smoker ~erso~al~ty Study
13.
Do ~e know why smokers b~ve re~ected~RCLAY after serious trlal?
Source of Available Data
TO determine the reasons for rejection of BARCLAY by former
users, screening question~ wer~ added to a n~ber o~ recent
l~rq~-scale surveys. From ± 20,000 interviews, 68 ~ormer
BARCLAY ~ers were lde~tlfiee. These Were peopl~ who had
smoked BARCLAY regularly for two weeks or longer but were
now s~okin~ another bxand. These people were contacted by
telephnne - yieldinq a s~mple of 54 - and asked why they
~topped smoking B~CLAY. For purposes of comparison, former
users of Carlton and Merit Ultr~ were also contacted and
asked why they stopped smoking C~r!ton or Merit Ultra.
Findincs (See Exhibit 13-1)
T~ste-related r~uus were the ones most frequently give~
for brand rejection• However, in a comparative sense,
these reasons were less important for BARCLkY Non-Menthol
(50z) than for either Carlton (67~) or Merit Ultra (79~).
• FOr BA~C~Y Menthol, however, haste-related reasons were
all-i~ortant. Seventy-elght percent cited taste as the
reason that they stopped smoking this brand styles, with
45~ specifically cl~im2ng th~ product was boo stronq.
(C~utiont BARCLAY Menthol sample consists of only 18 people),
• About a third of the respondent5 gave physical discomforts
(irrLtat~d throat, caused cough, hurt lungs, etc.l as
r~asons for br~d rejection. ~ne extent to which this problem
WaS ~eDtlo~ed v~rles little from brand to brand (~ARCLAY 37%,
Carlton ~4~, Merit Ultra 32~).
• Overall, these data do not s~pport the propositio~ that
BARZLAY Non-Menthol rejectio~ is disproportionately strongly
taste-related, if anything, the opposite seems t~ue.
BARCLAY Menthol's rejection, however, does see~ ~Dre clearly
t~st@-related. Nevertheless~ it should b~ borne in mind
that the BARCLAY N~nthol sub-sample is very small (18) and
its taste relBted re~ons for rejection at statistical parity
~ith Zhose for Merit Ultra ~nd C~rlton.
Gn
G~
14•
DO we have a product problem with BARCLAY Menthol7
The consumer satisfaction with the BARCLAY Menthol product depends
upon the taste expectations of the target market. Zmokers have
evaluated BARCLAY Menthol as a standoff with other ultra low tar
b[dnds. S1[~k~rs who currently smoke a mid hi-fi brand prefer
Salem Lights over BARCLAY Menthol while full-taste smokers exhibit
directional preference for BARCLAY Menthol over Salem Lights.
Thus, the azswer to this question depends in part on our view of
the potential source of business for BARCLAY Menthol and its key
competitive brands.
The relevant product tests ere automatized below:
B~CLAY Menthol KS
• in Original testing (December 1980), BARCLAY exhibitcd a
marginal win vs. Salem Lights among full-taste smokers and
a standoff among mld hi-fi smokers•
• A monitor (May 1981) vs. several ultra products resulted in
standoffs among all smoker groups (~ull-taste/mid hi fi/
competitive, etc.).
A monitor (March 1982) vs, Salem Lights resulted i~
shandofE a~ong full-taste and a loss among hi-fi s~okers.
There have been no product improveiL~ent tests•
Menthol loading was inc-eased from 0.65 to 0.70% in
November, 1981.
• Note that Salem Lights KS has gone down in tar and up in
m~nthul.
BARCLAY MEnthol 10O
• In original testin~ (November 1980) BARCLAY exhihifed a
direetzonal win vs. Salem Light~ among full-taste smokers
and a dlrecti0nal 10ss among mid hz-fz smokers.
• A mon£tor (May 1981) r~sulted in ~ ~t~ndoff relative to
several ultra products among all groups except Salem Family
smokers (marginal loss).
. In a ~ovember 1981 monitor, BARCLAY exhibited a standoff vs.
Salem Lights among full-taste smokers and a significant loss
among ml~ hi-fi smokers.
. There have been no product improv@ment b@sts.
• Note that Salem Lights has gone down in tar and up i~
menthol.
Seurcel B~W Product Teats
