Tobacco Documents Online

SECRET.___ O;+1LY - - N„ C,7~ By~ " New Bran~s Exploration Process ,IDD#87-41101 TO: B. R. Bullings M. K. Fleming FROM: J. L. Lawson ~~< < rc- 7 UNIQUE TOBACCOS QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY FINAL REPORT Copies To: L. W. Hall, Jr. E. J. Fackelman W. P. Whitlatch W. M. Dufour J. W. Lawson H. T. Parks J. A. Miller MDIC i Fact Book O • ! PUBLISHED BY THE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT `" ~ ° ~ R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. 27102 ~• N W W r

UNIQUE TOBACCOS QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY (MDD#87-41101) MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PURPOSE: This report summarizes findings/hypotheses from qualitative research conducted to assess communication of the "richer exotic tobacco taste" concept and five prototypes which utilized unique tasting tobaccos. BACKGROUND: One of the several new brand exploratory projects currently under investi- gation in the New Brands Exploration Process is the development of a cigarette which has a richer, "exotic" tobacco taste. More specifically, the idea is being targeted at male full-flavor non-menthol Virile segment smokers. The product is to have a tobacco taste that is richer and more flavorful than Marlboro/WINSTON and have a distinctive but not overwhelming unique/exotic taste property. While this specific benefit/concept has not undergone quanti- tative concept testing, results from qualitative and from various Project PR concept tests indicate a high level of interest in a flavor enrichment proposition. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES/KEY FINDINGS: • Reaction to the original concept and two other alternatives was quite favorable overall. Smokers liked the notion of a richer tobacco taste that was somewhat different from what is currently available. Usage of the word "exotic" to describe the tobacco taste in the revised concept is very powerful. It seems to create interest and is very descriptive-without--being-too specific. • While some of the products/unique tobaccos performed better than others, none of the products met the expectations created by any of the concept alternatives. At best, the products might be characterized as a product improvement but certainly not a differentiated new brand. Northern Wisconsin seemed to perform best. It was described as a "strong, hearty taste" that "had a somewhat different taste". - Most smokers noted a slightly different taste in the other four tobaccos that was most often articulated as being a difference in aftertaste. NEXT STEPS: Based on the smokers' reactions to these unique tobaccos (1/2 - 5% inclusion level), R&D has identified several new ways to potentially deliver to the expectations created by the concept. In addition to increasing the level of unique tobaccos, other technologies/components to use individually and in combination with these tobaccos have been identified. Internal testing of these second generation prototypes will be completed by 6/29.

^ UNIQUE TOBACCOS QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY (MDD#87-41101) FINAL REPORT I. BACKGROUND: One of the several new brand exploratory projects currently under investi- gation in the New Brands Exploration Process is the development of a cigarette which has a richer, "exotic" tobacco taste. More specifically, the idea is being targeted at male full-flavor non-menthol Virile segment smokers. The product is to have a tobacco taste that is richer and more flavorful than Marlboro/WINSTON and have a distinctive but not overwhelm- ing unique/exotic taste property. While this specific benefit/concept has not undergone quantitative concept testing, results from qualitative and from various Project PR concept tests indicate a high level of interest in a flavor enrichment proposition. At this time, six new technologies with the potential to deliver this benefit have been identified. Five of these technologies cannot be consumer researched currently as they are still undergoing pre-consumer development (e.g. toxicology reviews). One technology, "unique tobaccos", was ready for consumer exploratory work to begin. This technology utilizes unique tasting tobaccos which are pulverized and sprayed on the blend like casing at very low levels. These tobaccos have not been utilized in domestic blends because their unique potent taste required low levels of inclusion beyond the tolerances of typical cut-filler blending machinery. Originally, R&D identified eight unique tobaccos encompassing five differ- ent flavor types for exploration. The eight were reduced to five for initial exploratory research based on a combination of criteria including similarity of taste, availability, and cost. The initial exploration of this technology consisted of qualitative research to assess communication of the benefit statement, develop attri- bute language to describe each tobacco, and obtain reaction to the initial prototypes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research were to: • Determine if the concept statement clearly communicates the following key elements of the project: richer taste, more flavorful taste, and distinctively different from traditional non-menthol tobacco taste in a favorable way. • Develop a set of descriptive product attributes which describe the unique taste properties for the following five tobaccos: -1-

I. BACKGfOtJND (Cont'd): - - Northern Wisconsin, ---Dark Fired, - Pennsylvania Fermented, - Soakum, and - Galpoa. • Determine if the first set of prototypes meet the expectations created by the concept. ' II. METHODOLOGY: Five focus groups were conducted among Male 18-49 FF NM smokers interest- ed in the benefits/characteristics this project addresses. Prior to the group session, one of the unique tobacco products was placed (two packs) with all participants of a designated group. They were asked to smoke the product prior to the group and complete an open-end descriptive questionnaire pertaining to the product's taste. (See Attachment I.) Each of the five products were given to one of the groups in this manner. NOTE: Consumer reaction obtained from qualitative research should be considered suggestive rather than definitive. III. MR-lARY OF HYPOTHESES/KEY FINDINGS: • Reaction to the original concept and two other alternatives was quite favorable overall. - Smokers liked the notion of a richer tobacco taste that was somewhat different from what is currently available. ----Usage-of -the-word "exotic° to describe the tobacco taste in the revised concept is very powerful. It seems to create interest and is very descriptive without being too specific. • While some of the products/unique tobaccos performed better than others, none of the products met the expectations created by any of the concept alternatives. At best, the products might be characterized as a product improvement but certainly not a differentiated new brand. Northern Wisconsin seemed to perform best. It was described as a "strong, hearty taste" that "had a somewhat different taste". Most smokers noted a slightly different taste in the other four tobaccos that was most often articulated as being a difference in aftertaste.

IV. DEML-ED HYPOTHESES/FINDINGS: 4he fellowing review deals first with reaction to the concept and then reacti-on to the prototypes. Learning about both obtained in a recent Benefit Area Exploratory Research project (MDD#87-41201) will be reviewed as appropriate. A. CONCEPT REACTION Reaction to the richer unique tobacco taste concept was quite favorable overall (see Attachment II for original concept statement). Respondents liked the notion of a richer tobacco taste that was somewhat different from what is currently available. Based on the concept, full flavor male smokers' general expectations are cited below: "full flavor and smooth" "more taste" "new and different (taste)" "nothing else like it" "promises something very different...like I've never smoked" thinking of something as different as a menthol is to a non-menthol" "something as distinctive as a pipe tobacco" "like a clove tasting cigarette" A few smokers were skeptical about the product described in the concept. Some simply didn't believe such a product was possible while others were not comfortable with the support statement that the blend consisted of "rare" tobaccos as highlighted below: "if it's rare, how did they (the manufacturer) get it" "if it's rare, they will run out of it" "it's a crock" During the groups, the concept was revised to address the concerns elicited with the usage of "rare". This part of the concept was changed to "specially cured tobaccos to provide a distinctive tobacco taste" (see Attachment III). This change resulted in a more believable concept that seemed to address the original concerns.

IV. DETA7I:ED HYPOTHESES/FINDINGS (Cont'd): ~ A. CODiC_EPT REACTION (Cont'd) A_ somewhat different description of the idea was developed and exposed in a recent Benefit Area Exploratory qualitative research project (see Attachment IV). This description of the concept also received favorable reaction. Smokers once again expected: "strong, full, smooth taste" "taste/aroma of a pipe tobacco" "a tobacco taste that is a little different" Judgementally, the use of the word exotic in the latter description seems to be very powerful. It seems to create interest and is very descriptive of the new taste without being overly specific about the exact character of its taste. B. PRODUCT REACTION Overall Reaction While three of the unique tobacco prototypes were superior to the other two, none of the products met the expectations created by the concept. Generally, the products were perceived as having a different kind of tobacco taste that was not different enough to be character- ized as unique, distinctive, or exotic. Reaction to each of the five tobaccos is reviewed below. 1. Northern Wisconsin Of the five unique tobaccos investigated, Northern Wisconsin appeared to deliver to the concept best. The product seemed to hava a ri rhar mnra f1 nvnrfi.l taste that was on..~o~eS.ot A; qt ;....t;. -.•••.. .~ ~+...... ~~~ ....._... _~.v«ui ~u.~..... a..,c.. ..... voo ~vauc..uoa. 4LALLLLI.Llv'c but certainly not as distinctive as the concept implied. Respondents specifically described the product in their pre-placement questionnaire as being: "strong, hearty taste" "a very strong tobacco taste" "tastes more like a non-filtered cigarette but they don't have a harsh, hot taste" "taste is hearty" "good flavor" "had a somewhat different taste" The only negative taste perception associated with Northern Wisconsin was a chalky-like aftertaste that was described as f ollows : "a dry smoke, not stale but dry" "left a mild chalk or paste-like taste" "had a somewhat different taste, chalky"

IV. DETAILED HYPOTHESES/FINDINGS (Cont'd): B. PRODUCT REACTION (Cont'd) 1-~-Northern Wisconsin (Cont'd) To get an overall feeling about the product, respondents collectively agreed on a description of the product which appears below. It appears the product is approaching the concept but does fall short at this time. (Note that this description was generated after product usage but prior to concept exposure.) "Here we have a smooth cigarette that's full flavored and easy to draw. This cigarette gives you full bodied tobacco flavor that may be bolder and heartier than your current brand without being harsh." 2. Dark Fired Reaction to the Dark Fired tobacco focused primarily on the smoothness qualities of the cigarette and secondarily the product's aftertaste. Specifically, the product was described as "mild, not harsh, and smooth." In addition, these smokers indicated it didn't have a "heavy taste" and "doesn't leave the mouth with a bad aftertaste". It seemed that these aftertaste comments were related to the Dark Fired tobacco leaving/having a different taste than what they were accustomed to. This suggests an increased level of tobacco is necessary for the distinctive taste to become noticeable as a pure taste and not as a difference in aftertaste. Smokers co ective y escri e t e pro uct as o ows: "Introducing a new brand of cigarettes that delivers rich taste without the "hotness" or "heaviness" that sometimes accompanies other full flavored cigarettes. Quality tobaccos are used to deliver a fresh taste that is never too harsh. It's not menthol but it's unique from any non-menthol cigarette you've ever tried." 3. Pennsylvania Fermented The product utilizing the Pennsylvania Fermented tobacco (1/2% inclusion level) performed worst in terms of delivering to the concept. It seemed this tobacco is less potent, as it was described as being: "slightly milder than my usual brand" "kind of on the mild side" "not as strong as my usual brand" "did not seem to be a full flavor" "smooth but had no taste" Some smokers did pick up on the slightly different taste and articulated it as being a difference in aftertaste.

IV. DETAIL-L}D HYPOTHESES/FINDINGS (Cont'd): B. PRODUCT REACTION (Cont'd) 3.-Pennsylvania Fermented (Cont'd) "clean aftertaste" "didn't have the aftertaste of my usual brand" "tasted a little dry" "didn't have a bad aftertaste...tingling feeling" The smokers own pre-concept exposure description read as follows: "Introducing a new~brand of cigarette that gives you full-bodied flavor without the aftertaste that some- times accompanies full flavored cigarettes. The smooth taste satisfies you without harshness." A product utilizing a higher level (5%) of Pennsylvania Fermented tobacco was exposed in the Benefit Area Exploratory Qualitative. While this product seemed to do somewhat better, it still fell short of delivering to the concept. Smokers indicated it tasted more like conventional tobacco flavor than an exotic tobacco flavor. It became apparent that for a product to deliver to the concept, it may/will need a slightly different taste that may need to be inconsistent with tobacco taste yet relatively subtle. 4. Soakum Reaction to this unique tobacco was generally positive. Like the other products, it clearly fell short in terms of delivering to the concept yet seemed to be closer than either Pennsylvania Fermented or the Dark Fired at 1/2% inclusion level. The product was described as: "rich tasting with a pleasing mellow flavor" "good flavor, tasted fresh" "had a strong flavor" Some smokers, however, didn't like the flavor and it seemed to be articulated as aftertaste negatives: "leaves a (different) aftertaste" "dry (tasting)" "has a slight aftertaste" 5. Galpoa The Galpoa product seemed to be one of the better products inves- tigated. As with the other four products, this tobacco at the 1/2% inclusion level feel short of delivering to the expectations created by the concept. Relatively, it was better than the others because it seemed to be more different. Once again, the difference was too subtle and manifested itself mostly in aftertaste-related comments. Following are smokers' comments prior to concept exposure.

IV. DETAIEgD HYPOTHESES/FINDINGS (Cont'd): B. PROetJCT REACTION ( Cont' d) - 5.'Galpoa (Cont'd) "kind of a natural taste" "rich full flavor" "better flavor" "clean taste" "cleaner tasting" "better taste" "didn't leave a burning aftertaste" "didn't leave a strong aftertaste" "a little sweeter taste" "less harsh aftertaste" "no nasty aftertaste" "doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth" Further evidence of the product's failure to deliver to the concept can be seen below in the description these smokers developed about the cigarette prior to concept exposure. "Introducing a new cigarette which delivers the full flavored gooiT taste-yor.i're-iooking for in a- eigarette--without the- bite, the heaviness, or the nasty aftertaste that sometimes accompanies full flavored cigarettes." V. NEXT STEPS: Based on the smokers' reactions to these unique tobaccos (1/2 - 5% inclu- sion level), R&D has identified several new ways to potentially deliver to the expectations created by the concpet. In addition to increasing the level of unique tobaccos, other technologies/components to use individually and in combination with these tobaccos have been identified. Internal testing of these new alternatives will be completed the week of 6/29 with qualitative research planned for the week of 7/20.

ATTACHMENT I Thank yau for participating in this study! As ment-ioned, prior to coming to the office for the discussion, please smoke the two packs of cigarettes we gave you. Then write your answers down to the following questions in the space provided. If for some reason you are unble to smoke all of the product, please fill out the questionnaire based on the cigarettes you did smoke. Please complete it before you come back to the office and also bring the questionnaire with you to aid the discussion. Q1. How would you describe the taste of these cigarettes to a friend who smokes, but has not actually smoked the cigarettes we gave you? Q2. What, if anything, did you like about these cigarettes? Q3. What, if anything, did you dislike about these cigarettes? Q4. How were these cigarettes different from your usual brand of cigarettes? Q5. What is your usual brand of cigarettes?