Product Design
Premier
Abstract
Presents the background, development and technology of the Premier cigarette. Describes the design and assembly of this device and states the most critical feature of this product is the tobacco portion. States Premier's objective is to achieve smoking taste and pleasure comparable to low yield cigarettes, testing is being performed on cigarettes with and without tobacco and RJR taste panels conclude that tobacco is a necessary part of design. Indicates the Coalition on Smoking and Health and the American Medical Association have petitioned the Food and Drug Administration contending Premier is a drug delivery system. Reviews polls of individuals that have smoked Premier, notes possible licensing of technology from RJR and reports market share in two test cities.
Fields
- Author
- Norman, Vello, Ph.D. (LOR R&D VP)Physical chemist employed by Lorillard since 1970's, V.P. in charge of R & D since 1991.
- Hypothesis
- Design changes over timeChanges in cigarette design over the past half century.
- Health effects
Design changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.- Introduction of new/unconventional products
Research and development of novel nicotine delivery devices and experimental tobacco designs.- Low-yield cigarettes
Modification of low yield products to assure that adequate levels of nicotine delivery are maintained, and effects of yield changes on toxicity and dependence.- Nicotine transport, transfer, and uptake
Design changes which alter nicotine delivery or effect how the product causes and maintains dependence, including transfer of nicotine from tobacco to smoke, and uptake into the body.- 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.- Sidestream constituent yields
Modification of selected sidestream smoke constituents in response to health concerns.- 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. - Health effects
- Keyword
- Aerosol
- Attribute perception ratings
- Brand Specifications
- Consumer acceptability (Consumer preference)
- Delivery modification
- Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS
- Fire safe
- Flavor/ Taste (Attribute measure)
- Free nicotine (Unprotonated or unionized nicotine)
- Human testing
- Inhalation (Smoke inhalation)
- Intake (Smoker yield)
- Low delivery (Reduced delivery)
- Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield)
- Patents
- Perception of draw
- Satisfaction
- Secondhand Smoke (Sidestream smoke, SS)
- Sensory response
- Tobacco taste (Attribute measure)
- Attribute perception ratings
- Additive
- glycerin
- Propylene glycol
- Menthol
- Propylene glycol
- Smoke Constituent
- Nicotine
- Design Component
- Air dilution
- Ash formation
- Burn accelerator
- Carbon plug
- Combustion temperature
- Expanded stem (Puffed stem, ES)
- Filter length
- Filter ventilation (Filter vents, air vents)
- Flavorant
- Humectant
- Nicotine content (Tobacco nicotine content)
Total nicotine in the unburnt tobacco rod- Nicotine transfer efficiency (NTE)
- Plug wrap (Plugwrap)
- Tipping paper
- Woodpulp fiber
- Ash formation
- Named Organization
- American Medical Association (physicians group)Professional trade group representing American physicians.
- Coalition on Smoking and Health (Coalition on Smoking and Health)
An anti-smoking group representing the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association (NYT 5/13/94).- United States Food and Drug Administration
- MSA
- Nabisco Brands (Subsidiary of RJR for a time, then Philip Morris)
Snack and cookie-manufacturing company, often held by a tobacco company. See RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral))
Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral)- Lorillard Tobacco Co. (American cigarette manufacturer)
American cigarette manufacturer; makes Kent, MaxSatin, Newport, Old Gold, Style, and True cigarettes. - Coalition on Smoking and Health (Coalition on Smoking and Health)
- Brand
- Premier Brand Cigarettes ("Smokeless" cigarette by RJR in the early 1990s)"Smokeless" cigartte marketed by RJR in the early 1990s. Stationary furnace devices such as this operate by separating the combustion material (carbon) from the aerosol generating material (mostly glycerol) such that the inhaled by-products yielded upon smoking are the distilation products (glercerol and water) rather than combustion products (nicotine + smoke constituents). This is one reason why this product failed in market. Flavoring is derived from tobacco, nicotine, the paper roll and sprayed dried extract. Addition flavor of primarily rasberry ketone and chocolate was also added to enhance tobacco taste and give rise to a "pleasing aroma" in the smoke. This added flavor was a major reason that Premier failed in market as the taste was very different from conventional cigs.
- Subject
- Filters (Design)
- Paper (Design)
- Ventilation (Design)
- additives
- aerosol (technology)
- Experimental Technology (Technology)
- nicotine technology
- Smoke Constituents
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Sensory Effects—Impact (Effects)
- Sensory Effects—Taste (Effects)
- Test/Consumer Preference (Testing)
- secondhand smoke
- Fire Safe Cigarettes (Products)
- Novel Cigarette Devices (Products)
- Paper (Design)
Document Images
Conducting polls has been a very popular pastime in recent weeks,
and so I conducted my own scientific poll among Lorillard
employees who had tried the Premier. I am not sure what the
margin of error in this poll is.
This is what I asked:
1. After having smoked your first Premiers, did you like
them well enough to buy some more? (Ignore the fact that
you are a Lorillard employee and think as if you were an
independent smoker).
YES NO
2. List some reasons why you like_d..the Premier:
3. List some reasons why you disliked the Premier:
4. What is your favorite brand?
a. Do not smoke
b. Ultra (<6mg)
Menthol Non-menthol
LoTar (6-14mg) HiTar (>14mg)
I ended up with a panel of 50+ respondents, mostly regular
cigarette smokers, some pipe smokers and some non-smokers
(never-smoked or ex-smokers).
This is what they said:
Question 1. Response: There was nobody who would definitely say
that "Yes, I will go out and buy some more." There
were a number of responses from non-smokers who felt
that smokers ought to go and buy some.
Question 2.
Response: The top "likes" categories were the
following (more than 10% of the respondents):
1.
2.
3.
n i1', J
No visible sidestream
No ash `6
Innovative, ingenious, good concept
4. Perceived health benefit I'l
q
Question 3. Response: The top "dislikes" categories were the
following (more than 10% of the respondents):
1. Bad taste ~j
2. Difficulties with lighting or keeping it lit .
-J'
3. Sidestream odor, room aroma
4. Disposal of the finished "butt"
~~
5. Bad draw '
6. Lack of satisfaction ~
7. Gets hot j
There were no discernable differences between the smokers and
non-smokers in the "likes" and "dislikes" categories. The
conclusion emerges from this, admittedly small sample, that while
the article has generated some interest, it is largely viewed as
a contraption and that the "dislikes" outweigh the "likes" by
such a large margin that very little buying interest is generated.
I would like to end this presentation by asking and answering
some questions which came to mind.
1. Q. Given all the resources that RJR has at their disposal, and
we know that they have some good and knowledgable people in
their R&D department, how come they came out with a product
that tastes and smells so bad?
A. This is another puzzle, and one can only make educated
guesses. My assessment is that it was a combination of
things: 1. There was a premature release of publicity which
generated pressures within the company to come out with it
before it was ready. 2. The Nabisco people got into the
act, and they might well have a different perception of
what constitutes an acceptable aroma and taste. 3. There
are considerable toxicological constraints which limit
the selection of flavorants that can be used.
2. Q. Can the taste and aroma problems be fixed?
A. It can probably be improved but there are a couple of
caveats. One is the above-mentioned toxicological
constraint as to what constitutes a permissible flavor.
A second one is that the inside of the Premier gets quite
hot, and a large number of compounds that are ordinarily
used in cigarettes are too volatile for this kind of a
system and would be flashed off very quickly, within the
first couple of puffs, and would not be perceptible during
most of the smoking process.
3. Q. If the necessity arose, could Lorillard produce such a
device to compete with the Premier in the marketplace and
be outside the patent coverage of RJR?
A. Not within a short time frame.
4. Q. Is our R&D working in this area?
A. Yes, we continue to work on new products and product
improvements, but it is a little premature to talk
about specifics at this time.
5. Q. Could the Premier technology be licenced from RJR?
A. Probably, but again, there would be a long lead time,
particularly to acquire the manufacturing equipment and
make it work.
6. Q. How is the Premier doing in the test market areas?
A. The latest MSA New Product Tracking Report put the initial
market shares at 1.19% in St.Louis, 1.76% in Phoenix and
2.56% in Tuscon, but these readings only indicate initial
interest, and do not repreresent repeat buying of the
product. Consumer reaction appears to be largely negative
and parallels what we found in our survey, but our
information is mostle anecdotal or is based on what we
read in the newspapers. In the next presentation, Dick
Safley will give some first-hand observations about what
he has seen in the target areas.
