Tobacco Documents Online

IN CONFIDENTIAL c2.V -67-dro Advertising Research Report MRD#AR-67-20 June 15, 1967 CAA'IEL/CAMLL FTLTER "TRADITION" :60 ON-AIR TEST PUBLISHED BY THE MARKETING RESEARCH DEPARTMENT R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. u+ 0 0 s cn 0 0 o+

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Product Manager's Summary ....................... First attached MRD Summary .................................... Second attached Background ..................................... 1 Summary of Verbatims ........................... 2 Appendices ..................................... 3 - 4 Verbatims ...................................... 5 - 9 Script ......................................... 10 -11

June 14, 1967 Mr. W. S. Smith, Jr. CC-Mr. B. R. Stewart Mr. C. K. Lambeth Mr. Howard Gray Mr. A. G. Weber Mr. T. E. Sandefur Mr. C. H. Judge Mr. J. F. Hind Mr. R. A. Blevins, Jr. Mr. W. A. Sugg Mr. J. J. Bresnahan Mr. T. P. Haller Mr. R. A. Rechholtz Mr. R. M. Odear, Jr. Mrs. Babette Jackson Mr. Robert R. Etienne Below is an analysis of the on-air test results of the CAMEL/CAMEL FILTER integrated :60 - "Tradition": Summary Comparing the CAMEL/CAMEL FILTER "Tradition" integrated :60 to previously tested :30/:30's suggests that the commercial was about average in obtaining related recall; 16% recalled CAMEL elements and 15% recalled CAMEL FILTER elements against a Company average of 17%. Compared to the previously tested CAMEL/CAMEL FILTER :30/:30 "Tradition" was twice as effective in registering CAMEL elements ("Men and Railroads" :30 - 7%) but less effective for CAMEL FILTER ("Surf Fishing" :30 - 20%). Internal recall of both CAMEL and CAMEL FILTER elements was dis- appointing as the main sales messages did not account for 50% of the recall for either brand. The internal recall weakness was high- lighted by the failure of either slogan to appear in any verbatim. Recommended Action If an integrated format is required in the future, the weakness in internal recall can probably be reduced by segregating the CAMEL sales messages from the CAMEL FILTER messages. The weak internal recall and the fact that CAMEL scored higher than CAMEL FILTER were probably due to alternating delivery of CAMEL and CAMEL FILTER sales messages and simultaneously presenting slogans for both products in the second half of the commercial - primarily the CAt4EL FILTER segment. It should be noted, however, that our current plans call for separating CAMEL and CAMEL FILTER messages into distinct :30 segments. So, this information will be put to no specific use immediately. C~~~~1: ~K J) A. `A].banese Mr. T. P. Haller of M.R.D. agrees with this summary from a technical LA 0 standpoint. 1 ~,,, o ?-~ A T. P. Haller JAA-jpa 0 .o s .v

SUMMARY CAMEL/CAMEL FILTER "TRADITION" :60 ON-AIR TEST (Day-after Recall) MRD#AR-67-20 This is a study to determine the recall levels of Camel "Tradition" :60 commercial. NOTE: The format of "Tradition", (salesmessages for two brands inter- mingled in one commercial) is closer to that of a :30/:30 commercial than a standard :60, and it is, therefore, more meaningful to compare the recall scores for each brand with the scores of 30-second commercials than to compare the overall score with those of 60-second commercials. However, this comparison should be made with caution because the inter- viewing techniques differ. In the case of "Tradition", respondents were asked about one commercial; in the case of :30/:30's, they are interviewed about two commercials and have twice the 6pportunity to give recall. Results 1. The test commercial obtained an overall related recall score of 17%; 16% gave recall related to the Camel elements of the commercial, and 15% gave recall related to the Camel Filter elements. 2. "Camel/now has/...a new/filter cigarette" was remembered by 7% of the commercial audience. 3. That "Camels have been/popular...for 50 years" was remembered by 5%. 4. The two packages of cigarettes, shown at the end of the commercial; were remembered by 7%. Conclusions The recall score for each brand is equivalent to the average for RJR 30-second commercials. However, internal recall is not good, as less than half of those who gave recall remembered the salesmessage about Camel's new filter cigarette. Our evaluation of the test commercial is that the lack of simplicity in the format (specifically the integration of two brands into one commercial) and an uninteresting situation produced the low copypoint and situation recall score. c A s 0 ~ co 1") '' 1 ' .o C. Elizabeth Jackson Marketing Research Department CEJ :bg 5/30/67

Camel/Camel Filter "Tradition" :60 On-Air Test (Day-after Recall) MRD#AR-67-20 This is a study to determine the recall level of Camel "Tradition" :60 commercial. Location: Buffalo, N. Y. New Orleans, La. Dayton, Ohio Omaha, Neb. San Francisco, Calif. Background: The test commercial appeared in the second position of "Rat Patrol" (at 8:45 p.m. EST) on March 13, 1967, and had been shown only three times (on March 11 and 12) prior to testing. Date of Interviewing: March 14, 1967 Method: Any adult who smoked at least one cigarette per day and who had watched television the night before was eligible to be interviewed. They were asked whether they had seen any cigarettes advertised and, if so, which brands. If the test brands were not mentioned, they were asked whether they had seen a commercial for Camel Regular and Filter cigarettes and, if so, what it said and showed. They were asked whether they saw the scenes just before, during, and just after the commercial. Program andd activity prompts were used to determine whether the respondent was actually in the commercial audience. All respondents were classified by sex, age, education, and type of television viewed. Sample: Numbers were chosen at random from local telephone directories. MRD Notes: The audio lead-in of the opening sequence of the commercial was played too low during the test broadcast. Kool "Auto Transport" :60 was tested on a "free-ride" basis on "Run for Your Life."

-2- SUMMARY OF VERBATIMS Cities Combined Base: Total in commercial audience (121) $ Gave recall apparently related to Camel 16 Gave recall apparently related to Camel Filter 15 Gave recall generally related to Camel and Camel 1 Filter Gave recall related to Camel and/or Camel Filter (17) DETAIL OF RECALL Salespoints Camel/now has/has a new/ filter cigarette 7 Camels have been/popular/on the market/ for 50 years 4 Is/still popular/good today 2 Is satisfying/smokes longer 2 Have same/tobacco/distinctive/taste 2 Have same tobacco 2 Is rich filter cigarette/born rich 2 Miscellaneous salespoints 1 Sittiation Showed two packages/regular and filter/side by side 7 Showed/pilots/men/talking/smoking/Camel regular and filter 5 Showed old/and/new/planes/jet/old plane landing at new airport/Piper Cub 3 Showed airplanes, just 2 Showed new and old methods of transporting mail 1 Showed different package 1 Miscellaneous situation 2 Gave recall unrelated to "Tradition" 6 Gave no recall 77 100

-3- APPENDIX I MRD#AR-67-20 Men vs. Women Men Women Base: Total in commercial audience (77) (44) Gave recall related to "Tradition" No significant difference :60 20 14 Age Under 35 35-50 Over 50 Base: Total in commercial audience 27 (53) (40) Gave recall related to "Tradition" :60 19 19 15 No significant difference Education Grade High School School College Base: Total in commercial audience (24) (72) (24) $ $ $ Gave recall related to "Tradition" :60 No significant difference B&W vs. Color 13 18 B&W Color Base: Total in commercial audience (93 (28) Gave recall related to "Tradition" :60 No significant difference 17 18 NOTE: In some instances the sum of the bases within a classification may not equal 121 because some respondents either refused to answer or were not asked the question. AZso note that the bases are small. 21

APPENDIX II RJR 60-SECOND COr'IMERCIAi Below is a list of RJR 60-second commercials which have been tested during the current season and their scores. BRAND COMMERCIAL OVERALL RELATED RECALL SCORE CAMEL "Men & Railroads" 6% CAMEL FILTER "Surf Fishing" 21 CAMEL MENTHOL "Beach" 16 WINSTON "Home Movies/Skiing" 16 WINSTON "Montage" 19 WINSTON "Fireworks/Interrupter" 33 WINSTON "Girl & Trumpet/Interrupter" 36 WINSTON "Girl & Trumpet" 25 SALEM "Down River" 13 WINSTON 100 GREEN "Jetty" 51 WINSTON 100 RED "Golden Pack" 35 Average overall related recall score 25% COMPETITIVE 60-SECOND COMMERCIALS Below is a list of competitive 60-second commercials which have been tested and their scores. OVERALL RELATED BRAND COMMERCIAL RECALL SCORE Kool Filter "Birthday Party" 17% Kool Filter "Music Store" 16 Pall Mall Filter "Party" 32 Benson & Hedges 100's "Disadvantages" 41 True Filter "Blue & Green" 47 Average overall related recall score 31% RJR 30-SECOND COMMERCIALS Below is a list of RJR 30-second commercials which have been tested and their test scores. BRAND COMMERCIAL SCORE WINSTON "Conductor" 22% SALEM "Down River" 15 CAMEL "Men & Railroads" 7 CAMEL FILTER "Surf Fishing" 20 WINSTON "Home Movies/Skiing" 8 SALEM "Sailboat" 14 TE^:PO "Contemporary" 8 WINSTON "Query" 44 WINSTON "Girl & Trumpet" 18 Average overall related recall score 17%

DIALING RECORD CAMEL "Tradition" :60 MRD#AR-67-20 Total dialings 8,020 No TV set 127 Not smoke 1,992 Not watch TV last night 569 Not watch any test program 214 Other channel, set off, not remember test program 384 In program audience 179 In commercial audience 121

DEFINITIONS In order to make each on-air test comparable with all other on- air tests, certain definitions have been followed. These definitions are outlined briefly below: Related Recall - Verbatims which are classified as related are correct play-backs of the test commercial. These may either be generally correct or specifically correct. A specifically correct verbatim contains elements of recall which can come only from the test com- mercial, since they have appeared in no other commercials. Generally correct verbatims contain elements which truly reflect things said or shown in the test commercial, although these things are not ex- clusive to the test commercial. Unrelated Recall - Verbatims which are classified as unrelated fall into one of three groups. The most obvious group contains those which do not have any elements of any cigarette advertising in them. In some cases these can amount to nothing more than the respondent's statement that he remembers the brand name but nothing else. In other cases there may be non-descriptive mentions of the cigarette pack. The second group consists of only elements which are incorrect. These may be either generally incorrect or specifically incorrect. A specifically incorrect verbatim contains mentions of elements which are clearly from a commercial other than the test commercial. A generally incorrect verbatim consists of elements that cannot be associated with specific.non-test brand advertising but which are certainly not valid renderings of the copy strategy for the test brand. An example of this latter case would be where the respon- dent says that a CAMEL commercial contained mention of "mildness". (Note that a reasonable amount of judgment is sometimes necessary in these cases. If a respondent claimed that a CAMEL commercial made a claim for being "a man's cigarette", even though this was not mentioned, it could be argued that this is a justifiable inference because of the visual context.) The third group consists of varbatims which contain both gener- ally correct plus specifically incorrect elements. Here it is fairly clear that the respondent is confusing the test commercial with some other and has not, therefore, been able to give satisfactory evi- dence of having recalled the test commercial. Commercial Audience - The base on which percentages are computed must be the same in all on-air tests. Ideally, the base should be people who were present in the same room as the television set when the commercial was shown, i.e. the "commercial audience". The reason for using the same base for each test is to make all tests comparable and to present the results in a way that accurately reflects conunun- ication efficiency. This goal is not achieved if the base is, for example, the number of people who say they saw the test commercial, because this in itself is a variable that depends on the ability of the commercial to be remembered; and since it will vary from test to test, the results of many tests cannot be compared.