Tobacco Documents Online

• S (5 0 ~~ T li V/ ~ T 0 T LL T 0 2 2

• • • Key Dynamics ~ Brand Loyalty ~ Smoker Adaptation to Category Complexity 4* Perceptions of Price and Quality ~ Smoker Aging ~ Smoking Negatives and Social Controversy t86S 98EtiS

• • • Brand Loyalty El While not yet fully reflected behaviorally, smokers see greater choice and product parity, resulting in decreased attitudinal loyalty. 0 The mix in marketing spending in the category has played a key role in these changes. Z86S 98£iS

Brand Loyalty F~ Behaviorally, smokers remain extremely loyal to their CUB in terms of recent purchases. El Attitudinally, brand loyalty has slipped somewhat since 1985. 0 Still strong compared to other categories. El This translates to increased occasional use and accelerated switching rates. E86S 988ZS

Brand Loyalty TOTAL INDUSTRY 0 Bedrock behavioral measures of loyalty to CUB have been flat. 1985 1988 1989 1990 Behavioral % requirements satisfied by UB (TPT) 96 95 93 94 Average number of brand families in considered set (bought in past year) 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.9 SOURCE: TPT'S/SMART '6865 98£IS

Brand Loyalty TOTAL INDUSTRY 0 However, the attitudinal strength of that loyalty has softened. 0 A large proportion 'now have acceptable substitutes for their CUB. 1985 1988 1989 1990 Attitudinal Preference share to . usual brand/style (chips) 82 75 74 71 UB far better than any other - 49 3 8 UB best, but found substitutes - 30 3 8 SOURCE: TPT'S/SMART S86S 98EZS

Brand Loyalty TOTAL INDUSTRY 1:1 Occasional use and switching have both increased. 1988 1989 1990 Occasional Use Buyers 25 ~ 29 29 Sticks 10 c~> 11 ~ 12 Net Switching Rate 8 8 ~ 10 SOURCE: DIARY 9869 98£TS

, . 0 Brand Loyalty SHARE OF REQUIREMENTS TO USUAL BRAND El WINSTON, SALEM and Marlboro are softening slightly. 0 CAMEL and Newport are improving. 1985 1988 1989 1990 Total Industry 96 95 93 94 WINSTON 96 94 92 93 SALEM 94 94 95 91 Marlboro 96 95 93 93 CAMEL 90 1* 91 c:~ 92 ~ 94 Newport 95 92 82 96 + SMALL BASE SIZE Lg65 98£tS

Brand Loyalty SHARE OF PREFERENCE BY USUAL BRAND F~ WINSTON, SALEM and Marlboro show largest declines. El CAMEL and Newport fare better than category overall. 1985 1988 1989 1990 T otal Industry 82 75 74 71 W INSTON 76 c4> 69 65 63 S ALEM 81 1* 74 77 70 M arlboro 78 ~ 74 71 66 C AMEL 72 ~ 67 66 ~> 68 N ewport 78 ~ 68 60 L~> 72 L7 Purchase and preference share tracking together. 8869 98£iS

Brand Loyalty STRENGTH OF PREFERENCE BY USUAL BRAND ^ An opportunity exists to target brands - or parts of brands with weak preference. 1990 SMART Preference Share Brands In Considered Set Brand Newport 72 2.7 SALEM 70 3.0 CAMEL 68 2.9 B&H 68 3.3 Kool 66 3.1 Merit 66 3.2 Marlboro 66 3.2 Virginia Slims 64 3.0 VANTAGE 64 3.3 A/O Savings 64 3.2 WINSTON 63 3.2 DORAL - 52 3.1 6969 98£tS