Tobacco Documents Online

1499 965 5 i0 15 2O 25 Om AD Am Om A style of living. Is it intended by lifestyle advertising to show cigarette smoking as a desirable thing to do? Well, I certainly couldn't say that it's intended to show it as undesirable. I don't know that that's a specific overall objective, but I think advertising would want to make smoking shown in a positive way. What is the effect on the consumer? If you'd be good enough to tell the Court about this kind of advertising showing smoking in a positive light? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think we've ever asked that. They try to describe the kind of advertising research we do relates to specific objectives for the advertisement. Any -- I think any -- I don't think -- I can't recall any specific objective of making smoking look positive. I think there might be tangential references, but I don't think it's ever been measured, so I don't know. But I thought you said you measured everything. I mean you get it, as I understood it, Mr. Brown, sort of to use the colloquial expression, coming and going. I mean you have the ads sketched up, first you have the strategy about a brand, right? Correct. Right. Then you talk to your people, your own people AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Oi,,ision de Pierre Vilaire & Associ~s Lt~e

1500 966 i0 15 2O 25 about what a brand is supposed to look like, right? Right. Then you bring in your advertising guys and you tell them what you think you want the brand to look like, correct? Correct. Then somebody goes out and draws a little -- a couple of pictures, I think you said, possibly, or brings you photographs? Correct. Right. Then you have these qualitative focus group-type things where you bring people in and you talk to them about it and does it mean to them what it's supposed to mean to them, right? Correct. And if you've shown them a lot of little pictures or maquettes and stuff, you pick the ones for the campaign that seem to get the people constant or their views consistent with what you want that brand to represent, right? In broad terms, that's correct. Right. Then -- then you get a little more professional about it, I guess, and you get glossy pictures and you put it in magazines and in billboards around the country and in d~panneurs and stuff like that, in fact. Then AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Divlslon d, Pierre

1501 967 i0 15 2O 25 "A- you start a media campaign in different kinds of media, right? Correct. Right. Then once you've started that, you bring people in to find out how you're doing, right? We could, but -- yes. It's not -- that's less done by that time. You judge your success in other ways, but it -- yes. You mean by your sales? By your sales. Amongst other things. Yes. Yes. But you also bring people in to find out if the right people's perceptions are right, correct? Don't you do that, Mr. Brown? Could you say it again, please? You bring people in after a campaign has started to run to make sure that their perceptions about the brand and the advertising of the brand are the way you want them to be perceived? I think I just answered that. That would be done only if we perceived that there was a problem, I think. Once the ad has been advertised and I think I explained the other day, and it's -- or I should say researched and developed and then advertised, unless somebody felt AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Divi,;on de Pierre Vi~aire & Associes Lt~e

1502 968 i0 15 20 25 there was a problem with it, probably not, no. Because we would be convinced from pre-advertising research that that represented what we wanted it to. Therefore, if it was a what we have called or what you've called lifestyle ad, and if the advertisement was of lifestyle in its nature, you would have known in advance that it was going to be perceived pretty much the way you wanted it to be perceived, otherwise you would not have run that ad; is that not correct? That's pretty well correct, yes. Okay. Therefore, is it correct to say or fair to say, or answer to the question: what is the effect on the consumer that lifestyle shows cigarettes as a desirable thing to do, then if the ad has run, then the answer would be that the effect on the consumer is that they believe it or accept it the way we want them to accept it. Would you agree with that, Mr. Brown? I think I would agree with that, although, as I said, I can't recall us having measured that specific objective, but I would think so, that smokers -- certainly smokers who chose that brand, one would assume they have accepted that. Would you say in a general way that smokers who chose the brand have chosen the brand because of the advertising that you have put on that brand? AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Viloire & As,oci~s L,4e

1503 969 5 i0 15 20 25 I would think that's true in part. There's a lot of reasons for choosing a brand, obviously. Right. Would you agree with me that there's a reasonably close correlation between lifestyle advertising and brand positioning? There is in terms of brand positioning on certain dimensions. Okay. Now... For example, the one that we referred to: for men/for women, would be one that correlates with advertising among other things, I would think. For men/for women. How about for less harmful, milder cigarettes to be less harmful? How's that for a position? I'm not quite sure I know how to answer that, except that one of the ways that consumers, I believe, consider the tar level of cigarettes is that the lower the tar, the less harmful it is. I don't know if that answers your question, but they would, I'm certain, respond in that manner at large. In fact, My Lord... Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps I should clarify that more. I think that was true up until a few years ago. I think that consumers today are more accepting that all cigarettes are AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, oi,,i,~o,~ de Pierre Viiaire & Associ~s Lt4e

1504 970 I0 15 2O 25 Om Am harmful. So perhaps I was inaccurate in saying what I did relative to now. Now, there's a correlation between targeting people and positioning? Somehow you target people with certain kinds of concerns or attributes and they're supposed to attach some importance to the brand and in connection with the advertisement so the people with the attributes see certain attributes in the brand and the brand gets positioned, right? I think in a general flow, I would accept that. Okay. So, but why does your company target health conscious people, Mr. Brown? My Lord, I'll answer that. I believe I've answered it, but I will try again. There was a reference either earlier today or yesterday to the "position of safety." It is established among smokers, and has been for some time, in fact by medical authorities and in fact by the Health Department of Canada, that a lower tar cigarette is better for your health. People who believe that and are searching for lower tar cigarettes are referred to in -- often as those people looking for the safest position. And in fact in their minds a brand that was the lowest tar would be the safest brand. Or they're often referred to as health conscious people; in fact they are. AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Di~i,~o~ d~ Pierre

1505 971 5 i0 15 20 25 Referred to by whom? Referred to in our documents, in -- you raised the word "targeting." I see. It's quite common. I see. So when we see... But the point is... THE COURT: Let him finish. Me BAKER: All right. A- ...that there was -- there was a need created in the marketplace for lower tar cigarettes, and we believe that was the reason, because they told us that, and we gave them lower tar cigarettes. We did not, in my mind, in any way, tell them they were safer or better for their health. We told them they are lower tar cigarettes because they said that's what they wanted. Q- But -- so when we see in your corporation's documents that your counsel have provided us with, you're targeting health conscious people, we should ignore health conscious and we should do what other people do and that is sort of pretend that it really means mild? A- I'm not suggesting you should ignore health conscious or any of those references. I'm trying to explain what AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, D~i,ioo d~ Pierr~ V~iair, ~ A~o~i~s Lt~e

1506 972 i0 15 2O 25 Oa they mean. Oh, I see. So... They're trying to describe a group of people that have a common feeling or understanding or something. So is it your testimony then, Mr. Brown, that you don't target health conscious people, what you really do is target people who want a milder cigarette and they just happen to be worried about their health? I think that's semantic. We target to people who want milder cigarettes because, as they have said, they think they are better for their health. And that, by definition, is health conscious people. Well, I'll put it to you that you're changing your answer somewhat from that of the sixth (6th) of June nineteen eighty-eight (1988), page one sixty-eight (168). I'm going to read a question and answer to you, Mr. Brown. "Q- Do you target specifically health conscious people, health conscious in respect of the cigarette smoking controversy? A- That could be a definition and a target. That could be a classification of people, yes." Now my question to you is... It's the same thing. AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Viloire & Associes L,4e

1507 973 5 i0 15 20 25 Qm The Court will determine, Mr. Brown, whether it's the same thing. Sorry. Please, don't you. THE COURT: Show me that passage. Me POTTER: Might I ask the page number, Mr. Baker? Me BAKER: Cent soixante-huit (168), je crois. Q- This document, ITL-2, "Image Dimensions", you might -- maybe Mr. Potter would give you his copy, so that you don't have to turn your back to the Judge. Now, these things are called, if I remember your testimony, discriminators, right? A- Correct. Q- Right. Let's see if I understand. When did you start, your company first start using these discriminators? These specific discriminators? A- I don't know the answer to that because they do change and I don't know when that exact list, as it is seen, would have been created. In fact, since that's eighty-seven ('87), there could be a couple that changed now. I don't know that. Q- Did -- it first started in eighty-seven ('87)? Didn't AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Di~i,~o,~ ~ Pierre Vilaire & Associ~s LtEe

1508 974 i0 15 20 25 you do a youth study, or an image study in nineteen eighty-seven (1987)? No, we've been doing image measurement for longer than that in the C.M.A. and then, as I think I mentioned earlier, it switched from the C.MoA. to a separate annual study. Hm, hm. And did C.M.A. have a category called "Happy to smoke/not happy to smoke"? I think it would have, or something similar. Hm, hm. I see. How long has your company known, through its research, that consumers perceive milder to be less harmful to their health, would you say? Five (5) years, ten (i0) years, fifteen (15) years? Quite a long time. I think -- I don't know when the measurement started but I would say, as a generality, I think, in my own view, that people have always felt that a stronger cigarette was harder on you than a milder cigarette, even in terms of comfort to your throat. Harder on you, could that mean more harmful to your health as well, Mister? Is that what you intended your answer to mean? It could be, yes. I see. Could mean that. Could you tell the Court what Project Stereo was? Is AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division 4, Pierre Vi;aire & Associ4s Lt4e