Tobacco Documents Online

MEMORANDUM March 22, 1982 TO: Pat Lawrence CC: J. Davhlian DFS G. Flinn J. Darringer FROM: Marc Weinberg T. Mau R. Wigdor RE: Rebel 12 week AAU - Preliminary Results T. Bohan Background and Purpose Rebel was introduced into the test markets of Erie, Pa. and Roanoke, Va., the first week of October, 1981. The brand, positioned as having a "spirted taste with todays lower tar", would appeal to primarily men 18-34 years of age who wanted a more contemporary image of the "Marlboro Man". After 12 weeks of advertising and promotions, a test market AAU was conducted. The primary purpose of this research was to provide information on key criteria such as brand and advertising awareness, trail and purchase trail, as well as conversion to and acceptance of the brand. Additional information obtained from the study were user profiles and diagnostic data (i.e. specific ad recall, likes/dislikes, imagery etc...). This preliminary report addresses only the key criteria and user profile. All other information will be included in the final report which will be issued the week of April 5th. Method A total of approximately 500 telephone interviews (250 in Erie, 250 in Roanoke) were completed among random smokers. All respondents were 18 years of age or older who smoked at least 10+ cigarettes per day. Summary of Preliminary Findings 1. Brand Awareness Overall, Rebel has achieved excellent levels of awareness 12 weeks into introduction. Eight out of ten smokers claimed having heard of the brand. This level of awareness is significantly greater than any of Lorillard's other recent introductions and even significantly surpasses total awareness achieved by Barclay in its test markets. +m±nttmn,nnn

- 2 , Approximately 4 out of 10 smokers (37%) voluntered the brand name; again significantly greater than other recent Lorillard entries, and at par with Barclay's unaided awareness level at the same period of time. by both groups are outstanding. On a voluntered basis, no differences were noted among any of the major subgroups. In terms of total awareness, no differences were sited by sex and virtually little difference by smoker category. VLT/ULT smokers were somewhat more likely to claim they were aware of Rebel. The only significant difference in total awareness occurs by age. Younger adult smokers, those under 35, indicated significantly higher awareness to the brand (84$ vs 76%). However, it must be kept in mind that the levels achieve. 2. Advertising Awareness (See tables 1-4) Both total advertising awareness and volunteered awareness proved to be significantly greater than any of Lorillard recent entries as well as Barclay. Almost three-quarters (73%) claimed awareness with approximately one-third (35%) volunteering ad awareness. As with brand awareness, no differences were evident on a volunteered basis by any of the major subgroups, total ad awareness is a mirror of brand awareness. Once again, no differences were sited by sex and virtually no difference among the smoker categories. VLT/ULT smokers again exhibit somewhat higher claims to ad awareness. Like brand awareness, a significant difference occurs by age. Younger adult smokers, those under 35, indicated significantly higher awareness to the Rebel campaign, (79% vs. 68%). Once again, these ad awareness claims achieved by both groups are substantial. (See tables 1-4) 3A. Total Trial Approximately 1/3 (34%), of all smokers claimed to have tried Rebel. This level is significantly greater than any of Lorillard's recent new products and is virtually identical to that of Barclay. Significantly greater trail is occurring among male smokers (38% vs. 29%) and by smokers of Lo-Fi and VLT/ULT brands (37% vs. 22% vs. 40$) Although, not significant at the 95% confidence level, smokers 35 and over are exhibiting directionally stronger trial habits at 12 weeks (37% vs. 29$). GA CL Ga W ~ N CO . .._... .... ._..._. ,-..... . ....-.. ~. n.' . i.i ~~~.717

3 I f 3B. Purchase Trial As with trial, Rebel's purchasing is significantly greater than that of Heritage or Bistro. Again it is not at par with Barclay. (See tables 1-4) t Consistant with trial, directionally greater purchase activity is occurring among older smokers (17% vs.14%) and male smokers (18% vs. 13%). By smoker category, again Lo-Fi smokers exhibit significantly greater purchase than Low Tar smokers and directionally higher purchasing than VLT/ULT smokers. (19% vs. 10% vs. 15%). (See tables 1-4) 3C. Conversion Conversion among all smokers is 1.0%; significantly greater than any of Lorillard's other test brands, and significantly below that of Barclay. However, you must keep in mind that the Barclay study was conducted among non-menthol smokers only. If you take as a given that you don't expect to convert menthol smokers, Barclay's conversion level can be factored down by 1/3 thus giving it a 2.0 share among all smokers. Conversion was identical by age and virtually the same by sex. However, commitment to the brand came from the category that produced the lowest level of trial and purchase trial. All conversion occurred within the low tar category. (See tables 1-4) 4. Purchase Intent Acceptance of Rebel, as measured by purchase interest (definitely/probably would buy).i~s.significantly greater than Bistro and Barclay. This is the only measure where Rebel and Heritage achieve parity. (See tables 1-4) 5. Rebel Purchaser Profile (Brand Source) At this stage in Rebel's life cycle, a purchaser is more likely'to be male, 35 years of age or older, somewhat less educated and be in the lower income bracket. Additionally, the majority will originate from the Lo-Fi (51%) and Low Tar (21%) categories. As might be expected, the Marlboro franchise accounts for approximately one-fourth (23%) of the purchase triers followed by 15% by Winston. However, an inordinate percentage of purchasers (14%) have come from parent menthol brands (Kool, Newport)'. (See Table 5 & 6) ~

TABLE 1 REBEL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 12 WEEKS REBEL BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS (499) TOTAL BRAND AWARENESS ZD## NET UNAIDED MENTIONS TOTAL ADVERTISING AWARENESS UNAIDED ADVERTISING 3:1 PURCHASE TRIERS (EXCLUDING [.lt- REG, BRAND), PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE 6 CONVERSION 1.0 ACCEPTORS DEFINITE INTENT 4 HE R I TAGE BISTRO BARCLAY (49y) - (656) (500)* 65 l ~ 13 34 47 33 51 8 8 21 33 p - 5 4 15 3 1 7 - .2 3,0 ~ T 6 ~2O ~ tp 7 00 ca m w IN-MENTHOL SMOKERS ONLY N ## SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN HERITAGE, BISTRO & BARCLAY AT THE 95% LEVELN OF CONFIDENCE. ~ . I~3~x~iw"'?'^f . ?^~er ', ;z r

TAB LE 2 REBEL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY B( Y AGE) 18-34 35+ BASE: TOTAL RESPOND NTS (210) (289) TOTAL BRAND AWARENESS ® m - NET UNAIDED MENTIONS 38 36 TOTAL ADVERTISING AWARENESS UNAIDED ADVERTISING 36 35 ,>3 ~QiTAL TRIERS 22 1 PURCHASE TRIERS(EXCE, REG. BRAND) 14 17 PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE -• 7 12 CONVERSION 1.0 1 0 , ACC PTORS 28 30 DEFINITE INTEREST 4 8

TAB 3 MAV RICK PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ~ (BY SMOKER CATEGORY) LO-Fl LOW TAR VLT/ULT BASE: TOTAL RESPONDENTS (209) -(112) (124) TOTAL BRAND AWARENESS 79 79 86 NET UNAIDED MENTIONS . 39 39 35 TOTAL ADVERTISING AWARENES S 73 73 80 UNAIDED ADVERTISING AWAR ENESS 37 38 33 OTA RI - S 37 22 40 PURCHASE TRIERS (EXCL R EG BRAND) , , 15 PURCHASE MORE THEN ONCE 10 5 3 CONVERSION - 4 5 . ACCEPTORS 33 m 2Z - DEFINITE INTENT 6 8 2 ,._. _ ..,_ ... ~~+ r...r.... ....__ ...... ........... . . . . . tRF.;~ . . .. • _ , , . . .

TABLE 4 t REBEL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY IMALE F MALE E _ . _ BASE; TOTAL RESPONDENTS (25$) (24D o % TOTAL BRAND AWARENESS 79 ,79 NET UNAIDED MENTIONS 39 35 TOTAL ADVERTISING AWAR NESS Z? 73 - UNAIDED ADVERTISING AWARENESS 38 34 T, TA PURCHASE TRIERS (EXCL. REG. BRAND). 18 13 PURCHASED MORE THAN ONCE 11 7 CONVERSION 1.2 8 . P QRS DEFINITE INTENT 6 7 ••_: Ria~E~P ir-

TABLE. 5- PURCHASE PROFI BASE: SEX MALE FEMALE AGE 18-34 35+ EDUCATION LESS THAN H.S, } H,S. GRADUATE SOME COLLEGE COLLEGE GRADUATE OR MORE IN 0 UNDER 15,000 15-25,000 OVER 25,000 TYPE SMOKED MOST OFTEN LO-FI LOW TAR VLT ULT OTHER ) TOTAL REBEL PURCHASE TRIERS (m) (78) 52 59 48 41 42 36 58 64 17 22 41 41 23 26 18 13 29 40 29 21 22 19 42 51 22 21 15 9 10 13 ao ~ 9 7 w N ~ CA ., , ..,.. .. _ _......, ..... ....... .......... s ~ *K* tS a .. ..,.. ;. _ ... ,e .. . r't ~ . .. ... ..,- . . . . . _.~~, -_ .

TABLE 6 BRAND SOURCE OF PURCHASE.TRIAL BRAND SMOKED MOST OFTEN REBEL PURCHASE TRIERS* BASE: (499) (78) % %. LO-FI BRANDS 42 51 MARLBORO 12 18 WINSTON .6 10 CAMEL 1 1 KOO L 6 10 NEWPORT 2 4 LOW TAR BRANDS 22 21 KENT 1 1 MARLBORO LIGHTS 4 5 WINSTON LIGHTS 4 5 r)CAMEL LIGHTS 1 VLT BRANDS 15 . GOLDEN LIGHTS 1 MERIT 8 1 VANTAGE 4 4 ULT BRANDS 10 13 TRUE 2 3 KENT III 1 3 BARCLAY 1 VANTAGE ULTRA 1 3 MERIT ULTRA # STRAIGHTS 3 120'S 3 4 on co A'NCLUDES PREVIOUS BRAND IF THOSE WHO SMOKE REBEL REGULARLY w N 0 ~ , ~??' l ~ ~~ 1P