CONTENTS 1, Executive sunmlry 1 2, Key Conclu~ons 7 3, PFojett protocol 9 Suna~ Perlpectlvl ~f Relultl Acrals Cou~~as 15 5, How Yara locatlonsl6roup Typer Dffllfentlatrdl General principals 16 6, Expected Benellts (All GrPups, All locations) 18 7, Expect~d Dlsbenlflts (A1l Groups, All locations) 19 8, Importanle Ranking of principal Benefits 20 9, Consulner Intltptotatlons of Benefit Technology 21 10, Alpha U,K, Tbpllne Observations 23 11, Alpha Swiss Tdpllne Observations 28 12, Alpha German Topltna Observations 33 13, Alpha Flnnllh Toplfnl Dbscrvatlons 37 14, bppendlr I: Standard Expressions for Introducing principal Bandits a1 15, Appendix I1: Copy Puastlonnalre (All locations) 43 ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni ExECITIYE SMHARY i, The objective of the research was to determine the relative Impact that demonstrated awareness of product benefits has on consumer reaction to the 'CAPRI' ultra slim product, Principal benefits of concern being lower sidestream and ash generation, lower risk of accidental fire and lower biological activity (defined In 'spetiflc activity' rather than 'dose level' terms), 2, The research was conducted In I European centres (England, Switzerland, West Germany and finland)l In each location 8 qualitative discussion group of smokers were convened there being differentiated by age, sex, social class and delivery level of usual main brand, In addition to qualitative data, a standardised questionnaire was used across the countries involved, 3, Additional infofn~ation was collected on response to the sensory properties and branding of CRPRI, However, this material will be treated as being of secondary importance for the purpose of this sumnary, a, the European centres did not differ significantly in stance on the key research measures, all being relatively negative to the notion of comnunfcatlon or 'rationat' product benefits, The Swiss consumers appear to be most rejecting, against a background of marked personal repression of health and social concern, This rejection does not imply a failure to accept the relevance of these benefits (with the exception of low ash which is generally dismissed as irrelevant), The only culture to accept the idea of using Ibenefitl Eonmunlcation was Flnland, and this only following prompting, whereupon rational benefits may be accepted sceptically as secondary 'by the way' comnunication, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 S, While the 3 pr(ni'3dl benefits of lower biological activity, lower s'destream and lower fire risk are generally accepter. as relevant, they are not seen as credible in the context of the ultra slim products loner biological activity is seen as the most relevant in all centres wi:n the exception of Finland, where low sidestream takes prime relevance~ 6, lower biological activity is seen as not capable of immediate validation tin fact the sensory performance of the product, being perhaps stronger than expected, tends to run against the lower biological argument), Lack of credibility is associated with widespread scepticism of manufacturers, I: was clear that massive Certification of the benefit by independent authorities would be required, 7, Lower sidestream was seen as open to inmediate test, and Invariably this was by examination of the local plume and not by room volume. On this basis the benefit was almost unanimously rejededl 8, Lower fire risk was seen as relevant by particular groups (office workers and craftspeople) · the common element being the possibility of distraction from active smoking leaving the cigarette unattended, Interestingly the benefit was seen IS value for money, implied by the self· extinguishing fea',urel rather than lowered risk of accidental fire (for which the product was seen as being potentially more risky due to Its tightness and instability), 9. These benefits are not necessarily additive In effect, for example loner sidestreal often implied more dose to the smoker ('the smoke has to go somewhere'), thus cancelling the already dubious biological activity benefit, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 10, The ultimate drive of the lower biological activity benefit is also seen as being frustrated by a common view that people would simply feel Jicenced to smoke more, Short of the possibility of a 100t lsafe' cigarette the personal health issue was generally seen as already open to control by choice of lower tar brands or adjustment of smoking habits, 11, Wherever benefits are combined, their net credibility tends to be set by the weakest benefit, In this case, the fact that the sidestream benefit is judged to be manifestly untrue takes away from the credibility of the other benefits, consumers seemed incapable of a reliable rcom·volume bared judgement of sidestream, 12, In general females are much core responsive to this product concept and the U,K, was the only centre where any real anticipation of appeal to men was acknowledged, females expected social curiosity and attention whereas men expected ridicule and associated the product with sexual ambivalence, Delivery level of usual main brand also conditioned attitudes, lower delivery smokers being generally more responsive both pre· and post·s~ot~ng, 13. Young 'adopters' were generally most responsive to the product, as were Older upper social class females, Expected users were similarly polarised as being either inexperienced beginners or middle aged, elegant, upper class females, Aspiring 'yvppies' were the only other frequently mentioned target group, It is significant to note that perception of the product as being almost exclusively for women war well established prior to exposure of any branding material In this exercise, 14, Social class had a weal; effect in most cultures with a sharp contrast offered by the UIKI where this was the prime predictor of attitudes (the higher the social class the note positive, while lower social classes are actually antagonistic), Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: Dill _ _ 15~ The sensory performance of the product was seen as intermediate between low tar and full flavour and rather unbalanced having certain features in ~onnon with full Ilavour products: ('rtrong' flavour, aftertaste) and others more usually associated with low tar products: (mechanils, low i rritationlimpact), All centres comnented on the low satisractfon In early puffs and marked taste build·up down the rod~ r(eactions to taste and aftertaste were generally negative indicating a perception that added ~a~inglrlavour level is too high, The product was also frequently described as drying the mouth, 16, Consumer comprehension of technical benefits, despite the use of standardised expressions, was surprisingly unpredictable - consumers often producing unusual twists of reasoning to either arrive at alternative serendipitous benefits or to turn suggested benefits on their head, For example, the ratio of paper to tobacco on the ultra slim was sometimes reported as a distinct risk factor tree separate section on interpretations of benefit technol ogy)l II, Across 111 centres, the psychological response to the idea or cPmnunicarian of rational benefits was complex, being driven by an activation of variously suppressed levels of health and social concern, Consumers were anxious that if manufacturers were to open such issues, the benefits should be (a] abolute rather than relative, (b) totally endorsed, othernlse the spln·off in lens of fuell~ng the anti·rmoking debate is defioately not seen as making the development worthwhile, The use of benefits was seen as indicative of a position of weakness on the part of the manufacturer · a case of 'the producer selling the consumer out to the anti'sl, For these consumers an 'ineredlble' act (smotlng) cannot be defended by rational reasons, and there consumers all agree that sln3:lnp a irrational, Rational argument is clearly Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: Dill X_ _ seen as a posture of defense · 'the very act of arguing or corrmunicating that you are right implies that you are net!' , For many of thee consumers, rational benefits stated directly represent the language of culpabitf ty, A more subtle level of reaction was also apparent - that benefits actually undermine the attraction of smoking as 1 risk- taking behaviour which has an attached cost (nuch as most of lifes significant pleasures were seen to have), 13, Branding is not a prime issue for this summary, although responses ate detailed within the body of the report, One common observation however was that the imagery is very attractive per se, but not clearly linked to cigarette products nor adequately anchored to a defined posf tfon within the accepted 'cigarette universe' in relation to which consumers may position themselves (i,e, consumers have difficulty in deciding who the brand is to gain currency with, and this is clearly indicated by the ambiguity of consumer descriptions of expected user typesl, i?. In general, consumer response (notably female) in all centres indicates a 'niche' potential with further advancer dependent on the establishment of a clear user Image for the product, Communication Is a key issue, central themes should ideally be user type, life style, elegance and taste rewards ether than 'rational' benefits (indeed the consensus 'user types' are seen as precisely those individuals who would be less likely to be smoking for anything other than image driven reasons), thlr should not however be taken to imply Vlat'raHonal' benefits should not be used In colmn~nicatlon, in fact the strong consumer endorsement of the relevance of benefit issues suggests that the real challenge will be in finding a psychologically comfortable indirect means of alluding to rational benefit (see Key eonclusf ons) I Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 20, Finally, In the ir~diate term an important marl:eting consideration must be to avoid the product becoming too closely aligned with special occasionlnovelty cigarettes, Several consumers readily drew this comparison, contributed to again by ambiguity in the expected user image, The essential dilemma is one of how to 'normalise' In the consumers mind a product concept for whiCh the main strength is that it is not 'normal', NOTE Research design and sar3llng will always have an impact on the general tone of results in guatltative research, It is important to balance t~e relatively negative tone of some of these findings against (a) the fact that the exercise included a proportion of males who, while clearly In favour of the concept for women, were not themselves positive and (b) that the product is presented for the most part without the support of branding, thus heig·tening the tendency to see the product as an unusual novelty, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 2, KEY CONCLVSIDNS O O O 03 \O CO IU W Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 !Iv CONCLUSIONS i direct approach to the consumer based on communication of Intional' benelitr would be predicted to produce a negative response for two paradoxical reasons: Rational comounication animates personal health concern and social dissonance, I, A 'safelsafer' cigarette belies a fundamental motivation to smoke as an expression of risk taking behaviour, 'hese reasons are paradoxical because they can apparently :l·IXilt in the same individual, :he conditions under which rational benefits would be predicted :o show relative success would be: i, Sacking by completely una~uivoul independent endorsement, 2, race valid evidence that the benefits are absolute rather than relative in nature, 3. Proof that the benefits are not achieved at the cost of any loss In current tastelsatisfaction levels, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 A viable interiln strategy for ecrmunieatlng uttta·ll~~ benefits nay be to tate an Indirect approach bared on the concept of lnoderation, this approach has three strengths: II Linkage to socially desirable and approved trends In other consunnption behaviours, 2~ ~n asroeiation with, 'dircernfng' and 'renriflve' behaviour per se, 3, b psycholPglcally cdortable vehicle far implicitly allowing rational and hedonie behavlours to co-exist, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 3, PRdlECT PROTOCOL O O O Q \D Q tU 0\ Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 __ PROJECT ALPHA: PROTOCOL BACKGROUND The brief was to conduct a series of qualitative discussion groups in I European lentrer (U,K,, switzerland, germany and Finland) using naive consumers all of whom were smokers, Deadline for completion including reporting war june 26th (for June 30th) 1987, PRIME OBJECtlVE 70 determine the relative impart that demonstrated awareness of product benefits has on Consumer reaction to the 1CAPRI' ultra slim prodd, principal benefits of concern being lower ridertream and ash generation, lover risk of accidental fire and lower biological activity, 1001TIOHAL ISSUES i, It was considered important to examine the trade·off of these 'benefits of concern' against each other and against other attributer of the product, 2, The impact of the 'beneffts of concern' on willingness to purchase us measured Buantitatively, 3, The impact of [RPRI brand name and imagery was separately assessed as 1 secondary Issue, I, Reaction to availability of own main brand in the ultra slim format us assessed, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 5. Reactions to the product were measured pre· and polt· slapling in order:o determine the sensory contribution to the creidibilitr of the offer, 6, tonsumer recruits were stringently security screened regarding media or tobacco associations, I, introduction nf the Ilawered biological activity' benefit was strictly standardised and specific expression sanctioned by Legal Department, The other principal benefits were also standardised, a, The introduction of the lower biological activity benefit was designed to also clarify the issue of specific activity vs dose level activity, 9, Every ef fart was made to ensure maximum comparabi Iftg of research structure across the I centres. Depending on language constraints, ~ groups were either personally moderated or monitored with parallel translation, SAMPIING Hunber and composition of discussion groups is a most important aspect of this study since this will determine the capability to examine how attitudeslreactions differ as a function of delivery level of usual main brand, sex, age, and social class, Since the study covered a European cenlres, vass· cultural effects may also be examined, The following sampling scheme was adopted for each country: Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 _ ·11· 8 GROUPS, B lHOiYlOUALS PER GRDUP, EAtH GROUP DURATIOI 1 112·2 HOURS, GROUP TYPES 1. 11I nill, low tar, 50: aged 20·30, 50I aged ~0·50 1 t, U1 male, full ~~vPu~ 501 aged 20·3~ sos aged 40·50 All female, full flavour, I~ aged 20·30, 501 aged 10·50 j 3. 111 female, law tar, 501 aged 20·30, 50t aged 40-50 CllC2 Mixed sex, mixed delivery, aged 2U·50, social class BIC1 6, Mixed sex, mixld delivery, aged 20·50, social class C210E t, Mixed sex, full flavcur, aged 20·j0, social class Cllt2 8, Mixed sex, low tar, ~J~d 20·50, social class CllC2 i U,K, social class nor~i have been used, cultural rgulvalents were adoptad in each country, 'Full Ilavour' defined as 11 mg and above,'Law tar' defined as sub 10 mgl PUAL1TITIYE DISCUSSION STRUCTURE i, Oetermine un~p:ld consumer reaction to the product Orescntcd b\lnd a?d without the opportuntty to sma~e It, Examine expectatilns of sensory perlormlncc, aesthetics, social reaction t~ the user, expected user type, perceived benefits, Perceived dlsbeneflts, 2, If principal bcnerlts,l concern have not appeared unprwptedly, Inttoduce them using EtandlrAsrd phrases, then hlerarchlse all perceived benefits and perform I slmll~r exercise for Perceived dfJbenellts, 3, introduce 1 'wlllfngncss to purchase' scale with 1 nld· point lasetlne set at own (conventional) brand, eonlen~ul· scale following hyp~h~ttr~l scenarios: ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni ·12· (d) The ultra Slln smokes just IS well as conventional cigarettes but has no other obvious benefit apart from appearance, (b) The ultra slim smokes just dr well as conventional cigarettes and her the benefit of lower biological activity, The ultra slim smokes just as well as conventional cigarettes and has the benefits of lover ridestrean, ash and fire risk. (d) The ultra slim smokes just as well as conventional If garettes and has the combined benefits of loner sidestream, ash and fire risk, and lower biological activity, (e) The ultra slim does not smoke as well as conventional cigarettes and has no other obvious benefit apart from appearance, The ultra slim does not smoke as well Is conventional cigarettes but has the benefit of lower biological activity, (g) The ultra slim does not smoke as well as conventional cigarettes but has the benefits of lover sidestream, ash and fire risk, (h) The ultra slim does not smoke as well as a conventional cigarette but does have loner sidestreaa, ash, fire risk, and lower biological activity, a, how sample the product and fully probe for sensory reactions and the credibility of sldestFean, ash, fire risk and low biological activity claims, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 5. Introduce a consensus sensory scaling exercise using limited attributer (Iraw effort, impact, irritation, taste, acceptability) and compare the ultra slim against conventional cigarettes, Scale for willingness to purchase and establish consensus over which of the hypothetical scenario's detailed previously (3) best describes the product, 6, Reveal brand name ed p~ctaging ad probe fully. Examine impact on willingness to purchase, 7, Exaalne reaction to the possibility of own main brand being available in the ultra slim format Jin with and without benefits node). Measure using the willingness to purchase scale, 8, Mearure price sensitivity for the following offers: (a) tAPAI, without Ibenefitr of concern', (b) elPRI, with 'beneflts of concern', (c) Own brand In ultra slln format without 'benefits of concern', (d) Dwn brand in ultra slim font with 'benefits of concern', 9, Perion ii syndicate exercise On 'h01, would ~PI! martet the product!', requiring the group to consider: Who to? What price! What copy line benefits! What imageryt 10, Confidentiality brief and close, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 __ ·14· SUmAAr OISCUSSIOe STRUCTURE 1, Unprolpted reaction, blind and unlit, Expectations, Perceived bencfits/disbenefits~ 2, Introduction of 'Jtandard' benefits, 3, Hierarchisation of benefitsldlsbenefitr~ 4, Willingness to prchare scaling of benefit combinations, 5, Sampling, sensory reactions and credf bility of benefits, 61 Sensory scaling, 7, willingness to purchase scaling, 8, l:ntruduction of brand name and paetaging, redian/ expectations, 9, Willingness to purchase scaling, 10 Reaction to concept of onn main brand as an ultra slim, 11, Willingness to purchase scaling, 12, Price sensitivity scaling, 13, Syndicate exercise on promotional strategy, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 i. SUIRY P~RSPECTIYE OF REWLTS ACROSS tOUltRfEl b O 03 \O Cr) IP1 CPI Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·15· PROJECi ALPHA: SUHIIARP PERSPECTIVE OF RESULTS U.K, I Swlt2erland ( Germany ( Finland Biological Relev,nce Activity Credibility XX X XX Low Relevlnce (( Sidertreal eredlbi lity II X X low Relevance X X X X ASh Eredlbility X Low Fire Relevance I (I' Credibility X X For Females J For Hales and Felnalel / I I X X/, X For Young For Old CAPRI Execution X I I Full Flavour Reaction XX X X Low Tar Reaction Sensory Reaction xll Sensoryl~detilelHEdonic / ~ ~ Biological Activity XX X XII Copy Line Sidestream I XX X/t Usage Alh X XX X X Fire Rls~ X XX X X/I H 5 Strong Yes ~ t res ~ I Haybe X · Na XX I Strong No, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 5, HOW WERE '10CATlONSIGROUP TYPES DIFFERENTIATED? GENERAL PRINCIP~A1S Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 HCV UERE THE LOiATIONS!6ROUP TYPES DIFFERENTIATED! GENERAL PRINCIP i, While all locations shoved consumers to be generally opposed to communication of rational benefits, finland and the U,X, were relatively more responsive whilst fwitlerland or most strongly opposed, All locations were in favour of romnuniation of elegance, shape, taste and tactile aspects, 2, Perceived relevance of principal benefits war the subject of high consensus across locations, Lower biological activity and sidestream were consistently endorsed as most relevant, with biological activity as the leading concern (atthough in Germany the benefit 'tier' with low sidest~ean as a key issue and in Flnland, sidestream dominates), Law fire risk is relevant to specific sub- group across all locations and loner ash Is generally lacking relevance in all cultures [beinp seen as 'either an all or nothing' benefit), 3, credibility of principal benefits as defined within the ultra slim offering Is uniformly low across all locations, I, Females, and lower delivery smokers Ire generally more responsive to the product across all locations, 5, Ywnger consumers ate generally more responsive to the product, with the exception of Germany, there younger smokers currently show 1 trend to favour fuller f~avour propositions, 6, Social class is not a strong differentiator of attitudes although professional classes tend to be more responsive across locations, The exception here is the U,K, where class is the dominant variable, loner social class subjects being actively antagonistic, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 I, All locations see the product as almost exclusively a female proposition (even presented blind), In the U,K,, subjects could imagine a possible extension to the less gender conscious young generation males, 8~ The 1CAPRI' Imdgerylpae~aglog execution war porltively received In the U,K., German reaction was neutral shading to positive, Swiss reaction was generally negative, while for the Finns the in~gerylpaetaging was the major determinant of attitude to the product, generally acting to offset a negative response to the blind product, 91 Reaction to the sensory property of the product was very similar across locations, being too weak for full flavout smokers and often too strong In certain specific attributes for low tar smokers (flavour, aftertaste), in general however low tar smokers respond well to the product, 10~ Finnish consumers are the relatively unusual group in this research, showing a higher level of response to the lower sidestream concept as a reflection of their stronger social rather than personal health motivation, Flnnish response to the product seemed dlsproportionately ·· conditional on the presence of imagerylpack etc,, and response to the proposition (cspecially in terms of describing 'user types' showed a marked personal dissociation (i,e, the brand was seen as being so acutely aspirationat as to be 'good, but not all for me or for everyday use'), this 'alienation' would probably decl i ne with further exposure to the product, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 6, EXPECTED BENEFITS (All GROUPS, ALL LOCATIONS) O O O 03 \0 03 If~ 01 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·I _ ·18· EXPEGTIO BE~EF~TS OERI;EO FROH THE BLIHO/UNLIT PRODUCT (All IOGAIIONS, ALL Ci(!:J~ Elegant appearance low tar with taste Slow burning Compact packaging Less fillers CheaperllaJt longer Coolerlmilder Hot so much nicotine Firmer than usual ciga*ettes Special filter action Sl im mouth sensatf an Novel appearancelor~gi·ality Feminine/lor ladies For low consumption li;ht smokers Beginners cigarette limits daily intake Nice feet in the hand A Short break cigarette Attracts curiosity Less harmfuilless tar and nicotine Less smoke' Fingers may not stain Ashtray would hold more butts Loots cleaner could be smoked in a car To sate In the home Wouldn't attract too ruch attention Wont Crush so easily Would fit well behind the ear 'Infrequent reference, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 t, EIB~B1188nl(LLI·n,u raaal O O O O ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni __· ·19· EXPECTED olsaENEFtrs oERrVEa PoOH THE BIINO/UHIIT PRoOUcT (~II locnnoHs, nit GROUPS) Difficult draw Unusual mouth sensation Effeminate Fragile Poor value Too tightly packed Difficult to hold Past burning Hay extinguish too easily Socially uncomfortable Ventilation (lnildnessldryness) Unconventional smoker image Reminiscent of rolt·ups less tobacco law satisfaction Too thlnltoo long Too much paper In relation to tobacco Too uniform Contrived sample appearance Fllttr ~ not bo elM~ltnt Inough Hay 1 ACreasI consumption Hay generate more smoke than usual Toylike - not serious Hay be more erpensive Taste on rc·llgntlnp may be aversive Would attract 'tadgersl Not apt for standard ashtray A colllllercial deception long fllterllelJ tobacco Children may mistake for sweets Would break In the pocket ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni 8. IHPORI~UICE RANKING OFPRINCIPRL BENEFITS ~EI O O O Cb N Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·20· I~POA~ANCE RANKING OF PRINCIPAL BENEFITS U,K, Switzerland Germany ~inland Lower biological lower biological I Lower ridestream smoke Lower Jidestrearn activity i activity Lover biological activity I smoke Lower lidestream i Lower sidestrearn I Lower fire risl: lower biological smol e snote acti vl ty Lower fire tis~ Lower ash Lover ash Loner fire risk lower fire rlst Lower ash Lower alh Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 9. mnsal IlrrAPRETnnows or BENEFIT TIICHROLEY O O O \O 03 B f* Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 CONSUrEP INTERPRETATIONS OF BENEF(~ TECHNOLOGY - ------ I~ 'Perhaps the cigarette II rlimmr because they took ail the fillers jlytoty floor sweepings etc.) out of it, so it's just pure tobacco', 2, 'it could be that the saltpetre has been ten out · this would make the cigarette slinmer and would explain the fact that it doesn't bum down as fast as re EIPCCtLd~ Maybe thats how it extinguishes itself as well', 3, 'The cigarette is ~ firn, I think this is because it has the lame amount of tobacco as usual cigarettes · its just that It is all stuffed in there much tighter, That would explain why the draw and the taste are not so bad', a. 'ihe filter looks quite technical, its got rows of holes in it and you gel a very dark stain, I expect it does something special to the smoke and that's where you get the biological advantage, 1 think it may be another of those Barclay effects', 5, l~he amount of paper to tobacco is very cut of proportion, nibre paper Ineans 1 greater risk, There is too nn~ch paper in relation to tobacco to burn here, that's not good for health', 6, 'This sidestream idea is all very veil, but if less is going to the non·rnoter then obviously I am getting it all as the smoker · any health benefit this cigarette may have will be more than cancelled out by this', 7, 1This cigarette has I much higher lire risk · a lit end is a lit end no matter how big or small It Is, the real Issue is how stable the cigarette is, and this One Is so light and unbalanced It can easily be dropped or will tip out of ashtrays (especlally since the slots are too b19111 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 10. IIPI U,X. TOPLIWL OBBRYmBHI g O O aJ s Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·23· ALPHA L,K, TOPLIL OBSERVATIONS i, Age and sex both strongly condition response to the product, Even blind, the product is seen dr a dominantly female proposition and females respond lore positively to it. Younger consumers are generally more positive (20-30), 2, social class is a partitul~r!y strong conditioning factor, upper social classer are relatively positive and lower social class subjects are actually antagonistic, This was a very polarised response. 3, Rejection by lower Social class subjects was largely due to activation of social dissonante (e~pected elb~rassn~ent) with some evidence of active defending against personal health concern, which the product tends to act as a reminder of, The product is generally Seen as a LbeglnnerS' cigarette for 18·2511, principally women, homosexuals, and 'poseurs', some positive reference was made to the Prospect of the product appealing to less gender lorst~ous young males, 5, Loner social class, male and older subjects associated the product with pandering to non·s~oters and the antl· smoking lobby f,e,'these cigrette benefits are all for the good of non·sroterr . so why should 1 put myself cut an their behalf', the manufacturer in this instance Is seen as being engaged In a 'sell·out', 6, The lower sidestream characteristic war generally not seen as credible (despite the concept being regarded as relevant), This was clearly because the sidestrealR plume is the Innediate cue used as the ball of judgement, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 i. Low arh on the other hand was seen as marginally credible, but not relevant: 'a butt in an ashtray is a Lult in In drhtray · the only true innovation here would be an ash · or no ash situation', a, low fire risL: was seen Is relevant, especially by office workers (telephone) and craftsman, where work distraction often Involves putting the dgarette down, Credibility however war gmtiosble and the Counter argument was raised that the stick, being lighter and not designed to Ifitl in aJhtray riots war much more likely to fall out of the asbtray, 9, G are significant 'lerendipitour' benefit of the sel~· extinguishing feature seemed much more important · namely the value for money implication at a cigarette that doesn't burn away to nothing in the ashtray, Added to this, subjects reported that the cigarette didn't show the usual aversive taste on re·lighting. in, Prior to smoking, the perceived firmness (highj of the rod was an important cue leading to an expectation of slow burn rate and some dlragreenent about whether the draw would ti harder or easier than usual cigarettes (majcrity opinion was that high finneJr would help the draw), 11, Unlit tobacco smell us an important cue to expectations of product strength thigh), ThiS offset to some extent any Isurprire' factor on subsequent smoking, 12, less tobacco was l~t~ seen as a 'rip·aff' but was seen as a means of funding Ibenefltl', therefore very few subjects supported the idea of pricing over conventional expectation level, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ~1_ 13, Older *n, especially of lower rdci&eranomic class, were un~nisus In seeing the cigarette as sexually ambivalent and worn were worried on the same score (i,e. that men using such a product were lacking In Ivirlllty'). However, women saw the product as being acceptable for younger, more fashionable males, 14. 1[APRI' inagcry war seen positively (especially by women) in the extent to which It Icleans up the smokers act' i,e~ is clean, Spore in design, colourful and contemporary, Hales appreciated the design, while actnoxledqiog that it was clearly female oriented, The Immediate association of the plrtaging to other goods: perfume, chocolates, did not apper to be a negative, in fact this aspect apparently reinforced the concept of cigarette purchasing as Iself· gifting', II, t~ volunteered the parallel of perfumes and aftershaves marketing to that of CAPRI, i,e. why not market 'hts and hers' versions of the same brand much as big perfume houses do, with relevant pack changes, but In association to the same house name, 16, 'CAPRI' associated Innediately with cars and sports for men · a JPS·liice execution was a very com~non theme, gold/black and white designs being a consensus view. Worn were also positive advocates of a bolder colouring approach, An ultra slims JPS was apparently a strong potential concept to both sexes, II, The product was ~seen as socially embrraJsing, in fast, especially for women, It has clear prestige and elegance associations, As a caution, this association gets dangerously close to novelty 'Sobranfe' type status, and tents to be so prestigious that while it may Be aspfratlonal for upper social classes it Is a positively unattainable and therefore rejected image for tower Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 __ ·26- social class women who do fear the attribution of having lairs and graces', The product res described as a 'yuppie cf garette', 18, Those for whom CAPRI is aspiratlonal tended to think that the product would actually help to make them less socially conspicuous as smokers (though not because of lower sidestrealn), is, The carton packaging was unanimously seen as positive, especially the compactness, protection and easier access to withdrawing packs, The extra packing war not seen in any way as a 'con', 20, On smoking, the unfamiliarity of handlindsite in fingers and lips was seen simply as a matter of re·learnlng, More negatively, the product was seen as reminiscent of 21, The American blend character was immediately identified 'just like narlborol, negatively received and generally described as drying, strong smelling and over flavoured, 22, Sensory characteristics were seen as nut of balance, i,el sat characteristf cs more in common with tow tar products (nechanfc~, irritation, Impact) and others more in coa~non with full flavour products (flavour, aftertaste), 23, Repeatedly the product was reported to very obviously get stronger as It Is smoked down, and satisfaction In first puffs is seen as a problem, 21, Filter end stain was very often conaaented on as more conspicuous and was an important cue most frequently attributed to the purported better performance on the biological test (1,E, more stain, more extraction), The idea of 1 standard biological test a taken completely for granted and unquestloned, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·27- 25, While the biological test was taken for granted, consumers equally had no real concept of either dose level or specific activity, nor were they all that bothered, Host smokers made it clear that they accept the risk of smoking and the social pressure factor is seen as more disturbing, All risk was clearly seen as relative and being better on a biological test was still only relative~ better, Consumers were clear that they were more concerned that 'harping' on about biological testing would only tend to attract more debate, and this was regarded as something devoutly to be avoided, Thus, while biological test performance was seen as relevant it was not seen as credible to the anti·snoking lobby and therefore not credible to pursues 26, the Idea of the product as a 'special occasion' cigarette was prevalent (i,el to use In social situations, in clubs, restaurants etc, rather than as an everyday use product), 27, the notion that the cigarette may be 'safer' was somewhat defeated by the widespread view that such a position would simply lead to smokers feeling they had license to smoke more, 28, in advertising promotion these consumers were In favour of image, lifertyle and appearance being the principal platforms, with minority support for the biological activity argument (pending concrete third party endorsement) and strictly limited support for the sldestrearn case, Ash and fire risk were not seen as viable advertising platforms, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 11. ALPHA SWISS TOP1INE OBSERYATIONS ·P O O O 03 03 V1 N Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -28- ALPHA SWISS IOP1INE OBSERVATIONS i, Most groups talked spontaneously about health concern and Ipollution' (wfth the exception of fire risk which was seen as not salient), The problem however was clearly the perceived difficulty In using 'benefits' in overt communication, The prospect of direct connunication Ishotbed' the groups and animated dissonancel The group clearly preferred the 'benefits' to be Implied (especiaily full flavour srokers), 2, smoking is seen as dangerous and risky - 'to sncle is to risk take but if one does not take this risk, there is no attraction', 3, There was general suspidan of manufacturers · credibility of ~y.claia~s Would require massive certification (especially given the Bdrelay controversy), Rationdl/ scientific language Is not credible, a. Less arh and less fire risk were not at all Eredible (aJ because or the way they are validated from perceptual cues (especially the latter) and (b) because of 'sukonscious d~s8alnl of non·Flsky behaviour, 5, Rational benefits were seen as antithetleal to the hedonic rafson d'etre of smoking "for me, to smoke If to take risk", 6, tonsuan were clear that the principal arguments far this product should be pleasure, taste, and social appearance, f, 'To smoke Is to make smoke and to surround the other' there was much subconscious reference to smoking as an aggressive act of leif·asseFtfon, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 _7_· ti, the ultra slim was seen as tending to break the cigarette out of the traditional domain, pravo~~ng experimental and seifconsclous behaviour, 9. The cigarettes were seen as lclass' and 'elegant' especially for women, the imagery tended to polarlse expectations of the d garette as being either for high status older women or 'young tnndlerl, The Imagery clearly confused these two and war generally liked as a design exercise but not for a cigarette brand, 10, The brand name CAPA( was very negative Inspiring the clear association to a well known song 'Cl~ri · cest fini", other associations were, outmoded ~itch, not relevant to cigarettes, laded glory, 11. use of 'benefitsl was clearly seen as a position of weakness on the part of the manufacturer · a case of the Iproducer selling the consumer Out to the antils1, as smokers, the Swiss expect the manufacturer to be convinced about his own product, 12, For these consumers, an incredible act (smolfng) cannot be defended by rational reasons, and these consumers all agree that smoking ~ irrational, Rational argument is seen as a posture of defence, The very act of arguing or colmrmnicating that you are right, fnplies that you are not · this is the 'Idnguage of culpabilityl, 13, Rational communication is generally alien to the Swiss, cigarette conrmnicatlon being almost exclusively hedonic (i,e, taste, Pleasure, satlsfaltion), 14, The product threw up a clear contradiction of form and taste · its form implying fine mild taste, therefore there was some surprise at the strength of taste which manifested for some consumers las would be predicted by Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 __ dirsonance theory) as an assertion that the product had no taste, 15, Swiss consumers want images for the product .to help let it In a definable universe, The current packaging is not image and life style linked strongly enough for them · this shoved in a strong demand for clarification of who or what the product was dined at, 16, Differences in response to the product were found by ape, sex and usual delivery level smoked, nale full flavour smokerr totally reject the product on valuer of masculinity land an implied fear of homosexuality), There was a clear rejection of being seen in public with CAPRI: Idcnlt link this with me!', CAPRI was seen by these consumers as fragile, perfumed and low delivery, Full flavour men strongly reject the idea of this product as 'lesr harmful', reporting I clear desire far full sensory reward and rejecting the attenuation of visual-tactile features, 11, In general, the view on Ibenefits' was that If the cigarette is astonishingly different (whieh the appearance II) then Ibmefitr', to he credible, must be similarly so, But outstanding benefits were clearly not seen to be announcing thmelves, 18, Older smokers were more negative than younger smokers, who themselves looked for 'enabllng' or authorislng messages, or the assurance that others in their peer Group may be using the product, 19, Fun flavaur women smokers also reject the product on the basis that they loot for tactile sensation and hedonle pleasure · the ultra slim was referred to as a Igadgetl,'not a large sensual pleasure', I Ibaby' cigarette,,' risk is I part of eanrunlng life, don't tell me Its safer, all cigarettes are harmful, I consciously take the risk', Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 20, The draw effort of the cigarette ya widely disliked, the product becoming seen as a thing of wort, not of pleasure, 21, Females raw the packaging as for the Iboudolr', not consonant with cigarettes despite being a nice design per se, he Dactagfng served to reinforce the perceived unreality of the cigarettes and Alert associations were to chocolates, kleenex, condoms, perfumes, 22, Females expected to use the product were very polarired I,e, very young fwoaies leaking for something different or older (40t) high status women looking for 1 very pure 'class' look. Hen could not imagine the product as anything other than a wowns cigarette, The length and white tipping tend to inhibit imagining a potential male platform, 23. In general there consumers had great frustration determining the niche for this product, definition of the product being currently elusive, This was very negative since subjects clearly wanted to see the product in a position which they could define themselves In relation to, 24, The low tar Pales responded favourably to the originality of the product, but in this form found acceptance very difficult since the sli~nnerl is a clear social signal (whereas they ran smoke conventional rile low tar without being exposed as weak), 25, There swiss smokers were apparently quite repressed with regard to dlssonsnt health concern and social pressure · they were all clear that heavy comnunication of 'benrft~' would simply add to the repression load ,,,'tnnnunlation of benefits holds the mirror of culpability up to the face of the sloterl' Since reactions to the product Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ~I I ·32· proposition were so fundamental in psychological terms, no cultural differences were observed comparing Swiss- french and Swiss-German, 26, Oose level Is a very strong concept for these consumers · (1f they were to smoke slims they would expect to slete more in compensation), Clearly, on the other hand, these consumers have no concept of Specific activity · so if anything, the character of dependence can be seen as greater for ultra slims, Hence the 'beneflt' of less activity is (a) not understood and (bj not credible (since they imagine they would frustrate the benefit by smoking more), 27, On the whole, Swiss reaction to the product is marginally more favourable than In the U,K, (due to blend compatibility) although the taste Is still seen as far too perfumed (flavcured), drying and strong In aftertaste, The big difference between Swiss and U,K, is that while the packaging design Is seen as attractive per se, the application as a cigarette concept is seen as 111 defined, contradictory, disturbing in its lack of connectedness to a clear image position, and consequentially is heavily rejected, 28, unsatisfactory ratio of paper to tobacco was seen as an Important element of risk, 29, The Swiss are clearly rejecting of the notion of using any directly comnunrcated 'ratlonal' benefit, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 BRmsH AMERICAN TosAcco Copy Request Form Request Number: 221 OrganizaGon: Dept. of Justice - Legal Health, Canada Request Details Rlsuestnlte: Illlllllltill((lllll1()11 FilaNumb,r: .~jq.128,~~~~~~~~BorNum~cr: ...,$UAB.~:~~~~~~~~~~... Page Ranee: FcstPase~---? ~astppge Qlolo 18i~lBI I o 13 Details belowwill be filled in by Depository Staff Only II Copy Details ceuiDd By: ··IN~2~C~il~t~ LL )(11111111(~11)11((111)(1.111)11111)(~111111( 'Y .. ..·-··-2~~·1-····-r.I:~1-2_~~_ (eEbldadl!:. ............lj,~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: ,.,,,.,........,,,,,,,,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..~.*~~ime ,.,...,,..,.,.,,,.,...,,,,,,.,,. I Delivery Details Ch~e~c~d By: ,.,..,.,.,...,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~~~~~~~ Date: ,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,.,,,,, Sent By:,,.,,.,,................,,,, ,,~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~ ~~~ Date:.,,,,, ,,,,,,,., .,,,.,.,,,,~~~~~~ C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 3, PROJECT PROTOCOL O O O 03 9 Q Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ~LC~_ PROI)EGT ALPHA: PROTOCOL BACKGROVND The brief was to conduct a series of qualitative discussion groups in 4 European centrer (U,K,, Switzerland, Gewny and Finland) using naive consumers all or whom were smnlrers, Oeadline for completion Including reporting war June tSth (for June 30th) 198t, PRIME DB3ECTIYE To determine the relative impact that demonstrated awareness of product benefits has on consumer reaction to the 'CAPRl:' ultra slim product, principal benefits of concern being lower sidestream and ash generation, lower risl: of accidental fire and lower biological activity, AOOItiONAI ISSUES I, It was considered important to examine the trade-off of these Ibenefits of concern' against each other and against other attributes of the product. 2. fhe impact of the Ibenefitr or concern' MI willingness to purchase was measured guantitatlvely, 3, The impact of [APRI brand name and Iplagery was separately assessed as a secondary Issue, a, Reaction to availability of own main brand in the ultra slim format was assessed, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·10- 5, Reactions to the product were measured pre· and post· sampling In order to determine the sensory contribution to the creidibility of the offer, 6, consumer recruits were stringently security screened regarding media or tobacco assocf ations, 7, Introduction of the 'lowered biological activity' benefit was Strictly standardlsed and specific expression sanctioned by Legal Department, The other principal benefits were also standardised, 8, the Introduction of the lower biological activity benefit was designed to also clarify the issue of specific activity vs dose level activity, 9, Every effort was made to ensure maximum comparability of research structure across the 4 centres. Depending on language constraints, all groups were either personally moderated or monitored with parallel translation, SAMPLING Number and composition of discussion groups is a most important aspect of this study since this will detenine the capability to examine how attitudeslreactlons differ as a function of delivery level of usual main brand, sex, age, and social class, Since the study covered 4 European centres, crass· cultural effects may also be examined, The following sanpling schen~ was adopted for each country: Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 __ ·11- 8 GROUPS, 8 INDIVIDUALS PER GROUP, EACH GROUP DURATION 1 1/2·2 HOURS, GROUP TYPES i, bll laale, low tar, 50~ aged 20·30, sos aged 40·50 i Social 2, All male, full flavour, 503 aged 20.30, 503 aged 40·50 3, lilt feale, low tlr, 50~ aged 20-30, 5M Iged 10·10 1 el'ls C1/C2 4, All female, full flavour, 503 aged 20-30, 503 aged 40·50 5, Mixed sex, mixed delivery, aged 20-50, social class BIC1 5, Mixed sex, mixed delivery, aged 20·50, social Class CZ/DE 7, Mixed sex, full flavour, aged 20-50, social class 01102 8, Mixed sex, low tar, aged 20-50, social class CllC2 · U,K, social class norms have been used, cultural equivalents were adapted In each country, · 'Full flavour' defined as 14 mg and above, 1Low tar' defined as sub 10 mg, PUALtTATIVE DISCUSSION STRUCTURE II Determine unprompted consumer reaction to the product presented blind and without the opportunity to smoke It, Examine expectations of sensory performance, aesthetics, social reaction to the user, expected user type, perceived benefits, perceived disbeneflts, 2, If principal benefits of concern have not appeared unpromptedly, introduce then using standardised phrases, then hierarchise all perceived benefits and perform a similar exerdse for perceived disbenefltsl 3, Introduce a 'nillingness to purchase' scale with a mid· poi nt baseline set at own (convcntlonal) brand, Consensus· scale following hypothetical scenarios: Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -12· (a) The ultra slim smokes just as well as conventional cigarettes but has no other obvious benefit apart from appearance, (b) the ultra slim smokes just as well as conventional cigarettes and has the benefit of lower biological activity, (c) The ultra slim smokes just as well as conventional cigarettes and has the benefits of lower sidestreas, ash and fire risk, (d) The ultra slim smokes just as well as conventional cigarettes and has the combined benefits of lower sidestream, ash and fire risk, and lower biological activity, (e) The ultra slim does not smoke as well as conventional cigarettes and has no other obvious benefit apart from appearance, (f) the ultra slim does not smoke as well Is conventional cigarettes but has the benefit of lower biological activity, (g) the ultra slim does not smoke as well as conventional cigarettes but has the benefits of lower sidestrean, ash and fire risk, (h) The ultra slim does not smoke as well as a conventional cigarette but does have lower sldestream, ash, fire risk, and tower biological activity, How sample the product and fully probe for sensory reactions and the credibility of sidestream, ash, fire risk and low biological activity claims, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ·13· 5, Introduce a consensus sensory scaling exercise using limited attributes (draw effort, impact, irritation, taste, acceptability) and compare the ultra slim against conventional cigarettes, Scale for willingness to purchase and establish consensus over which of the hypothetical scenario's detailed previously (3) best describes the product, 6, Reveal brand name and pa~~agf ng and probe fully, Exmni ne impact on willingness to purchase, 7, Examine reaction to the possibility of own main brand being available in the ultra slim fomat tin with and without benefits model, Measure using the willingness to purchase scale, 8. Measure price sensitivity for the following offers: (1) ChPRI, without 'benefits of concern', (b) W\PRI, with 'benefi ts of concern', (c) Own brand in ultra slim format without Ibenefts of concern', (d) Own brand in ultra slim format with 'benefits of concern" , 9, Perform a syndicate exercise on 'how would ~ Psr~tt the productt', requiring the group to consider: Who tol What pricel What copy line benefltsl What Imageryl 10, Confidentiality brief and close, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 -14- SUHMARY OISCVSSION STRUCTURE i, Unpfonpted reaction, blind and unlit, brectatloa, perceived beneflt~ldlsbcneflts, 2, Introduction of 'standard' benefits, 31 Hlerarchisation of benefltsld~sbenefits, a. Willingness to purchase scaling of knefit combinations, 5, Sampling, sensory reactions and credibility of benefits, 6, Sensory scaling, 7, Willingness to purchase scaling. 8, Introducticn of brand name and packaging, reactioni expectations, 9. Willingness to purchase scaling, 10 Reaction to concept of own Rain brand as an ultra slln, 11, Willingness to purchase scaling, 12, Prf ce sensitivity scaling, 13. Syndicate exercise an promatlonal strategy, Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111