msrs Mobile Sensory Testing Services Ltd. rrey RH8 OPG. Telephone Nu ()Xw, s C0 , mz = 7169M Internaffonal Also represented fn Paris. F i 4. i L. RESULTS OF CONSUMER RESEARCH AMONGST-BENSON & HEDGES SMOKERS & SILT CUT SMOKERS, EACH GROUP EVALUATING THE PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS OF 4 CIGARETTE VARIANTS '0 PREPARED FOR: BAT COMPANY LIMITED MILL BANK KNOWLE GREEN STAINES TW18 1DY Dbm=m V1 'Aftn U =79;- Of 4. Srw noff, P Sc- Ph.D. ;-.--=nicw) Regidw Mr.2 541-02 S!~n iL-:-. Z.Uf S chdixt Cc Df K~r-e~ !.A~F*;A. FEU. --t'= Vx 83 . to~ C I X A p-- U qa. , SLz6I 1.11A7, 1,b. Ga ". 7 6214 37 Registered in B.4and 4~ BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 13ACKGROUND A continuing study within the context Of "Worldwide Best Virginia". OBJECTILVES Description of the cigarettes I using conventional -sensory attributes, e.g. mOuthfeel, irritation, etc. 0 2. TO SuMmarise the Product differences using rn2PPing techniques. 3. To establish the acceptability Of the cigarettes tested. 4. To establish the "direction,, in which the Product should be modified to attain greater acceptability. 5. To establish the differences in product perforr-~jance across two different smoker groups. D CD 4>6 BATCOCONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 IMETJOID)LOGY (A) TEST DESIGN The Project required two panels of smokers, one panel of Benson & Hedges SFKS smokers, and another of Silk Cut smokers. Both panels were intended to evaluate 4 cigarette variants. Product assessment was conducted in respondents' own homes. Cigarettes were distributed in packs of 20, presented unbranded, and identified only by code number. Cigarettes were tested on a sequential rnona.dic basis, with product placement and subsequent recall* tak ng place every 2 days. Subjects tested all the products listed for their respective panel, with orders of presentation rotated across the panel according to an experimental design in-Lending to achieve a complete balance of order and relative trial every 4 respondents. N.B. In both panels, it was decided to use one Of the products as a constant first-tried product, increasing the number of variants tried to 5. For both panels, the first-tried product was Code Q254 (Product Amber). The rationale behind this was three-f ld:- '0 (a) it would ensure that all respondents smoked the same product before embarking on the actual test; (b) it would give a measure of the differences in scoring between monadic and comparative data; (c) removing this product from the overall analysis should reduce to an absolute minimum the order effects often encountered in sequential monadic trial, namely tried first/tried second differences. cz P%,) BATCO CONFIDENTIAL -CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 (3) RESPONDENTS All respondents were intended to be smokers of 10 or more cigarettes per day; should have been smoking for at least one year; and should claim to smoke Silk Cut/Benson & Hedges SFKS Most often (as appropriate to that panel). Quotas were introduced to control and match age, class and gender distributions, i.e. Gender: 50% male/50% female Social Class: 35% ABC,165% CZE Age Group: 50% 18-34 years/50% 35-64 years T ests were conducted in 30 locations distributed over England. Fieldwork was conducted between 1 and 14 December 1 -993. 0, C> BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 IN SURVEY N.B. Same-groducts for both pan-1- - uclll=f'~ Code Product G254 Amber (to be tried first) D832 Amber B724 Amber - Flavour H536 Benson & Hedges Light N572 Silk Cut All Products were de-branded where appropriate and presented to consumers in a plain white pack showing the specific product code and a health warning. le CID BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 STATISTICAL TERMS USED ANOVA Analysis of variance; for each and every attribute, anova tests the hypothesis that the products come from the same population (or vice versa, that they come from a different population). Used when the number of products exceeds two. F-RATIO between sarngle variation within sample variation Analysis of variance compares "between sample" variance and combined "within sample" variance. If it proved that the "between sample" variation were significantly greater than the "within sample" variation, then one would conclude that the products (samples) are probably not from the same population, but from populations whose average values differ. L.S.D. Least significant difference, a numerical value of the difference between two means that needs to be achieved in order to infer statistical significance. Calculated from the anova output, usually expressed at a particular confidence level, i.e. LSD,,s least significant difference at the 95% confidence level. U-9 CD CD Ir-l (-"l BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY I: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SIGNIFICANCE A guide to the reliability of the results. Did the result occur by chance? expressed as probability of a chance result or as degree of confidence. i.e. 1 there is a 1 in 20 chance that the result occurred by chance (probability 0.05 or 95% confidence). 2* - there is a 1 in 1 C)o chance that the result occurred by chance (probability 0.001 or 99% confidence). 3* there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the result occurred by chance (probability 0.0001 or 99.9% confidence). Un Co c*\ BATC.O CONFIDENTIAL- CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo, document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SAMP -ES RECRUITED FOR SURVEYS SILK CUT PANEL B&H PANEL Total Sample 192 195 Social Class: ABC1 66 (30 4 %) 77 (39%) C2DE 126 (66%) 118 (61%) Ace Grouo: 13 - 34 years 9- (:z - YO 100 (51%) 35 - 64 years 95 (49%) 9 5 (49 91~) Gender: Male = 98 (51%) 97 (5 0 %) Female 94 ~49%) 98 (50%) Workina Status: Working 128 (67%) 12 9 (6 0- ?/0) Non working 64 (33%) 66 (3 4 %) Children in home: Yes 96 (50%) 117 (60%) No 96 (50%) 78 (40%) Region: North 62 (32%) 64 (33 %) Midlands 68 (36%) 67 (34%) South 62 (3 2 %) 64 (330,10) Cicarettes-aer dav.- 10- 19 1 98 (51%) 71 (36%) 20 + 94 (49%) 124 (64%) Length of time smokina: 1 - 10 years 62 (32%) 52 (27%) Ln (Z) 11 - 20 years 63 (33%) 84 (43%) 21 + years 67 (35%) 59 (30%) co co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SAMPLES (CONTD) SILK CUT PANEL B&H PANEL Lenqzh of tirne smoking named brands: Less than 2 years 70 (36%) 34 (21%) Between 3-4 years 42 (22%) 23 (112%) More than 5 years 80 (42%) 138 (71%) 40 DO YOU smoke a.rv other brands besides__ na rnes brand_Z Yes 113 (59%) 10 7 ('5 5 0/c) No 79 (41%) 88 (45 %) 0 Q) Q~ co 41:1 113 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 C::) Qn BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA T013ACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RESULTS FROM BENSON & HEDGES PANEL The cigarettes assessed by the Benson & Hedges panel were found to be significantly different at the 99.9% confidence level. Both Amber and Amber + Flavour were scored highest (2.93 and 2.95 respectively), followed by Benson & Hedges Lights (2.80), and Silk Cut the leas: liked cigarette (2.50). Silk Cut was significantly less acceptable than all other products tried. IntereStingly, the Benson & Hedges panel were more critical of Amber when it was tried first than when it was tested later in the study. This might be indicative of the fact that although they initially recognised the difference between Amber and Benson & Hedges, with continued smoking of low tar products, Amber proved to be more satisfying than the other products tested. This behaviour was quite different to that of the Silk Cut panel,. 0 Co U-7 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 ACCEPTANCE OF CIGARETTES ASSESSED BY BENSON AND HEDGES PANEL. LSD @ 95% = 0.22 Amber ( Tried I st.) 2.77 I Amber Amber + Ffavour 2.95 B & H Lights 2.80 Silk Cut 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 0 ~_n Co ~.n r%j BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 OPEN RESPONSES FROM PANEL Respondents were asked to describe in their own words what they liked about the cigarettes, what they disliked about them, and what improvements they could suggest for the cigarettes. Not surprisingly, respondents found it difficult to verbalise their perceptions of the products, particularly in areas outside of the pre- coded attributes. PRODUCT LIKES The most commonly stated product like was "nice smoke/pleasant/ satisfying/enjoyable", simply a reflection of the overall opinion scores. "Ease of draw" was the most frequently cited objective parameter, lollowed by comments describing strength, i.e. "not too strong/mild/ mellow/not harsh". Both Amber and Amber + Flavour were spontaneously described as (7% and 9%) easier to draw than B&H Lights and Silk Cut (4% and 5% responses). B&H Lights received 4% responses describing them as having "no aftertaste/did not finger" and for "being slow burning". Q-1 Q:) (-n U14 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SPONTANEOUS PRODUCT LIK S (% Resognse) BENSON AND HEDGES P NEL. 0 E I E QE < CIO PRODUCT CODE Q254 D832 5724 H536 N572 Nice smoke/Pleasant Satisfying/Good 1 16 13 - 16 is I Nice Taste/flavour 1 7 10 1 11 1 8 OK[Avarace not bad 6 9 4 1 [Better than cthers Best so far 3 4 1 4 2 Not too S,'rcrc:imiid mellowinot harsh 5 2 5 Not tco mild 0 0 0 0 Strong tastel-flavour 0 Strength/right, strength 1 1 1 2 2 Easy LC drzawisimoke 7 7 9 Coot taste 0 0 Does,-.z burn rnouth tonguellips 1 0 0 o Slow burning did not bum quickly 0 j 0 4 0 Freshness 0 0 0 Sumed evenly Constant burn 0 0 0 Not throatcac.,jing 3 2 2 1 smooth 3 2 Didnt leave mouth ary left mouth moist I Befter/nice aftertaste 2 2 1 2 2 No aftertaste, did not linger 2 1 1 4 2 Well packed -7- 1 0 Like my usual brand 2 Different 1 0 0 0 L3~ Dillerer, cil e of SiZIE Size of cigarettes 0 C) Like smell 0 0ot hE Other Answers 2 3 2 Nothing Liked No answer 37 41 42 42 co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 PRODUCT DISLIKES Cigarette dislikes were probably a little more easily described. The most frequent criticism of all the products was "lack of taste" and "blandness", although Silk Cut received twice as many comments (30%) as Amber (18%) and Amber -' Flavour (11-50%). Very few respondents described the cigarettes as tasting too strong. The second most frequent criticism was "hardness to draw" and again, Silk Cut received far more comments (14%) than either Amber (7 %) or Amber + Flavour (4%). Very few respondents disliked the cigarettes as too easy to draw on. Dryness, either in the throat or mouth, was associated with all the cigarette samples. There are possible indications of a slightly stronger, harsher, bitter aftertaste, associated with Amber (5 % responses compared with 2-3 % for others). SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS The most commonly cited comment under improvements was "strengthen the tobacco, make it stronger". This was particularly so for Silk Cut, and for Amber when first tried. Despite this, some respondents suggested making the Amber variants a little milder. (-n c:~ Co Ln Un BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 I SPONTANEOUS PRODUCTS DISLIKES (% Resr)onse-) BENSONS AND HEDGES PANEL. -71 'D Q E < M (n IPRODUCT CODE Q254 D832 1 E3724 H536 N572 Lack of tas:e/ weak/ mild/ bland 22 18 1 15 ;3 30 IToo stroncl flaVOUrl taste a 3 5 1 2 2 Too hard tc, draw 12 7 1 .4 14 Too easy' o draw 2 1 2 0 i oo dry/ s!i--~tly dry 7 5 5 5 5 Left throat/ -nouth dry I 1 11 2 1 Fast burnina 7 2 3 2 1 ITaste/ flavcur 6 3 3 4 4 Bitter 5 1 3 1 2 Harsh/ bitter strong aftertaste 3 5 3 2 3 Unnatural 1,aste odd/ unusual 4 2 1 2 1 2 2 ;Aftertaste/ lingering 4 1 5 4 2 3 Do not like/ everything 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 4 Smell 3 3 1 2 2 0 Throat catching 2 4 6 3 4 Tastes sweet/ sweetness 2 3 2 0 2 cigarette s,:---- too small 2 2 1 2 1 1 Harsh tasteiburnsl hot 2 1 i 1 1 1 0 Hotness as cigarette smoked 2 2 i 2 1 1 0ddJ unusual aftertaste 1 0 1 C) 0 Burns mouth/ tongue lips Too strong Cowards end cigarette 1 C) 1 0 0 Tobacco loosely packed 1 1 0 2 0 0 Too much tar/nicotine 1 0 0 2 1 Have to refight cigarette it goes out 1 1 1 0 0 Aftersmoke in room 1 1 1 1 1 Chest irritation 0 0 it 1 0 0 Filter comments 4 1 2 2 3 Others 4 4 3 3 -3 CD Nothing 15 14 1 11 1 11 1 9 LNO answer 16 29 32 32 26 CD BATCO CONFIDENTIAL- CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RESPONDENTS SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CIGARE7TES (% Rewonse) - B AND H PANEL. 0 1 -0 1> U- E E < < < ~5 PRODUCTCODE 0254 D832 B724 H536 N572 Strengthen tobacco make stronger 14 10 8 8 13 Make it milder 8 4 5 2 1 Lower tar nicotine content 1 0 1 0 1 Improve tastel flavour 10 8 7 11 Improve draw/ make it easier to draw G 3 9 8 Make them king size 4 2 3 2 3 improve quality 3 0 0 Improve everything 3 3 3 A 6 ,Too sweet 2 2 1 1 2 Make sweeter 1 2 1 2 1 2 Tobacco too dry make moist 1 2 2 5 5 3 Burns too quick/ slower burning 2 2 1 1 1 Improve aftertaste 2 5 1 5 1 2 Pack fighter 1 0 2 1 0 Pack more loosely 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 More tobacco flavour 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 ;Improve smell 1 1 1 0 Make less throatcatching 2 Improve pacer/ too thick 0 0 0 1 Make them less smokey 1 0 1 0 C) Filter comments 8 4 2 5 Others 4 6 3 5 4 Nothing I no improvements needed 10 9 1 12 12 9 No answer 31 45 45 44 42 co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Improving the taste/flavour was also a frequent comment, although not particularly helpful, since it related to all the products. However, the Amber variants both received suggestions indicating a need to improve the aftertaste. Easier draw was an improvement suggested for all the cigarettes, but particularly Benson & Hedges Lights and Silk Cut. Despite these criticisms, approximately 10% of the Benson & Hedges smokers said that no improvements were necessary and another 40% failed to answer, suggesting a broad level of acceptance. The general impression gained from the spontaneous comme nts is that the Amber products are fairly similar to one another, and that both deliver stronger tobacco related properties to the smoker compared to the other products and, in particular, Silk Cut. Possibly as a consequence of this stronger delivery, they are criticised less for "ease of draw". Lri CD C-- (-n CD BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RATING OF CIGARETTE SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS In order to gain an understanding of product differences, the cigarettes were rated on 12 sensory attributes in addition to product acceptance. To further the interpretation and the understanding of consumer behaviour, several of the attributes were also rated on a second hedonic scale, intending to reveal whether the sensory property was too little, too much or about right. Of the 21 attributes scored by respondents (in addition to overall acceptability), 15 revealed statis-,ically significant differences between the products, 12 of them at the 1-1.0.1-1 % confidence level. The non-hedonic attributes were input to Principal Component Analysis to give an overview of the product differences and the underlying dimensionality within the data. Thus, the scores for 9 sensory characteristics were reduced to 2 principal components with minimal loss of information, i.e. Comoonent Variance Exofained Cumulation 1 80% 80% 2 18016 98% Component 1 clearly separated the Amber variant from the commercial products, with Amber described as having most irritation and throat catch and'requiring least draw effort. Silk Cut was described as having least irritation and throat catch and most draw effort, with Bensons & Qr-, Hedges situated between the two extremes. cz (.n \10 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Component 2 separated Amber from Amber + Flavour, with Amber described as slightly sweeter/less bitter, and less dry/more moist than Amber -, Flavour. However, these differences were not statistically significant. indeed, there were very few differences between Amber and Amber + Flavour. The slightly higher throat catch associated with Amber + Flavour was liked slightly more, i.e. it was closer to "about right" (90% confidence); the Amber + Flavour variant was described as possessing greater amount of taste (90% confidence); but the less sweet1mcre bitter taste of Amber + Favour was liked significantly less (95% confidence). Regression of the main hedonic measurements (initial satisfaction, taste quality, aftertaste quality and overall acceptability) onto the product coordinates for axes 1 and 2 showed the relationship between acceptance and higher irritati c n /throat catch/taste streng-uh and/or lower draw effort. The variation in bitter/sweet scores and smoke moisture observed for Amber and Amber - Flavour seemed to have minimal impact, on overall acceptability. 40 U-1 J-J CD C> CD BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 F SUMMARY OF ESULTS FOR BENSON AND HEDGES PA F - V M W I Xj lz 0 Z < LU F - x 0 Uj ca C R U. co . ED a :2~ F) 1i; iz + < oul Q > (D 0 0  -0 .92 E Od -~r 0 0 z z < .. ... . . B72 21 2 )rt 0.14 Mouthful Of Smoke 2-50 Z65 2.78 2.6 Like Mouthful Of Smoke -0.40 -0.37 -027 -0.53 0. 0.17 Initial SatistlaCtion I , Z61 2.71 2.45 2.22 3* 0.20 0.20 Initial Satisfaction -0.421-0. 3* ation L 2 3 2 11 . 0.22 3* Like Irritation -0.13 0.19 Throat Catch 2.46 2.60 Z 0.21 3* 0.20 Uke Throat Catch - 0.19 Taste Amount 2.38 3* 0.20 1 3* 0.20 e Taste Amount -0.64 2' 0.18 3* 0.18 Ste Quality 2.70 11 0.20 1 0.20 Smoke Moisture 2.44 2.65 Z50 2.50 .19 ns 0.19 like Smoke Moisture -0.5 -0-44 -0.49 -0.54 -0 .15 ns 0.15 i Natural Tobac= Ff 2. Z58 2. .20 ns 0.20 , "IN Bitter/ Sweet Tobacco Ff. Z 5 2.7 2-77 2. 0.17 ns 0.17 Like Bitter/ Sweet Taste -0.1 -0.27 -0.26 0.15 90% 0.15 Aftertaste Amount 2.67 2.76 2.61 2.44 1- 0.21 1 0.21 Like Aftertaste Amount -0-11 -0.21 -0.14 -0.45 2* 19 2* 0.19 Qr, Aftertaste Quality 2.79 2.91 ns 0.19 ps 0.19 Acceptability 2.77 r2.93 1 2.50 3- 0 0.22 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 : 41eno G4V~ 1 1 ! ;1 lunowV elselie4y @~.ni QI-r LU c~ junowy aise z < aisel la"s xri ' 1 1 1 e ; 1 ; : c~ - tq. Il: -~ - i a. . ; Il, il l 1 ~ j ; . ~ 1-folo!c):CD 0 -fz! ODOZQO.L laems i i i i , !~' Moeclo.L leinieN 1 CD ~n . CD . r- . G> 0 1 1 .: -: ci C; - CD:: CD CD: 0 ~ z . ~ : 1 i ; ~ ! . i . j . : CD:tn M 4n; exows . : :Q.M.C0 Co -M 1 1 i c~ c:D.C:;:C~ c~ZcD 0 z lm; VI: lu: w;,qr; M ~r' Co Ci cs ci 1 : z 1 . 1 1 i 1 LU iunowv aise 1 a~ . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -~r - nr - -~r ; i . : En 1 0 : Co l r_ , im 1 i f . . ; j - . c~:c: ci ~ c~ l *: CD: 0 1 ilinowy GIS Co ICI>, ~ Col 05 -r ~ Co : -e M , c~ r*~; CR, ?'~ c~ . ! CS ~ . 0 i 1: 11 , i l ---z~; : =:CD~CD!C>jcD:(D:o U- - . i - ; 1 . yoiez CO -:~! -~ "M' ~r1 i - . t'la," Q ', Q!c:~c;l l 1 c~ ici:c~ - : : i - 1 c 1 to . . - tzzleo iB0jp.L~ 1 1 1 Vo . . . 1 8 1 10 1 C); = 1 lcl> 1 '80 j .0, ~ ~; ~ r- 1 .ic=;, .. . .. . 1c~1r~MiQ~l11 P-:; UO ici c=ic~:;c:s 1 c""~' ~ S < ! 1 1 11 - ~ CD i CD 1 m'i CD; CD! CD c;;icD~ . . . c~ z jc' l M 1 - i&n i c i 0 i CD l C, i cv. 0 i M; LU ucipe;si Ws 11214u; - o cljjcjcDiQ~ mfCD!c;!c5t6 LLI -- 11 ~ ~`i`l 0 ~ CD i'r! CD l ry 1 c~ c~ c:~!cz~0 '41 LU amows JO init4inovy amrl CD, 0 o1ci z j CD r- Co g r~ :,lo ' 1 ?- . . GXOWS jo ini4inovyf CD CD M 10. Il 1.11 1 - 1 ~--> ! '- ~ ! 0 0 Q ci 1 : -9 . 9 . 0 CD i1=~19M91 - ~ . 1 . , o l 0 i 0 c:~ ci c:~ 0 CD . 1 . . . . C? cloic? -q g VOI13 1 . CD! CD r c> S E; r- 1 2 1 1 = Cr; 1 - r>, - w 1 j -~; i e, - E 0 - -UM cc . 0 _; 0. ~ 0 J lu ~ E, - ~ Ln - 1 Z =12-0 F- 1-5 ~ 1<1 2! 1 .!.cou 1 -Z o: E; CD Lui c~ i cs ;~' '~0-; I=- w~ 1 1 - ; ;Z.m~-i:<:-j < < z CI% r\j BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS ON SENSORY DATA BENSON & HEDGES PANEL PC2 (18%) bitterlsweet tobacco ff smoke moisture aftertaste amount Pci (80%) atural toabacCOfl 4- TAS draw effort VER INITI L 1 -K, thf u taste amount smol 0 PRODUCT KEY 1. AMBER 2. AMBER + FLAVOUR 3. B&H LIGHTS 4. SILK CUT BATCO, CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA T013ACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 DIFFERENCES IN RESPONDENT PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE BENSON. & HEDGES PANEL Two-way analysis of variance was conducted on the scaled responses in order to identify the major sources of variation within the data. The product x respondent interactions have received greatest examination, since these give an indication of whether respondents identified by socio-demographic or behavioural factors behave in recognisably different ways with respect to their product requirements. The analysis was repeated with and without the first tried reference product. Looking at the main effects, the products themselves were clearly the major source of variation, the majority of attributes revealing highly significant di-Iferences. With regards to the product x respondent interactions, there were relatively few which achieved statistical significance and importantly, none which had impact on the main hedonic parameters such as initial satisfaction, taste quality, aftertaste quality and acceptability. Ln CI\ -Z~:. HATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 X a c a r-_ ~ - ! - a e ~ y) M U) ; 0! fi 0 e mi Q; a r_ a CI= a 4m 0 Ei EI =-l~.j -!o,E.1 !2 ; 52 1 1 'acic _1 41>1 1-i-J 1 i 1- 1!21-i-1 junowy ais 0 1 1 LM! &M e 1? (n! 0 ;m i 0 i Il.-~! In Blie4y r_ a a a a _! r-1 a =! a a CD: a 1;J _- 1 1 11 e~ 1 -, -_ 1 e; e: el 1 1 ~ ai . 1 i-1 lu t i 1 -! -[ f 1 CD! Z M 111nowy aissliai;,e! 0 i . chi %Ai cn CO) mi Q a a - -1-=I, c;=ic Co 0 0 a oe ci. a ce 1 a a 0 0 - a a ;_ CD aise.L ;Goms ij;au!e exrii 1 .1 . '41, _1= . LU im 0 a c>, . C) W cr-meqo, ,a,gmS liaulg: a a =! =1 ai ai =1 a CI loi= =IC>l LU 1 1 -P ~ ! -1 . 1 :CD. 1 o~o~v>j. lo:%nin i i la~ 4"; - 0 =Llqo.L lainlt>Nl zi= a 1 a a a a, a 4, 0 &M 0 z &, iag toi ~,l ni ni ,,, 1 , c;0icic = _j =1 g~o z aine!o~N axows QiC) =l~y 'c" 0i'. 1 IE < _.k: Ln LM 1. oe~ Mi oi ee mi oi ai =!(Dl a. Z, =~ =1 = e a- a z !DVV GX0111si i l CD: i i , - MI CD CI: ;CD . i i ~ 1 , : e ~ tn ',;,! 0 ~ 0 1 &0 1 1 l tf i M i Ln: 01 e. t2;-.* 1 . 0 i V) 418no aise.Li z LU e, juncuiv aise.L a~r ~ M; 0 -tn; i. ~q a 0 r- a a e a' a a 'CD, c. ;un ouly Gez.L! _1 a. r- a r- a a a a a a 1 a a LL. cn Lr-.eo 120JU 81[fri! i0;10e~wj 1 1 tn: f4; e~ el b- LU -=15 1 a 1 a ~,:1 a! 4180 120.1411 a j r- a a: a =i ai C; -1 a z cm 1 0 t! e E a a la 0 uo ;1) - 1 cm 1 cn In! i (M~ 0! 4- nnwi 0 el A k 1 . ~ . 1 -.-: . 1 M j 1 1 e:2We~oe m: t'1521--"Iel > uollelw 52 j&~-=1 a ci ai =,CD; a ; a. LL 1 -1 i~M M : - - - CD uoi lEgu -1 h2l oel 1 a ai =: =; =1 =.* =IC a le!!2101 1 ~ JA~Ovjio,w .12 icmut a-4nl 11 1 1 ".- . 1 Ei cn < 0101 1 0 1.t 10elle 0M uol;oe;srms Mitui 1~,i= CD a _10 =I, a _;_:=i= a Co 10 1 MIO cm > - a a r_ ~ a a a:_ -;='O =1= ci= "ci 'n - 0 e i < _I j amows;oiniyinowa~nl 11;,1*1 z amou, S JO INLIlnovy 1. 1 1 cni - el LM C-11=icD a CD =1=*= =~=.= =1.1 - 1 a 0 0) ; i 1 LIO Ch 0 ~ 0' V., Mi 01 .! . > -43 MBJO @XI-il . ; 1 .-ic < _k le! col! ici, 1 1 - -1 ~ e 11 !k 1 &,";, 1 U'l 0 l cm i 0 l- 1 ei! 0! &nI ~ - ; e n! E: - e en 0 tn cn ;1042 MEJO =!=;=!=l a a a 1 : _! M , 1 ai ai =1 =1 a 0 U_ 1 cri mi > CIO E! E Col (0 :~.l - - 1 .2; C. i I a) 0 > > 0 E Cu ) - 0 0 M 0 M Z Go ri; a: =:p col Z: a: 2 cm 0 0 Cu il 'P. c= d ci 6 E w <: Il. 06 Co cc l Co xioltzi(j Z Z Z w Li x x xi x x x x CD. 0 > a E z El a - - 0 = cc -a Ce =;.ci =: = 0 0 w 10 -a CP Oi =1 = 1 .1. - 0, -0 C In e- C, 0 zc, oe iz : 1 it; Ct: iL L 0- Ir 1 c-, l ~ E_ '' ID a IC); a 1 ~Q - 2 0 U) < 0 Z'Z -~i!iL 11 ICL 1- Pi C> Un BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 L,) ta, a- (A (A La: t '104 41 junoujy a=UajjV aNr, w! wile z dw V'I'Alml co < 0- Junmuy 21SRU811 0- . " i. 1 . 1.11. 11 ta 01U) 0 0 = =I= a -1 = = = = = = r- I r- a 0-0 1 &1 ! !2 10 LU 8=11 lasms /JaMe OV-1 4= r- = 0 - j - CM I 0 - I f . C5 I'M I *,I - M *1=1 o=eqo.L jsamS-jjaU!S La 1 0 1 e- :tz 1".1 1 -1 W '4; !21 qo.L juiniEN I::_ -i'= -1= -1:j CODE Ch ~21 1 ,!4m. z ainispw axowS;a%!-j z aimsjovv z)jowSj I to! 'M 1 1 j!2 0104w ! Ca ? tai M=I 1-112 !,.-! 0 ! ! . 0; 0 , !21 1* i &M ~ w AjpnZ) a~sa ::_ = i ~ ~, 1 ~a 0 1 '41 U" 0, Ln I z i I I 1= i i =]= i =1 1, 1c, , I i i I & i I LU junow e~ ; 0 i V. I C3 V alsel QV-1 H -1 .1 521 ;UnOLUV amej. W!o -1-1ca wiLnio LL I : 0 1 w ~ !21 " I 'a " 0 1 C4 ; gn 1 &A in 431BO LU LJ LU ON!-[ w 1 w Z = Llz;eo ja0aul 1 ') 1 .1 - S21 1 1 1 ~21 n 1 0: 0 1 U, '0i 014 -J E ~- U04L,;Pjl GXM ;~ I i 1U, U, =1 al =1 = =JCD = - =1 ! U) =rM  U01 IwIMI'MI-1-.0101011n th LL -J U04081PIRS [81 lul OXI ;~ I !-. i - I i In Cl) ~, I &A 214 12 1 !a I - -= to UORD * I g; . BAPIS 18MU1 ce) wwsminpanowaxril I . I 1 izj= 01= = C1 CIS 1=1 co < I I I i i I I I I,, z 8)JOLUS 10 InAMOW < UOMS MBJG ax!li ;, 1 12 1:j & I In : Ne i -a &I wIlln 1 &, I , =ibl- =1= C) Mi Jim 1,41"le mj~nw10101,M! U042 M8JC1 r_1 =j IQ = = C r- W 0 6 11 1!2i I I - I 0 I a 0, 0 1 a Cd . I E =! Fa I I I --1 0 rn C310 01 1 U) cu MI-00 T r-1 E E zi CU E 6 - w 1.0 :)I I . =1 0 Q.- 0 a - 0 0 le 8 1 a. CO W M . r U I -a CL, 8' - - 0 U) LLI .! -g I x 1 .0 !2 V 8 ; 0 ~: I Q w I Z 6 C; 46 E LL E 1 10 U. 0 0 x x x Ui . ~ -a- x x Ln CJ I < - - ~10 = Q z z1ZI E 0 0 IL OE Z 02 Ui L~J-c i~ I Ui 65 3 (0 .19 ; = = Z = M ==1 =1Z 3 -cc I Z5 5 '1 1 " 1 -,=5 -61" -~. 1 -6 1 '5 CD i 0 Uj 1 10 10 10 : -0 -0 M -0 -0 C) C; C; C; E 0 0 0<1fL, a. (L a. J~p Z~toi~ . a Z*Z1 z C-1 Ma" 09 -14=11' 1-5. la U-1 CIO CV\ ON BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1:.MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RESULTS FROM SILK CUT PANEL The cigarettes assessed by the panel of Silk Cut smokers were found to be slightly different in terms of overall acceptance, but not significantly so. Amber and Amber + Flavour were the most liked cigarettes (mean scores 2.92 and 2.90 respectively), followed by Benson & Hedges Lights (mean 2.77) and Silk Cut (mean 2.73). The performances of Amber tried first and Amber -1 ully rotated was very similar, emphasising the general level of acceptability of this productfor low tar smokers. Across the two panels of smokers, the main difference in response was towards Silk Cut, although both panels described Silk Cut as least acceptable. 0 (.n c:~ Co ON. -`14 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 ACCEPTANCE OF CIGARETTES ASSESSED BY SILK CUT PANEL. LSD @ 95% = 0.21 Amber (Tried 1 st.) 2.97 Amber 2.92 Amber + Flavour 12.90 B & H Lights 12.777 Silk Cut 12.73 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 0 Un CD CD (-n Co ON Co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1:,MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 OPEN RESPONSES FROM SILK CUT PANEL, As with the other group of smokers, respondents were asked to describe in their own words what they liked and disliked about the cigarettes, and what modifications they would suggest to improve them. PRODUCT LIKES Once again, the most commonly stated product like was "nice smoke/ pleasant/satisfying/good", simply reflecting the overall opinion scores of the cigarettes. "Ease of draw" and comments describing the mmildnessliack of harshness" tended to dominate the product likes. However, there was little variation across the products. PRODUCT DISLIKES The main dislike of the cigarettes was related to strength of flavour, which probably implies overall impact. Amber and Amber -, Flavour tended to be described as too strong in taste/flavour, whereas Benson & Hedges Lights and Silk Cut tended to be described as lacking tastelflavour and being too mild. Benson & Hedges Lights and Silk Cut were also more likely to be described as too hard to draw compared to the Amber variants. All the cigarettes were criticised for dryness but this was less frequent Qn for Amber. Qn Co Cr\ \-0 13ATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1, MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SPONTANEOUS PRODUCT LIKES-(% Response) SILK CUT PANEL. U- + .0 -0 .0 E I < E M to PRODUCTCODE 0254 0832 B724 H536 N572 Nice smoke! Pleasant Satisf~jng/ Good 16 21 20 15 13 OKI Averace not bad 8 2 4 5 4 Nice Taste/ flavour 5 6 4 7 7 Better than others Best so far 1 2 2 1 Easy to drawl smoke 12 8 7 3 5 Not too strong/ mild mellow/ not harsh 10 5 7 6 a StrenVV right strength 1 1 1 0 1 Not too mild 0 0 1 1 0 Strong taste/ flavour 0 0 2 0 1 Smooth 4 1 0 3 1 Like my usual brand 3 1 2 1 1 No aftertaste /did not linger 3 1 2 1 1 Not throatcatching 2 2 1 Slow burning /did not bum quickly I I Dicint leave mouth dry Aeft mouth moist 1 0 0 1 1 Like smell 1 2 1 1 0 Freshness 1 0 0 0 0 Well packed 1 0 0 0 1 Cool taste 0 1 0 0 0 Does.nt bum mouth tongue/ lips 0 1 0 1 0 Burned evenly /Constant burn C) 0 1 1 1 Small filter 0 0 0 1 0 Better/ nice aftertaste 0 0 1 2 3 Others 4 3 2 5 3 Nothing Liked 15 14- 13 16 1 No answer 28 42 43 39 41 (-n BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 04 Mar 54 SFSS f-.: YS WINDCWS Release 6.0 Page41 H-J-Res Chart I -*.---zatter cf fac2_1 !acl_l - 0 0 00 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 04 Mar 94 SPES fzr MS "111,10OWS Release 6.0 Page5 0 0 (il (Z cz BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo, document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 04 Maz 94 SPSS !or KS W--.'DC'dS Re-ease 6.0 page I Trial period 'zzm February 12, 1954 for Z months. 1 0 0 BATCO, CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 04 Mar 54 SPES !z:, MZ Wl!'"-OWS Release 6.0 Page 2 - - - - - - - - - - - F A C T S R A N A 1- Y S I S Analysis --=bez 1 Ustwzse delez-on of cases with missing values Warning # 11301 >The correlation "-%atr-ix cannot be -4nverted. -Xtract4c:% 1 fzz analvs-,s 1, ?r-ncipal- Con-mcnenrs Analys-,s (PC) Initial Stazist-,as: Variable 'ractar z-,genvalue Pct of Var Cum n-zz VARCOCCi -?.00000 - 1 Z.D.Sizn2 83.2 E,:.2 VARCOOOZ 1.00000 - 2 i. i VAROOOOZ i.O00 - 3 . 507713 3.9 icz.0 VARO 0 0 0 -1 1.00000 - .00000 0 ifl-C . 0 VAR00005- i.00000 - .00000 .0 1- 0 Z . 0 VARCOO06 000C - 0 .00000 .0 . ~.- . 0 VAR00007 '-.30000 - -1 Gc0:~0 .0 VAR00008 i.Z0000 - 3 .0coec c VARD0005, -1.00000 - 9 AC000 .0 ic:.o VAR000io i.00000 - 1-0 .00000 .0 icz.0 VAR00011 1.00000 1 . .00000 .0 ICC.0 VAR00012 -1.00000 i2 .0cooo .0 ic:.o VAR00013 1.00000 13 .00000 .0 -1015 . 0 PC ex--z--zze-4 2 fac--crs. ract . tor mazzix: VAR00001 -.91-533 -.i6521 VAR000012 . 9 4 9Z Fi -.30790 VAROOO03 .98035 -.1-340 VARC0004 .95070 -.09-106 VAROOO05 VAR00006 .90733 3s,70 VAA0000-1 .~99s1 -02643 VAR00008 .59-631 .79,6i5i5 VAR00009 .99799 O-i2s (-n ~-r1 Co ---4 .J>b BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 'A 04 Mar 94 5?SS for -S WIANrC71S Release 65.3 Page - - - - - - - - - - - F A C T 0 R A N A L - - - - - - - - - - - Factor I Factor VAR00010 .58561 .80133 VAR00011 .98451 .15813 VAR00012 .85969 -.10S33 VAR00013 .99100 -.07716 Final statist_,cs. Var-,able C a 1 _4 t y Factor Zigenvalue Fct of Var C= Pct VAR00001 -865i2 i 10-31592 82.2 83.2 VAROD002 .55612 2 1.67635 VAR00003 vAR00004 VARD0005 .93582 VAR00006 .959Z.9 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00005 .99Z25 VAR00010 .98507 VAR0001! .99427 VAR000-12 .750--6 VAR000.13 .58803 sk-4= , rotat-4c.- 1 for ex:zac:_-cn anaivs-is 2 PC EXAC,: faczZz. scores W,1.1 b, F0110wing ffaczor scores wzi-, be added zo tne wc--k4ng fj~__ Name Label -AC 1 1 REEGR facter score 1 fzr analvsis 1 FAC2_1 RZGR factor score 2 fzr arna-_ 0 (Ji (Z Un C-D Un BATCO CONFIDENTIAL- CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SPONTANEOUS PRODUCT DISLIKES (% Resoonse) SILK CUT PANEL. 0 co CM I + ID 2 .00 -0 _L_ Q E E co + 5 .0 .0 .0 E E ad -~5 I < I < I cc W PRODUCT CODE 0264 0832 B724 H536 N572 Make them king slZe 9 3 3 3 4 Improve taste/ flavour 7 7 5 10 11 Make it milder 7 9 10 6 3 Lower tar nicotine content 4 2 2 2 2 Strengthen tobacco make stronger 3 5 4 6 Toba too dry make moist 5 5 3 5 5 Pack tighter 4 1 1 0 1 Improve aftertaste 4 2 1 2 3 Make sweeter 3 2 2 3 3 Make less sweet 1 1 0 1 1 Sums to quick slower burning 3 2 1 1 1 Improve draw /make it easier to draw 3 4 3 6 3 Make less throatcatching 3 1 0 2 0 Improve everything 2 2 1 2 4 Improve smell 1 1 1 0 0 Improve paper/too thick I 1 0 1 1 Improve quality 1 1 1 2 1 Make it so it does not go out 0 0 1 1 0 More tobacco flavour 0 0 2 2 1 Make them less smakey 0 1 0 0 0 Filter comments 5 4 2 4 5 Others 2 4 3 3 3 Nothing / No improvements needed 17 16 13 12 9 No answer 27 38 47 40 44 (-n CO. Co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RATING OF CIGARETTE SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS Of the 21 attributes scored by respondents in the Silk Cut panel (in addition to overall acceptability), 16 revealed statistically significant differences between the products, 10 of them at the 99.9 % confidence level. The two panels of smokers generally agreed on the highly significant attributes, but did differ an some of the minor characteristics. The Benson & Hedges smokers differentiated between the products on taste quality (95 % CL) and like bitterlsweet taste (90%), whereas the Silk Cut smokers did not discriminate on these attributes. Conversely, the Silk Cut panel did differentiate between the products on "like smoke moisture" and "natural tobacco flavour", which the Benson & Hedges panel found non-significant. PCA conducted on the non-hedonic attributes reduced the 9 senso characteristics to 2 principal components with minimal- loss information, i.e. CorriDonent Variance ExDlained Cumulative 1 85% 85% 2 13% 98% ~_M C:) (Z (J~ \Z BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 2; October 1999 As with the Benson & Hedges panel, component 1 separated the Amber variants from the commercial products, with both Amber variants described as having most irritation and throat catch, and requiring least draw effort. Silk Cut was described as having least irritation and throat catch, and most draw effort, with Benson & Hedges Lights between the two extremes. Component 2 separated Benson & Hedges Lights from the other products. it was described as least sweet/most bitter in flavour. Regression of the main hedonic measurements (initial satisfaction, taste quality, aftertaste quaiity and overall acceptability) onto the product coordinates for axes 1 and 2 showed the relationship between acceptance and higher irritation/throat catch/taste amount andlor lower draw effort, with Amber variants positioned in the high acceptance sector. i (.M CD U11 cl) CD BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 4-4L. A- r-f-A be", L-A-IJ - rA 9. 11~ 0 1 Ln 1- Zl Un M Co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR SILK CUT PANEL. (L x < LU x U.1 0 > CD 03 LL Z .2 OR cr) rn V) 65 U11 + 0) 0) 1- 6. 4:1 a) (D > .0 M 0 0 0 E E z co W z < < I < M co < < Product Code 1 0254 D832 fB724 H536N572 Draw Effort X Z35 2.56 2.56 2.93 2.88 1 3* 0.22 3' 0.22 Like Draw Effort -0-09 0.02 0.02 0.20 0. 22 07 2* 0.17 1 0.17 Mouthful Of Smoke 2.91 3.02 3-02 2.72 2.60 3' 0.19 3' 0.19 Like Mouthful Of Smoke 0.0-1 - 0.04 0.09 -0.21 -40.26 3~ 0.16 3* 0.17 Initial Satisfaction 2.90 2.91 2.97 2.70 2.57 3' 0.20 3' 0.20 Like Initial Satisfaction -0-12 -0.16 -0.07 -0.35 -0.34 3~ 0.17 2* 0.17 Irritation Z75 2.99 Z92 Z79 2.66 1* 0.23 1 0.23 Like Irritation 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.10 -0.06 3' 0.17 3* 0.17 Throat Catch Z80 3.06 3.12 2.80 2.69 3* 0.23 3* .0.22 Like Throat Catch 0.16 0.19 0.29 -0.02 -0.06 2* 0.19 3- 0.19 Taste Amount 2.91 3.12 3.12 2.87 2.73 3* 0.20 3* 0.20 Like Taste Amount -0.05 0.09 0.10 -0.11 -0.29 3* 0.18 3* 0.18 Taste Quality 2.99 3.02 2.91 3.01 Z83 ns 0.20 ns 0.20 Smoke Moisture 2.61 2.70 2.66 2.59 2.50 ns 0.19 ns 0.19 Uke Smoke Moisture -0.49 -0.34 -0.44 -0.47 -0.55 1 90% 0.15 1* 0.15 'Natural Tobacco Fl. 2.71 2.82 2.83 Z73 2.58 90% 0.20 1 0.20 Bitter/ Sweet Tobacco Fl. 2.73 Z75 Z71 2.65 2.78 ris 0.17 ns 0.17 Like Bitter/ Sweet Taste -0.31 -0.33 ~0-37 -0.33 -0.28 ns 0.15 ns 0.15 Aftertaste Amount 2.91 3.06 3.00 2.89 2.73 1* 0.21 2* 0.21 Like Aftertaste Amount 0.15 0.26 0-18 0.07 -0-10 3* 0.18 3* 0.18 Aftertaste Quality 2-86 2.91 2.88 2.83 2.75 ns; 0.20 ns Acceptability 2-97 2-90 2.'77-" 2-.73- 0.21 ns 0.21 ns. Co SATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 ; a, Co 418no CD ! CD ' e junowv aiselia4V al!l ;c~;Q-c0 ! 1 ! . 100 Co i c : " 1 1 l , . JunowV E~iselieuvl aiseL laams peilis CD 'r i : : . . -: C? ! CD 1 ci : ci w W 000eqa.L J"Ms 0 ~1 i ! : i 0: Co. 0; r- Imnie,,41 1 1 ! - ICD:cl F- ! 1 1- 1 i 111 j ! 1 1 ; i cio - 7 M ainis!ovv a~0ws a~jrjI C) - -: c:~ - ci: CD CD! 40; CD ~e l r-5. Co Co 0. Co . 4M: tn ispVy Fz : r1~ -J i 1 ! :-,010 . , . C? -:! CD ~ C! a /~p eno aise i i ! ; ~ i i 1 i c~; q~ , Cq! c9~ 'q , 1,~; Co! -- - J-; in z 1 i 1 i 1 ~ -. CD: 0, 0: c~ - 9 ~ ci 1 ci: c:~, ci LL unowy aise.L aMI-1 cu l]~! c~; r-~ CD * CD: CD: CD: 0 * C: 0 LU 1 Z*-!P,.C-4;en-a ~Un0wy aise.L! 1 1 1 1 i ~ 11~. i - . ! l cq 0. 9), M - r~ M LPIEZ 12041 0il!l i CD c~ p~ 'q ~ 11q: c~. clq 19041 G~ 9~! i ( i ! c~ ~ C5 - O.CDIC 0ic~. 1 C:, 1 1 i , i l 1 1 1r~i 1 . . : . c~.. . ! 9 t! m. o ! c~ ~ c~ z - cD!~0 1 . ;c? LU 1 1 ! 1 i i M; Co i Co: nr: 22 : 1-. ucllel!jjl o 1 CD 1 a) i 'r i r; Co en; - 1 - . Co t Co : 0 LLI cc~ir- rZ;r-iQ . ~q -~ 1,-~ ~q. ,~;,q: 1 ce ~ ~ ; ~:c:) a CDICD!cm 0!0!010!0!~9 c~ c~1c~; z UollzesllLs le, r,.: Co ; 0 ~: ci ..!Ui 1 q r1~ c~ "q 1:~; Cll Ci 0 CD CD CD 0:0 0 (D 0 fflws ;0 [n;t4inovy amri 11 -! i --~ i -:~ i 1:~ 1 1-R Il -1 CI! 1 c~ l r,~ cc! i (j~; CR: r~ r . 0~: c~ i c~! . CD CD d CD CD 0 CD 0 0 0-010~.clic?,0:0;0;CD LU Co ejouiS 10 In;tjlnoVy CD CD c:; 1 . 0~ CC! c~ Q~ ci d CD 0 0 CD Q 0 CD. Q! 9 c=i:~ cm; ci! c~ y- Milc, '0 C? 9 C? 0. ci a oic . . . 1 . C? C? i 9: C? C? - %. > 0 cm M 1 tn lm 0 11 i 1 1 : 1 1 , : , -, 1 1 0 UOI13 me-ICI ax!-l cq 11~ 01 9 1 c o cficmico 0 0 0> 0 1- 'Ir r- 4n M CC!! (q ~ c~ 1101;-= meici 15 1,? 9 . l,:? 9 9 C? C? ci I? 9~C?i9,c? Q a 1 :2 1 cn i Z: I fil ni c U E U.:.z ~- -E; E: a E 0 -j -M la 1 0 -: a 8!- , E j !2 cl, 0~c1 Lo M (0 ..e CD - < e 3c cz- 3. -- s 1 '0 F--. * - 2 1 - ~.2 1 2 a - c = (j ? E cn = Z ~ a 21 M = ~g 0 -- M < 00 i r- - (A - V; 1, = : 0 1 CZ 114. r- M c ;5 .5r := -Id :9 -c = U cc ~-- CC 1 r= ~ :e ru - = -le l 2 ~.=. 2 82 Cz M I-- ZI 1- M ~- l Co 1 -J Z, FE . :3 ~Z : M :Z~ CD (Jq BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF SENSORY DATA SILK CUT PANEL PC2 (13%) bitterlsweet tobacco f 1. OVERALL-LIKE i I mouthfeel a -45-75h h PC1(85%) amou noistu AT naturaf tobact o f I thnq t C ta 1 2 rrtfa Fcon/ draw effort TASTE QUALITY T I AL SA 1 15r A QUA I AL bA ~#(~L) At 0 PRODUCT KEY 1. AMBER 2, AMBER + FLAVOUR 3. B & H LIGHTS Ln 4. SILK CUT Ln ~0 co 4~1. BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 2~ October 1999 DIFFERENCES IN RESPONDENT PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE SILK CUT PANEI Two-way analysis of variance was again conducted on this data, both with and without the first tried reference product. Once again, there were relatively few statisTically significant interactions, although interestingly the overall acceptance scores did differ slightly across respondents characterised by duration of smoking Silk Cut, i.e. Overall Acceo-rabilitv Scores Respondents: smoked SC for smoked SC for less than 5 vears more than 5 veers Amber 3.06 2.72 Amber + Flavour 2.92 2.87 B&H Lights 2.67 2.91 Silk Cut 2.82 2.62 (LS096 0.28 0.33) The more recent smokers of Silk Cut (less than 5 years) were more positive about the Amber variants and critical of Benson & Hedges Lights, whereas the longer term smokers (more than 5 'years) were more critical of Silk Cut and tended to prefer Benson & Hedges Lights. In both groups, the least liked product was described as least irritating, i.e. U-1 C:) Vi r~o Cz U-1 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 Irritation Less than 5 years More than 5 vears Amber 3.03 2.93 Amber + Flavour 2.96 2.86 B&H Lights 2.67 2.95 Silk Cut 2.81 2.43 (LSDqr, 0.30 0.36) 0 0 (-n Ln CI% BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Cr) i i , 1 c) U, Co Xigeno aiscuaUy =1 . i .1 U, E E r- ElE CD; C) juinowV elseli k 0 1 1 0 V) * foi. ole li V) el -1 0 Wnowy oiseuauvi oi 0! 0! = = CD c c c =1= 0 - l CD z - 1 Zn C* cm affli Pams pa;ps E I i,~ le c 1 = -;z = _: = = = r_ ~ 1 CD e v 01 ole;e1el -1 1 e; !-Mi e;.01 01 0!.l e 010 -J moeqo.L pamS /jall!g IT- -id o=zqo.L JeJnIBNI e 1 j g ~0 c C) 1 = . ! Ci' 1 Q CD ~c> 0; cn M! o; in: Ot i OiCA 0101019) 8111MOVY alows amri 0 - 1 - 1 - -- 1 --l *: 1 ~ 1 1 0- w fhl U) :U)io .~ ~ i 0 e w ! 2 = = 1 = el =! = M A;!Ierlo aiseit 1: mi-.*le M junoury olse i Co oe oe ! -- i VI Ln i - ! l! 9) i V) 1 i ~Un0LUV 81SL,.L 4:)Itlo 18041 exri! Piez ltwq.L! z UO!11?IWI 8~!11 -Z; Wt M !&J-je ~1 =:O;r- Il H- 1 I-l 1-15-21 ry oej.I0~. il, ~ i 10! - . 1 l i uoileiwI ai e~ el E EI E uo!lze;slles 181 1 I~' oleilli !0 (ni !Oiag~ol ~ ze i ', i 12- i 1 r- CD =i;v!=10 = 1 1 0 101.1'l 1 0) . 1 ci 1 CD i 1 1 u0f - --01 oi. ~0 i Iliel 814ows )0 initilnovy a~r1j Io! >- r 0 = 1 , 4; o; 1 j exows jo lnjq;novvi !C, z CDQI < V0.43 meia i . 1,,, Z 1 w r- , w - M . i 0 lio;lg meicli &M! .~ ; . ; i : 1 Jkir- c leiLnWinimitni(M i M =.' =; =j =1 = =! = = = = i M. M ci : ce :2 :2 12 1 0Oi- > Ln: r= r= 10 l i CL Cn Co >.~ =1 1 i V) '= - tu .1 < 1 0) 1 tu ~-: M~ =10 d lu 0 0 W io 0 ! -. - ~ 0 >&> 2 ' - 1 M' 1 i2 ., - E!i E . 0 tn, E. Cir=lE . 0 Oi -ad rai mi (zi 0 'l' c~ :D 0 M mi-=, 0. en 0 : ~; e . ru CL) t Z 1 d C; E Ln w 'Uf- 0 MI - i c Pz J2 a m < N - i . ~j~5 Mc < e Q~ M:, ci e! E ; a ; E E Z- 2:= . 'c 2 =! W i i 1.5, '10;= U oi '* l'a ; 5 ir, CD c~ < - N M e Ln CD r~ Co CD C> - N M le V> c~ %4. U7 Cz %,0 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY I: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIKING AND AMOUNT OF PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTIC. 0.50 0.30 CE M z 2 < 0.10 D4 R0.96 (B&H) R ~ 0.84 (SC) 15 -0.1d2_20 2.40 2.6QP 2.80 3.00 .0.30 OH -0.50 IRRITATION 0.40 zB U 0.20 - co R 0.95 (B&H) ~- 0.00 1 -- --Ur- R = 0.88 (SC) < 04 0 2.~C 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 es i 0.20 Uj OD ~9 -0.40 ON -0.60 THROAT CATCH 0.10 0.00 z -~o Z40 2.60 2.80 C03.00 3.20 = 0.4. CH z -0.20- As < i 11 w -0.30 CN 68 R = 0.98 (B&H) R = 0.98 (SC) < -0.40 Uj N., -0.50 GOSH -0.60 ON I L -0.70 TASTE AMOUNT PRODUCT KEY. Q= Amber (Tried I st.) H= B & H tights C3 Silk Cut Panel D= Amber N= Silk Cut a 3&H Panel B= Amber + Flavour BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA T013ACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Smoke Moisture As in previous studies, both panels tended to describe all the cigarettes as being too dryAacking moisture, and indeed the intercepts tended to be well removed from the actual products (3.10 for Silk Cut panel and 3.40 for Benson & Hedges panel). Because of the distance between products and intercept, the differences between the intercepts may well be overstated. 0 Bitter/Sweat Flavour The Silk Cut panel did not show any obvious relationship between the absolute and hedonic scores for bitterlsweet flavour. They tended to describe all the cigarettes as being too bitter/not sweet enough. The Benson & Hedges panel, however, did find some association and tended to describe Amber as closest to ideal. The intercepts for ideal bitter/sweet taste were 3.61 for Silk Cut panel and 2.912 for Benson & Hedges panel. Amount of Aftertaste These associations were generally similar to those observed for 'irritation, throat catch and taste amount. The Benson & Hedges panel tended to describe the cigarettes as lacking aftertaste, whereas the Silk Cut panel tended to describe the majority of the cigarettes as having too much aftertaste. C -- k-n Co \0 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIKING AND AMOUNT OF PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTIC. lu 0.1)0 1 - I 40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 J.- -0. 1 ~- 2 R = 0.95 (B&H) lu R = 0.93 (SC) 0 .0.30 M CD w -0.40 tu am -0.50 4 -0.60 0-10 T SMOKE MOISTURE Uj 2M 2.70 2.80 2.90 R0.97 (S&H) !! =' -0 10 00 R = 0.54 (SC) =5 , I LU >~c I L: -3 -0-20 - 11 LL. 1 -0.40 i CH EMco BITTER/ SWEET FLAVOUR 0.30 CM LM CS 0 U, CH ~- 1- z go M "I 0 ~- 0 1 ~-T 0 2.50 2.60 2.7&2-80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 R = 0.86 (S&H) ~ 2 2' - - 000~ Uj R = 0.98 (SC) < I.- ~ tu U- 00 :9 < OH -0.50 AMOUNT OF AFTERTASTE PRODUCT KEY. Q Q= Amber (Tried I st.) H= B & H Lights 0 Silk Cut Panel C D= Amber N= Silk Cut qp S&H Panel Q B= Amber + Flavcur Q BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Both panels agreed that Silk Cut possessed much less aftertaste than the other cigarettes. The intercepts measured were 2.81 for the Silk Cut panel and 2.89 for the Benson & Hedges panel. 0 0 Ln C:D \.O ,Ili BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Comparison of the ideal profiles for the two groups of smokers shows them to be fairly similar, with the exception of the bitter/sweet scores. However, the two groups of smokers do use the scales quite differently, with Silk Cut smokers tending to find the products spanning the ideal range, and the Benson & Hedges smokers tending to describe . all the cigarettes as lacking in most attributes. Benson & Hedges smokers were generally looking for greater levels of mouthful of smoke, initial satisfaction, irritation, throat catch, taste amount and aftertaste amount, compared to Silk Cut smokers, which probably explains why the Amber variants performed significantly better for this panel of smokers. The two panels did tend to agree in absolute terms on draw effort, with both Amber variants being described as close to ideal for draw effort by both panels of srnokers. VI CD (Ji Cz N'o Co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 LU 0 A4!jeno ajeeps4V I'a :2 I- I L) Ca 1:1 z o=eqo_L JeIMUN LLJ ry A;yenjo else.L jUn0wV -12 033eco < U) LLJ ;Sams lje;lis 0 ry 9jnjs1oVq 9~joLwS LL) ;unouiV 9;se.L LIJ Poleo leonll 0 z 0 uoqe;pij 0 C/) uol;oelsiles 1811jul C I amows sk. 0 1 .. 1* " \- ;0 jnjqjnoVq Ui N mioos 3-Lnew~v BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 COMPARISON BETWEEN AMBER VARIANTS - enson & Hedges P2ngl Both products tended to be quite far removed from the panel ideal, particularly in terms of mouthful of smoke, initial satisfac-,ion, throat catch, taste amount and smoke moisture. Amber + Flavour,tended to be closer to ideal for mouthful of smoke, initial satisfaction, throat catch and taste amount, butless close on smoke moisture, and bitterlsweet flavour. Both products were close to ideal on draw effort. Not surprisingly then, both products were described as similarly acceptable. Silk Cut Panel Both products were described very similarly by the Silk Cut panel, and both were equally acceptable overall. They differed from the panel ideal in being a little too high in irritation and throat catch, and a little too low in smoke moisture and bitter/sweet flavour. Draw effort was close to ideal for both products. Un CD \10 CD CD BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITTGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 1 X411!qeldajov LLI 0 LL 2 + E E ODDEqOJ- IB.JnIL>N oc 0 cn 1 1 junowV F- - : z < IL, 1 -1 . Id Ozoeqo.L ;eems lien! a ain;stcvy G~0ws pnouiv e;se.L LU ". 1 LU Lpeo ~20jq.L LU M z C) UD CLI - - U0110ejsges fel lui < 7 .1. emows 01 jC) injt4novy 11 c> c:: %-Z CD RATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Ajjj!qejde=V A;!IenC) alsepe:UV D C) -j I -a (D (D - IJ E E c00eqOl PUMSN AlijenC) else U)i junoLuV < 91se~j8:4V C/) '1=1 03:)eqo.L LU IX ;Sams IMP3 LLJ C) 9.jn~spVV e~oLuS z w LU junouiV alse_L LIJ I z 0 ry U01jej!.Uj < U0110elsiles jell!uj 0 9~ows 10 jn;t4;noVj It -- - ! ljomij MWC3 3Noos 3-Ln9iN.LLv Ln \0 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA T013ACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 COMPARISON BETWEEN AMBER AND BENSON-& HEDGES LIGHTS Benson & Hedqes Panel Benson & Hedges Lights were described as further away from ideal on all attributes scores, compared to Amber. 11t was particularly criticised for its high draw effort. .0 Not surprisingly, therefore, it was less acceptable than Amber. Silk -Cut Panel Benson & Hedges Lights were described by this panel as further away from ideal on draw eflort, mouthful of smoke, initial satisfaction, smoke moisture and bitterlsweet flavour, but closer to ideal for irritation, throat catch and aftertaste amount. On balance, Benson & Hedges Lights were considered to be slightly less acceptable overall. 0 (J-1 \~D C:) QA BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 J(4!1!qL"Ida=v LU LU 1 a) r- Ca. fn o=iBqo.L lein;EN < if 4, z 4!lenc) aise-L C) cn CID z Y luncwV Lii LU elsz;ia;;v lm V 0 Id cozeqo.L C/) LLI C-C ejnlsioVy ejowS < Z ;unowV O;se_L LU LU (D LLI z uollel!jjl < uoi le lul amows (Di jo iryi4;ncVy MdOOS nSlti.LLV %,0 CD Z-1 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 C/) I LLI I (D 2 , - Ajpnz) ejse~104V LLJ I t i a) .0 945 'IZI E I ~ 0c; C I - < 380.01 ILJrl;eN z < z 41ano elsei 0 0 LJJ Z y junowV LIJ C) alse:P94V cl) z 0--38q0 I < C) U I v ein'SIOIN a~CLUS JUn0LUV alse-L LLI LLI 3F- : T - F- Lpleo le0i4i LL1 M z 0 0 C/) 1. 1 ry 9~OLUS 10 jrqt4jnovq Jj0;;3 Meicl 4r W! M Ui N B'dOOS 31nGULLV BATCO, CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. , BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 COMPARISON BETWEEN AMBER AND SILK CUT Benson & Hedges Panel Silk Cut was described as further away from ideal on all attributes scores, compared to Amber, and was described as significantly less acceptable than Amber. Silk Cut Panel Silk Cut was described as further away from ideal on draw effort, mouthful of smoke, initial satisfaction, taste amount and smoke moisture, but closer to ideal for irritation, throat catch and aftertaste amount. On balance, Silk Cut was considered to be slightly less acceptable overall. Ln BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 (D E- < 000eqcJ- IBMWN AllienC) alse.L 9 C/) I - - junowV n GISBIJ94V z < 1 *1.-1 0-_31Rq0.L zi LU In ~4 C) emisioVy aNowS < Z LU Ui junowV 91sa_L LIJ I L13183 Je0JL4.L z 0 U01jelpil < M 0 S~OLUS 10 jnjt4jnoVq :PO.43 MZJC cli \0 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL'- CATEGORY 1. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Ajjj!q8;dnoV - 105 I ~5 . - < &0 NO >- 0004 -L PMEN rr) jUn0wV U) I I q;S8jjqUV 0338q0-L 9jnjs!oVV a~owS < U) z LLJ junoLuV qjsa_L cc qojeo ;e0jqj- z 0 uol;e;!Jjl BXOLUS 1 ;0 jnp4jncVj lip.43 Meg] Vi V) Ln M N ~_n MIMS 3j-nsl6j-Lv C-- LU LLLI L, M 0~ \Z CD co BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 MSTS LTD., PROJECT NAME: SLIPS 54-62,STATION ROAD EAST, PROJECT No: 463 OXTED, SERIAL No: SURREY. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) RH80PG 0 1 TEL 0883 713830 RESPONDENT NO: PLEASE PRINT ALL INFORMATION GENDER: (10) Name: Male 1 Address: Female 2 Post Code: CHILDREN I< 16)IN HOUSEHOLD: (11) Tel no:(inc STD) Yes I OCCUPATION OF CHIEF WAGE No 2 EARNER,/ HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD REGION: (12) South-east I Position: South-west 2 Industry* Midlands 3 Qualifications / skills: North-east 4 North-west 5 Number responsible for, MOST OFTEN SMOKED BRAND: (13) SOCIAL GROUP: (6) Silk Cut King Size I AS 1 Benson & Hedges SFKS 2 C1 2 C2 3 DE 4 AGE. (exact last birthday) _yrs (7) 18-24 1 25-34 2 35-44 3 45-54 4 55-64 5 65+ CLOSE INTERVIEWER DECLARATION MARITAL STATUS: (8) 1 declare that the respondent,was not known to me at the time of the Married 1 interview,and that I conducted the Separated / Divorced Widowed 2 interview as instructed and in Single/ unmarried 3 accordance with the MRS code of conduct. Lr_' WORKING STATUS: (9) C:) C-D INT.SIGNATURE: (14) Non - working I INT.NUMBER: (15) Work part-time 2 LOCATION: (16) Work full-time 3 DATE: (17) \-0 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Q1.Good morning /afternoon I evening.1 am from MSTS LTD and we are carrying out a survey in this areaJust to check that we speak to a good cross section of the population would you please tell me whether you or any of your friends or relatives work in any of the following occupations? SHOW CARD A Banking Building 2 Hairdressing 3 Advertising N IF'N' CODED Marketing N 00 NOT Journalism / TV / Radio N RECRUIT - Public Relations N Market Research N OTHERS Manufacture / Sales of Cigarettes or other Tobacco Products N CONTINUE. Manufacture / Sales of Beers,Wines,or Spirits 4 Manufacture / Sales of Dairy Produce 5 01b.Have you taken part in any market research survey in the last 3 months? YES - CLOSE NO - CONTINUE 02.We are in fact conducting research on cigarettes.Would you mind telling me whether you smokeand if so about how many cigarettes you smoke each day? (18) I do not smoke cigarettes N CLOSE IF'N' I smoke less than 10 per day N CODED I smoke between 10 and 19 per day 1 1 smoke between 20 and 29 per day 2 I smoke between 30 and 39 per day 3 1 smoke more than 40 cigarettes per day 4 03.For how many years would you say that you have been smoking cigarettes? (19) Less than 1 year N CLOSE IF 'N' Between I and 5 years I CODED Between 6 and 10 years 2 Between I I and 20 years 3 Between 21 and 30 years 4 For more than 30 years 5 04a.Which brand of cigarette would you say that you smoke most often? (20) SHOW CARD 8 SMOKE MOST OFTEN Benson & Hedges Special Filter K.S. 1 Silk Cut King Size 2 Other Brands CLOSE RESPONDENTS MUST CLAIM TO SMOKE BENSON & HEDGES MOST OFTEN OR SILK CUT KING SIZE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RESEARCH. -RECRUIT ELIGIBLE RESPONDENT TO B & H QUOTA OR SILK CUT QUOTA AND RECORD ON FRONT PAGE. CD %10 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY I: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 05.How Icng have you been smoking Benson & Hedges Silk Cut K.S.(as appropriate) as your regular Brand? (21) Less than 6 months N CLOSE IF'N' Between S mths and I year I CODED Between I and 2 years 2 Between 3 and 4 years 3 For more than 5 years 4 06-Which other brand(s) of eigarette,besides Benson and Hedges Silk Cut K.S. (as appropriate), do you smoke at all nowadays? SHOW CARD B AGAIN (22) Benson & Hedges Special Filter King Size I Dunhill King Size 2 Embassy No I King Size 3 John Player Superkings 4 Lambert & BuUer King Size 5 Marlboro King Size 6 Red Band King Size 7 Rothmans King Size Filter 8 Victoria Wine Special Filter 9 Silk Cut King Size 0 Marlboro Light x (23) Raffles Light 1 Rothmans Light 2 J.P.S. Light 3 Benson & Hedges Superking Light 4 John Player Superking Light 5 Dunhill Superior Mild 6 Embassy Mild 7 Lambert & Butler Mild a Others (specity 9 Do not smoke any other brand 0 INVITE RESPONDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RESEARCH AND EXPLAIN WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED OF THEM.GIVE THEM AN INVITATION WITH THE APPOINTMENT DATES AND TIMES WRITTEN IN. 0 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 IVISTS LTD., PROJECT NAME: SLIPS 54-62,STATION ROAD EAST, PROJECT No: 463 OXTED, SERIAL No: SURREY. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) RH80PG 013 TEL- 0883 713830 RESPONDENT NAME: RESP. NO: ADDRESS: TEST INSTRUCTIONS I have 5 different commercial cigarettes that I should like you to smoke,though you will only receive one at a time.At each visit I will leave you with one of the cigarettes,which will be in a plain pack marked with a code number. I shall retum every two days in order to give you each of the test cigarettes. Please smoke the whole pack of cigarettes,or as many as you feet you wish before answering a few simple questions on the following questionnaire. The questions relate to specific cigarette attributes which will first be fully described.For eadli attribute there will be 2 questions.The first question about a particular characteristic tries to establish "how much" of that particular characteristic is present in the cigarette or smoke.The scale will run from I to 5 with the ends of the scale appropriately labelled.This is shown below for'DRAW EFFOR7. EXAMPLE: DRAW EFFORT!7-The amount of effort necessary,drawing or sucking on the dgarette,in order to get a satisfactory puff of smoke in the mouth. Qa.How would you describe the DRAW EFFORT of this cigarette? EASY 1 2 3 4 5 HARD A score of 1 means it is easy to draw on the cigarette,and a score of 5 means it is hard to draw on.Values between 1 and 5 are obviously intermediate in value. Place a circle around the number which best reflects your opinion. The second question on each attribute is intended to record how suitable the amount of that characteristic was for~you. The scale will go from "much too easy" to "much too hard" with a mid point of "about right for me" and you would circle whichever is appropriate for you.eq. b.How much did you like this Cigarette for DRAW EFFORT? (circle one number) Much too easy Slightly too easy About right Srightly too hard Much too hard 1 2 3 4 I would like to emphasise that there are no right or wrong answers. I just want your opinions about various aspects of the cigarettes. Please be honest in your responses. PLACEMENT No:; 1 3 - 4 - 5 (6) PRODUCT CODE. (7) U- INTERVIEWER TO COMPLETE PLACEMENT No. AND PRODUCT CODE BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 PLEASE SCORE THE CIGARETTES THAT YOU HAVE JUST SMOKED ON THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS. Q1 a.How would you describe this cigarette for DRAW EFFORI-? (circle one number) The amount of effort necessarydrawing or sucking EASY HARD on the cigarette,to get a satisfactory puff of smoke 1 2 3 4 5 into the mouth. Q1 b.How much did you like this cigarette for DRAW EFFORT? (circle one number) Much too easy Slightly too easy About right Slightly too hardMuch too hard 1 2 3 4 5 02aHowwould you de5cribe this cigarette for MOUTHFUL OF SMOKE (cirdeonenumber) The impression of the amount of smoke filling the LOW HIGH mouth on taking normal puffs . 1 2 3 4 5 is 02b.How much did you like this cigarette for MOUTHFUL OF SMOKE? (circie one number) Much too low Slightly too low About right Slightly too high Mucri too high (12) 1 2 3 4 5 Q321-iow would you describe this cigarette for INITIAL SATISFAC7LO-N7 (Circle one numbO (13) The extent to which the cigarette is capable of LOW HIGH delivering satisfactory puffs of smoke even in the 1 2 3 4 5 starting puff or two. Q3b.How much did you like this cigarette for INITIAL SATISFACTION? (circle one number) Much too low Slightly too low About right Slightly to* high Much too high (14) 1 2 3 4 5 04a.How would you describe this ciqarette for IRRITATION? (circle one number) (15) The lingering sensation of temperature hotness. LOW HIGH fingling,prickling.feft in the mouth / upper throat. 1 2 3 4 5 A physical sensation lasting over several seconds. 04b.How much did you like this cigarette for IRRITATION (circle one number) Much too low Slightly too low About right Slightly too high, Much. too high (16) 1 2 3 4 5 Q5a.How would you describe this cigarette for THROAT CATCH f HIT? (circle one number) (17) The short,sharp momentary "kick' or 'hir sensation felt in the lower throat/ upper chest region specificaity LOW HIGH as the smoke goes down.1t is noticed immediately as 1 2 3 4 5 the smoke contacts the throat and lasts a second or less. 05b,How much did you like this cigarette for THROAT CATCH I HIT? (circle one number) C-- much too low Slightly too low About right Slightly too high Much too high 1 2 3 4 5 %10 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 :16a.How would you describe this cigarette for TASTE AMOUNTI (circle one number) The-am= of flavour that the cigarette has. LOW HIGH irrespective of whether you think the character 1 2 3 4 5 of the flavour is good or bad. Zl5b.How much did you like this cigarette for TASTE AMQUNT? (circ!e one number) Much too low Slightly too low About right Slightly too high Much too high (20) 1 2 3 4 5 017.How would you describe the cigarette for TASTE QUALIDL? (circle one number) (21) The degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness UNPLEASANT PLEASANT of the flavour that is present during smoking. 1 2 3 4 5 -18a.How would you describe the cigarette for, SMOKE MOIS74 URE? (circle one number) (22) The moistness of feel of smoke in the mouth. CRY MOIST 2 3 4 5 08b.how much (lid you like this cigarette for SMOKE MOISTURE (circle one number) Much too dry Slightly too dry About fight Slightly too moist Much too moist (23) 2 3 4 5 QS.Howwould'you describe the cigarette for NATURAL TOBACCO FLAVOUR (drcleonenumbeo (24) The degree of natural flavour in the smoke AR71 IRCIAL NATURAL 1 2 3 4 5 210aHow would you describe the c~garette for Brr-TER / SAEZ:i T OBACCO FLAVOUR? (circle one number) (25) The relative sweetness of the tobacco B IT T ER SWEET flavour. 1 2 3 4 5 0, 110b.How much did you like this cigarette for SITTER/ SWEE-jTASTE (circle one number) Much too bitter Slightly too bitter About right Slightly too sweet Much too sweet (26) 2 3 4 (21 taHow would you describe this cigarette for AIFTERTASTE AMOUNT (circle one numbeo (27) The amount of lingering flavour that the LOW HIGH cigarette leaves in the mouth immediately after 1 2 3 4 5 having finished it (irrespective of whether you think the character of the 112VOUr is good or bad). ~1 1 b.How much did you like this cigarette for AFTERTASTE AMOUNT? (circle one number) Much too low Slightly too low About right Slightly too high - Much too high (28) 1 2 3 4 5 %10 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 QIZHow would you describe this cigarette for AFTERTASTE QUALITY? (circle one number) (29) The degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness UNPLEASANT PLEASANT of the aftertaste that is left after you have finished 1 2 3 4, 5 smoking. 113.ACCEPTABILFTY (30) VERY VERY Ail things consideredhow UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE acceptable is the cigarette to you? 1 2 3 4 5 r114.What if anything did you particularly like about this park of cigarettes?(Write answers below) (31) (32) (33) (34) Q15.What if anything did you particularly dislike about this park of cigarettes?(Write, answers below) (35) (36) (37) (38) W16.Finally,what improvernents.if any.would you suggest to the manufacturer in order to improve this (39) cigarette? (Write answer below)? (40) (41) (42) 0 THAT IS ALL FOR THIS PARTICULAR CIGARETTE. BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 BATCO CONFIDENTIAL - CATEGORY 1: MINNESOTA ToJ3ACCO LITIGATION. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999