sample="quota" bates="2040260786" isource="pm" decade="1970" class="ui" date="19790725" PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. MARKETING RESEARCH DEP ARTMENT REPORT CONFIDENTIAL MRD #: 79047 DATED: July 25, 1979 WRITTEN BY: Jeanne Bonhomme Distribution: R. Fitzmaurice T. Keim J. Morgan SUBJECT: Evaluation of low tar brand names BACKGROUND In order to evaluate five names for a new ultra-low tar cigarette entry, a central location test was conducted among low and ultra low tar smokers. FINDINGS 1. Overall Ranking In terms of interest in trying, the relative standing is as follows. The same general trend exists among men, as well as women. 2. Attribute Ratings Smokers were asked to rate each of the names on a "7" point scale for both product and smoker attributes. For the most part names, with the exception of Sano, elicited quite similar product and smoker profiles. Although the difference are slight the following directional trends exist. Cambridge is visualized as a stylish brand for classy, older, educated white collar workers. Whereas Summit is perceived as a low tar brand which is smooth to the mouth and throat and slightly safer to smoke than the others. The Summit smoker, as imagined by respondents, would be: younger more modern, and one who prefers low tar brands The following menthol characteristics were associated more so with Summit than the other names: refreshing, cool tasting, and for menthol smokers (See Table 2 & 3) 3. Dislikes Cambridge and Summit received the lowest level of criticisms. (Both 46%) A dislike was mentioned by 55% for both Belmont and Mayfield and by 71% for Sano. The major dislikes for each name are: Cambridge % Full flavor - too strong/harsh 14 Upscale - too high class / foreign 111 Summit Menthol / reminds me of menthol 15 Belmont Menthol / reminds me of menthol 14 Full flavor - too strong/harsh 13 Sounds like a racetrack 10 Mayfield Low tar - mild tasting / low in tar 10 Menthol / reminds me of menthol 9 Full flavor - too strong / harsh Sano Full flavor - too strong / harsh 17 Foreign sounding name 11 Dislike the name / a poor name 11 (See Table 4) 4. Appropriateness of names for concepts Respondents were asked to read two descriptions and then select the name which fit each description best and second best. The descriptions read as follows: This is an ultra low tar product for those who prefer the milder taste of an ultra low tar cigarette. This is an ultra low tar cigarette that will offer the lowest tar delivery of any product on the market. With the exception of Sano, the same pattern of strength emerged for both concepts. With Summit being chosen more often than any other name and Mayfield next. Since the patterns of response for four of the names was so similar, the table below presents the concept data collected, (both concepts combined) rather than individually. The individual numbers can be found in Table 5. The Sano response was different for the two concepts. Sano was selected more frequently for the "lowest tar" concept (43%) than for the "ultra low" concept (34%). This high number of votes is due to the choices of men. METHOD Who - Low and ultra low tar smokers, 18 years of age or older. 1/2 men, 1/2 women 1/2 18-34, 1/2 35 and over What - Evaluated five alternative brand names. The order of exposure to the names was rotated from respondent to respondent to minimize positional bias. (See copy of packs Table 7) How - In an identical manner to the methodology used in previously conducted name research. The procedure involved smokers viewing one name at a time on plain white packs, each of which had one brand name and nothing else printed on it. Then the smokers were asked to rate both the product and its' smoker on various characteristics using a "7" point semantic differential scale. Subsequent questions included a ranking of the brands in terms of interest in trying and product dislikes for each name. After this, respondents were shown a description for an ultra low tar cigarette and asked to select the brand which was most and second most appropriate for it. They were then given another description, only this time for an ultra low tar product with the lowest tar delivery. Next, the appropriateness questions were re-asked. Furthermore, the order of exposure to the concepts was rotated to control for position bias. (See concept descriptions Table 6) Where - Fort Worth, Chicago and suburban New York. When - June, 1979 HOW TO READ THE DATA As a reminder, when reading average ratings obtained from 7 point scales (Table 2 and 3), it is important to read the ratings not only according to their position above or below the mean; that is better than average (greater than 4.0), poorer than average (less than 4.0) but also in terms of the range of scores actually obtained for all names. Because of this, the highest and lowest rating obtained for each characteristic is presented on these tables. Question: This (SHOW CONCEPT CARD P) is a description of one of the cigarettes we have been talking about. Which of the five brands do you think it is? What other brand do you think it is? This (SHOW CONCEPT CARD Q) is another description of the cigarettes we have been talking about. It could be the same name you mentioned before or a different one. Which of the five brands do you think it is? This is an ultra low-tar product for those who prefer the milder taste of an ultra low-tar cigarette This is an ultra low-tar cigarette that will offer the lowest tar delivery or any product on the market