sample="quota" bates="85384790" isource="ll" decade="1980" class="ni" date="19850520" File Lorillard MEMORANDUM May 20, 1985 TO: E. M. Kiernan FROM: J. B. Asher RE: KENT M-1/M-3 LIVEABILITY STUDY - TOPLINE REPORT (MRD # 5541/1184) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In 1984, Marketing and R & D efforts to reformulate Kent Parent met with success with the development of the M-1, M-3 step-wise progression. These blends were consumer tested in the Starch Panel. The M-1 and M-2 blends were tested in a blind paired comparison in-home use test. The results of this test led to the refinements of M-2 and its transition into M-3. The new blend was found to be acceptable in the Starch Panel, and was not re-tested in a paired-comparison setting. Presently, M-1 is in a "little America" test 'market which will follow the proposed national plan. The Phoenix test market is a short-cut approach, in which the M-3 blend has been introduced without the intermediary step of the M-1 blend. Marketing requested additional information to help assess the expected performance of the blends and provide an early read on the likely outcomes of the test markets. As such, the purpose of this research is to provide an additional aid in evaluating the acceptability/risk profile of the blend reformulations by having consumers smoke more of the product, and over a longer period of time, than is the case in a standard product test. METHOD The liveability study was conducted in which respondents were sent one unidentified carton of test product to smoke and asked to evaluate it twice on a monadic basis. More specifically, respondents were screened via WATS telephone (using lists of names) and mailed one unidentified carton of test product. First callbacks were conducted after respondents had smoked at least one pack (but not more than 2 packs). The same respondents were then re-contacted after a total of one week (and they had smoked nearly the full carton) to determine the change in reactions, if any, over time. This monadic test consisted of the following products and sample composition: CONCLUSIONS All of the blends (M-1, M03 -- 85mm, 100mm) exhibited acceptable extended use of performance. In fact, the overall ratings improved - especially among the female segment. Both sizes of the M-1 blend could be improved slightly by addressing the harshness issue. This was evidenced by the ratings for a biting taste in the mouth and in the throat. It should be noted that Marlboro Lights showed a similar harshness problem, but this problem should, nevertheless, be addressed. Kent smokers' reactions to the M-1 blends were very consistent with competitive smokers -- that is, the blend is acceptable over time and could be improved somewhat by smoking it less harsh. The M-3 blends were also acceptable over time but seem to require more attention with regard to the harshness problem as several harshness-related attributes were rated lower after extended use. DETAIL FINDINGS I. 85 MM A. Competitive Low Tar Smokers 1. Overall Ratings After extended use, the overall ratings for both the M-1 and M-3 blends improved relative to the initial ratings. On a top two box basis, there increases were significant for M-3 and directional for M-1. There was a comparable increase evidenced for Marlboro Lights. It should be noted, however, that the absolute levels were considerably higher for Marlboro Lights than for either M-1 or M-3. All three products showed more of an improvement among females. The increase for Marlboro Lights and the M-1 blend was traceable to the 35+ segment, while for M-3 it was due more to the 21-24 year olds. (See Tables 1a-b) 2. Purchase Interest In total, purchase interest levels were unchanged for M-1, M-3 and Marlboro Lights. Positive purchase interest was constant for M-1 and Marlboro Lights among sub-groups, however top box scores for M-1 were directionally higher among females and the 35+ segment. Positive interest (top two box) for M-3 was directionally lower after extended use among males, and higher among females. There were no differences for M-3 by age. (See Tables 2a-b) 3. Attribute Ratings Extended usage of the blends revealed some problems in terms of harshness. Specifically, ratings for M-1 were directionally lower for: Not having a biting taste in the mouth Not having a biting taste in the throat Ratings for M-3 were significantly lower for: Not being harsh tasting Having a smooth taste Not having a biting taste in the mouth Not having a biting taste in the throat and directionally lower for: Being easy to draw on Having a mild taste Ratings for Marlboro Lights were directionally lower for: Having the right amount of taste Not being harsh tasting Having a smooth taste Having a mild taste Not having a biting taste in the throat (See Table 3) B. Kent Smokers 1. King Size Overall Ratings As evidenced among competitive low tar smokers, the overall rating for M-1 improved among Kent smokers after extended use. The increase was traceable to females and both age groups. (See Tables 4a-b) 2. Purchase Interest Kent King Size smokers purchase interest held constant for M-1, similar to the reaction of competitive smokers. Also consistent with the performance among competitive smokers, top box scores for M-1 were directionally higher after extended use among females. However, Kent smokers evidenced no difference by age. (See Table 5a-b) 3. Attribute Ratings Kent King Size smokers were mostly consistent with competitive smokers in terms of attribute ratings. Both groups showed a directional decline after extended use for: Not having a biting taste in the mouth Not having a biting taste in the throat However, Kent smokers rated the blend more favorably after extended use for having the right amount of sweetness. II. 100 MM A. Competitive Low Tar Smokers 1. Overall Ratings After extended use, the overall ratings for the M-1 and, to a lesser extent, the M-3 blends improved relative to the initial ratings. There was a comparable increase evidenced for Marlboro Lights The increases were mostly traceable to females and the 35+ segment for all three products. (see Tables 7a-b) 2. Purchase Interest Positive purchase interest declined directionally after extended use of M-1 and was unchanged for M-3 and Marlboro Lights. Importantly, top box scores were stable for M-1 and directionally higher for M-3. (See Table 8a) The extended use levels were slightly higher among males for M-1, and among females for M-3. The only difference by age was a directionally lower positive (top two box) interest for M-1 after extended use among the 35+ segment. This was not supported by other data. (See Table 8b) 3. Attribute Ratings The M-1 100's blend exhibited similar deficiencies for harshness related attributes that were evidenced for the 85mm product. Specifically, the scores were directionally lower after extended use for: Not having a biting taste in the mouth Not being harsh tasting Being easy to draw on and significantly lower for being pleasant to smoke while relaxing. The M-3 blend showed directionally lower scores for: Having a satisfying flavor Being easy to draw on after extended use. Marlboro Lights declined for: Not having a biting taste in the throat Not being harsh tasting and posted a higher rating for having the right amount of sweetness. (See Table 9) B. Kent Smokers 1. Overall Rating As seen among competitive smokers, Kent smokers rated the blend higher after extended use. The ratings increased among both sexes and age groups but was more prominent among females and the 50+ segment. (See Tables 10a-b) 2. Purchase Interest Purchase interest levels were stable in total, with a directional increase in top box scores among females, and a significant upswing after extended use among the 21-49 segment. (See Tables 11a-b) 3. Attribute Ratings After extended use, there was no difference in the ratings as compared with the initial ratings except a directional decline for not having a biting taste in the throat. (See Table 12) If you have any questions, please call. J. B. A. /mn Att. cc: M. H. Burke E. P. Farrell S. T. Jones A. B. Hudson (GBO) V. L. Lamb L. R. Moroz I. J. Staub FCB J. Angus P. Iffland F. Plantilla D. Thomas