Reports that Matter

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.: Amended Final Opinion

Defendants Internally Recognized that Smokers Switch to Low

Section 67 of 129

Defendants Internally Recognized that Smokers Switch to Low

Tar/Light Cigarettes, Rather than Quit Smoking, Because They Believe They Are Less Harmful 2230. The evidence shows that even though low tar smokers may have a greater desire to

quit, the misperception of increased safety associated with low tar cigarettes persuades them to avoid quitting. Research shows that most low tar cigarette smokers have made a greater number of quit attempts than smokers of full flavor cigarettes, or were more likely to have considered quitting. (Weinstein WD, 56:21-57:8 (citing Giovino, et al., 1996)).

  1. Many smokers who were concerned about the risks of smoking responded by switching to low tar cigarettes instead of quitting. Burns WD, 46:21-47:9.

  2. "There is profound harm" for people who smoke low tar cigarettes. As Dr. Burns explained:

The vast majority of people who smoke are addicted. They're interested in quitting but are unable to do so. . . . To provide smokers an alternative that says you don't have to quit, you can use this other type of cigarette, to intercept them on the way to quitting smoking is a profound harm because they continue to smoke longer than they might have otherwise. Some of those people who switched might have . . . been successful in quitting, and when they did that, they would have in actuality reduced their disease risks. And those individuals have been profoundly harmed.

Burns WD, 1:10-15; 12:10-11; 61:14-62:4; Burns TT, 2/15/05, 13311:9-15.

  1. The 2004 Report of the Surgeon General noted that "[r]esearch has demonstrated that with the expectation of reducing risk, many smokers switched to low machine-measured tar/nicotine cigarettes, and may thus have been deterred from quitting". TLT0930001-0949 at 0911 (US 88621). NCI Monograph 13 noted that "substantial numbers of smokers" switched to cigarettes with lower machine-measured tar yields "in an effort to reduce their disease risks," and that "[t]he switch to low machine-measured-yield cigarettes with the illusion of risk reduction was, therefore, substituted for a real risk reduction that would have occurred had the smoker quit smoking altogether." DXA0310399-0650 at 0418 (US 58700).
850

  1. As demonstrated below, Defendants conducted extensive research on quitting to help them identify and understand potential quitters (i.e., smokers who were "concerned" and "uncomfortable" with the fact that they smoke) and design marketing that would dissuade them from quitting. Defendants' internal documents demonstrate their recognition that smokers interested in quitting smoking were instead switching to low tar cigarettes under the mistaken belief that doing so would either help them quit or be better for their health.

  2. For example, a 1987 National Health Interview Survey showed that 44% of current smokers had, at some point, switched to low tar cigarettes to reduce their health risk. Weinstein WD, 53:19-22 (citing, Giovino, et al., 1996). Correspondingly, another national survey showed that 58% of ultra light smokers and 39% of light smokers chose those cigarettes to reduce their health risks without having to quit. Furthermore, 49% of ultra light smokers and 30% of light smokers did so as a step toward quitting. Weinstein WD, 53:23-54:7 (citing, Kozlowski, Goldberg, et al., 1998). Finally, the 1993 Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey showed that 21% of light or ultra light cigarette smokers chose those brands because they perceived them to be healthier. Weinstein WD, 54:13-15 (citing Giovino, et al., 1996).

  3. According to Dr. William Farone, former Director of Applied Research at Philip Morris, one reason that low tar cigarettes "are more dangerous" than full-flavor cigarettes is that "they lead people to believe they are [safer] so that they smoke them in manners that cause them to get just as much toxins." Farone WD, 2:2-8; 2:15-19; Farone TT, 10/7/04, 1878:16-22; Farone TT, 10/12/04, 2171:25-2172:8; 2182:11-2190:7.

851
  1. Dr. Farone explained that: The problem is that when people see that word "light," it is my opinion that they believe it's safer and, in fact, it isn't, so that's what this is all about . . . they are more dangerous because people are smoking them thinking they are doing themselves some good, they think they are safer . . . there is no benefit to a smoker from Marlboro Lights compared to Marlboro. That's the main point. So that makes it more dangerous.

Farone TT, 10/7/04, 1865:9-23.

  1. Smokers of light and ultra light cigarettes are more concerned about the risks of smoking than smokers of full flavor cigarettes. A 1986 CDC control study showed that 85% of those who switched from full flavored cigarettes to light or ultra light cigarettes were concerned about the health risks of smoking, as compared to 70% of full flavor smokers. Weinstein WD, 56:13-20 (citing Giovino, et al., 1996). Ultra light smokers are also more likely to use tar numbers in judging the relative risk of cigarettes. A study showed that 56% of ultra light smokers rely on tar numbers to determine cigarette safety, as compared to 14% of the overall sample. Moreover, 83% of the ultra light smokers believed that switching from a 20 mg to a 5 mg cigarette would significantly reduce health risks, whereas 50% of other smokers shared that same belief. Weinstein WD, 56:3-12 (citing Cohen, J.B., Ch. 9 of Monograph 7, "Consumer/smoker Perceptions of Federal Trade Commission Tar Ratings").
852

a. Defendants Recognized that Smokers Choose Light/Low Tar Cigarettes for a Perceived Health Benefit 2239. Defendants have stated publicly that they produce low tar cigarettes only to

accommodate consumer taste preferences for "lighter," "milder" tasting cigarettes, and that they do not intend their use of brand descriptors or their marketing of low tar cigarettes to imply a less harmful product. See Section V(E)(5), infra (discussing Defendants' false statements regarding their low tar cigarette marketing). Contrary to their public statements, however, Defendants' internal marketing documents establish that Defendants have known for decades that even though consumers prefer the taste of regular cigarettes to low tar cigarettes, they are willing to forgo them and smoke low tar cigarettes, which are less enjoyable and have a less appealing taste, because they believe low tar cigarettes are better for their health.

(1) Philip Morris 2240. According to Jeanne Bonhomme, Director of Consumer Insights for Philip Morris,

in her experience, "there is a general perception among consumers that as you go down in tar, cigarettes have less taste." For this reason, Philip Morris planned to produce a low tar Merit cigarette that tasted like a cigarette with higher tar. A June 30, 1993 document from a Philip Morris USA New Products Meeting, titled "Marlboro New Product Development," stated that the "Project" was to "[b]uild the Merit business by introducing a 3 mg product that tastes like a 5 mg." Philip Morris also planned to "[d]evelop a 6 mg Tar Cigarette with the Sensory Attributes of an 8-9 mg Tar Cigarette." Bonhomme WD, 56:13-57:6; 2041453659-3754 at 3681, 3743 (US 23906); see also 2021323470-3540 at 3478 (US 85034*) (Philip Morris's 1992 R&D Operational Plans for the Product Development Department issued to Cliff Lilly of Philip Morris USA included the following objectives: "Design and develop an 3 mg [Merit] product with the subjective attributes of a 6 mg cigarette. . . . Design and develop a 6 mg [Merit] product with the subjective attributes of a [sic] 8 mg cigarette. . . . Develop 6 mg [Marlboro Ultra Lights] line extension . . . providing enhanced subjective quality and Marlboro character. . . . LOW TAR HIGH FLAVOR Objective: Develop new technologies which will allow us, within the next two to four years, to produce 'Ultra Low' tar,2 It would appear this situation continues even to the present. For example, in this very litigation, a former long-time career government lawyer was so intent on representing a company (continued...) -4- to 4 mg, cigarettes with the sensorial experience of 'Lights' or 'Full Flavored' cigarettes").

853

  1. Bonhomme added that "Philip Morris's own marketing research shows that there are consumers who switch to low tar cigarettes even though they do not prefer the taste or flavor, because they believe it is better for them," and that "for those people the reason for switching to a low tar brand is not taste or flavor, but perceived health benefits." Bonhomme admitted that these smokers are willing to sacrifice taste for perceived health benefits. Bonhomme WD, 56:6-12; 60:21-61:1; 63:13-18.

  2. Bonhomme explained that Philip Morris's Merit brand of cigarettes utilized a marketing strategy, titled "Merit Solutions," that was intended to communicate to consumers that "Merit was a solution to the problem of finding a low tar brand with good taste." Bonhomme WD, 59:10-17.

  3. Defendants' own expert, A. Clifton Lilly, Vice President of Technology and Research for Philip Morris, demonstrated that Philip Morris did not intend to market Merit as a "lighter tasting" cigarette, but rather as one that tasted just like a full flavor cigarette, yet with a health benefit. Lilly testified that:

The Merit brand, as I remember, came out in 1976. . . . R&D did a lot of basic research on taking tobacco and actually getting compounds for a flavor system that were the most flavorful ones in

854

smoke, so that the cigarette would be lower tar but taste like it was more like the popular cigarettes, and they were all at that time full flavor.

Lilly PD, Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 5/7/98, 34:3-39:2.

  1. An undated Philip Morris document, titled "Background Information on Philip Morris

Brands," included "Benefit Statements" for Philip Morris's various "light" brands that revealed Philip

Morris's intent was not to market these cigarettes as "lighter" tasting, but rather as cigarettes that taste like full-flavor cigarettes with the extra purported benefit of low tar and nicotine:

  • Marlboro Medium: "gives you a flavorful smoke in a low tar cigarette" and "bridges the flavor gap between low tar and full flavor cigarettes."
  • Benson & Hedges 100's Lights: "premium tobacco flavor in a satisfying low tar smoke."
  • Benson & Hedges 100's Deluxe Ultralights: "only 5 mg tar, yet is rich enough to be called Deluxe . . . is an ultra low tar cigarette that gives you satisfying taste . . . delivers cool, rich taste with only 5 mg tar."
  • Merit: "You'll enjoy low tar and good flavor. . . . At only 7 mg tar, Merit delivers the rich flavor of leading cigarettes with twice the tar . . . get rich menthol flavor at only 8 mg tar."
  • Merit 100's: "flavor that makes low tar and good taste a reality for 100's smokers."
  • Merit Ultra Lights: "cool, flavorful smoke with only 5mg tar."
  • Merit Ultra Lights 100's: "an ultra light with flavor."
  • Virginia Slims Ultra Lights: "gives flavor and taste -- and is an ultra low tar smoke."
  • Parliament Lights: "enjoyable taste in a low tar cigarette."
855

2070143183-4433 at 3209, 3211-3212, 3214-3215, 3219, 3222 (US 40253).

  1. A November 15, 1971 document to James Morgan, former CEO of Philip Morris, from the Marketing Research Department, bearing the letterhead "Philip Morris U.S.A. Inter-Office Correspondence," set forth results of a Philip Morris consumer research study on Marlboro Lights. Under the heading "Likes and Dislikes," the report stated: "Complaints continued to center around taste mentions (23%) and too mild (22%)." 1000292744-2762 at 2745 (US 35205).

  2. According to Morgan, Philip Morris did not intend for the name Marlboro Lights to communicate that it had light or lighter taste:

I have trouble in describing what light taste really means. . . . Light taste, first of all, is not a positive attribute if it does mean anything . . . in my judgment, light taste is really a meaningless and nebulous claim . . . the bigger proposition is the lower tar and nicotine. . . . We are not talking, in my judgment, talking about light . . . as a taste. It's not a term that means anything in terms of taste, and the name Marlboro Lights as I said before, a word which we feel has appeal in a different sense than suggesting what the cigarette even tastes like.

Morgan PD, Philip Morris Inc., 10/15/74, 82:25-83:13; 85:9-15; 85:17-86:4.

  1. Around the time of the launch of Marlboro Lights in 1974, a marketing dilemma existed for Philip Morris: on the one hand, the fact that a cigarette had a "lighter taste" was a negative limitation in the minds of consumers that made the cigarettes more difficult to sell, but, on the other hand, the term "light" also conveyed the beneficial message of low tar. Morgan PD, Price, 6/5/02, 39:19-25, 40:2-25, 41:2.

  2. Philip Morris's Marketing and Research and Development departments held regularly scheduled meetings where they discussed, among other things, how to increase the market for low tar cigarettes through research and development. Many discussions focused on the poor taste of low tar cigarettes:

856

marketing . . . kept saying people don't like the taste of a low tar cigarette. They are finding it unsatisfactory. . . . What can we do to develop a low tar cigarette that really tastes good. That to me looks like the great market opportunity. I remember lots of discussions about that.

Morgan PD, Price, 6/5/02, 95:13-25, 96:2-25, 97:2-25, 98:2-25, 99:2-25.

  1. According to Ellen Merlo, then Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip

Morris USA, "there was a general perception that low tar cigarettes did not taste as good as full flavor cigarettes." Merlo added that Philip Morris's Merit cigarette "was the first free standing cigarette entry in the light category that was positioned as tasting good." Merlo PD, Price v. Philip

Morris, 10/2/02, 152:12-153:10.

  1. An October 1975 Philip Morris USA Special Report distributed widely throughout the Research Center, titled "Low Delivery Cigarettes and Increased Nicotine/Tar Ratios, a

Replication," urged development of a "low delivery cigarette that will both look and taste like a regular filter cigarette and thus will appeal to current regular filter smokers." The document further stated:

If a low delivery cigarette with impact and flavor were developed, it may cause the segment of current regular filter smokers who are concerned about their health but demand a flavorful cigarette to voluntarily switch to the low delivery cigarette. . . . Furthermore, some portion of current low delivery smokers may desire to switch to a more flavorful cigarette and others may follow as consumer experience results in changing the image of low delivery cigarettes so that smokers believe a flavorful cigarette can really be 'healthy'.

1003288950-8967 at 8951, 8954, 8952 (US 20166).

857
  1. Draft remarks of the Philip Morris Merit cigarette team, dated January 7, 1976, acknowledged explicitly that low tar cigarettes appealed to smokers because of their purported reduced harmfulness:

Undoubtedly because of the health allegations against cigarettes, many smokers have clearly wanted cigarettes that deliver less and less tar. . . . [D]espite the intense promotion efforts and the strong interest among smokers, . . . [t]hey have been tried and rejected by the overwhelming majority of smokers. Obviously, there has been a conflict between the desire for low tar and the desire for the rich, satisfying taste that until now has been associated with higher tar delivery.

PM3000136418-6422 at 6420-6421 (US 61504).

  1. A 1979 Philip Morris Merit advertisement, titled "Merit Taste Eases Low Tar

Decision," appeared in national magazines, stating:

"Enriched Flavor" tobacco proving real alternative to high tar smoking. . . . Confirmed: Majority of high tar smokers rate MERIT taste equal to -- or better than -- leading high tar cigarettes tested! Cigarettes having up to twice the tar. [Merit's] ability to satisfy over long periods of time could be the most important evidence to date that MERIT science has produced what it claims: The first real alternative for high tar smokers.

1002325022-5022 (US 21510) (emphasis in original).

  1. A January 1979 study prepared for Philip Morris by Goldstein/Krall Marketing

Resources, Inc., discusses consumers' perception of light cigarettes: "There appears to be a concept involved that might be called 'limiting.' They have moved to limit their tar and nicotine intake. At the same time they have accepted a limit on taste." 2040066740-6766 at 6755 (US 20435).

  1. According to Nancy Lund, Senior Vice President of Marketing for Philip Morris, when light cigarettes were first introduced, their largest drawback was that consumers disliked their taste. In fact, nine out of ten consumers reported dissatisfaction with the taste of light/low tar cigarettes. She acknowledged that smokers were buying them, nonetheless, because they were perceived to be less harmful. An April 20, 1987 memorandum on Leo Burnett letterhead from Elinor Bowen of Leo Burnett and Carolyn Levy of Philip Morris addressed to Nancy Brennan (later Nancy Brennan-Lund) of Philip Morris, among others, commented on light cigarettes generally: "Thus far in the cigarette category, lightness has been associated with low tar or ultra low tar products which represent, for many smokers, an absence of taste and an avoidance of problems associated with smoking." Brennan-Lund PD, Price, 9/20/02, 140:14-144:11, 186:12-189:19; 2040904809-4811 at 4809 (US 85035).
858

  1. A Philip Morris document circa 1979 prepared by Judy John and Helmut Wakeham, titled "Breakthrough of the High Taste, Low Tar Cigarette: A Case History of Innovation," stated that although consumer demand for low tar cigarettes was spurred by indications that cigarette smoking caused disease in humans, "market research analysis ha[d] shown that nine out of ten smokers had tried low-tar brands, but had failed to accept them as their choice of cigarette." The document also stated: "Apparently not enough smokers could adapt to the diminished 'flavor' of the highly filtered low-tar cigarettes available at that time." 1000208603-8625 at 8605 (US 85010) (internal citation omitted).

  2. A September 1991 Philip Morris document, titled "Background Information on PM Brands," stated that, notwithstanding the introduction of Marlboro Lights in 1972 and the introduction of several variations on Marlboro Lights in 1978, 1980 and 1984, when Marlboro Medium was introduced in 1991, "consumers [were] still looking for a satisfying low tar cigarette with flavor." Marlboro Medium apparently "was successful in bridging the flavor gap between full flavor Marlboro and Marlboro Lights." 2070143183-4433 at 3206 (US 40253).

859

  1. A June 1, 1994 document prepared for Philip Morris by Kane, Bortree & Associates, Inc., in its "Conclusions Product/Positionings" section, reported that Merit's "We Lowered The Tar . . . But Kept The Taste" slogan "generated interest among male Low Tar Seekers because of the fact that they are committed to lowering their tar consumption." The concept of lowering the tar, but keeping the taste, was referred to as a "product improvement." 2045629674-9712 at 9696 (US 88630).

  2. A March 26, 1996 memorandum from Shari Teitelbaum, to Jodi Sansone, then Brand Manager for Merit cigarettes, accompanying a consumer research report commissioned by Philip Morris, explained that once consumers made the decision to switch down to the category of low tar cigarettes based on health concerns, they then select their low tar brand within that category based on taste preference. Under the heading "Reasons for and Perceived Benefits of Smoking Lowest Brands," the document stated: "Although many of these smokers made the decision to go lighter based on perceived health concerns, taste seemed the major reason to choose or stay within a particular brand." 2045628312-8328 at 8312, 8321 (US 22217).

  3. A February 9, 1998 draft research report prepared for Philip Morris by the research firm Kane, Bortree & Associates, titled "Merit Strategic Revitalization Plan, Stage I Learnings," analyzed ways to "build Merit's share of the low tar segment." The report labeled as "Taste Compromisers" low tar smokers who find the taste of light cigarettes unsatisfying but feel comfortable smoking them because of perceived health benefits. An example of their thought process is the following:

860

I feel that I can really taste the difference between cigarettes. I try to smoke the best tasting light since I know that smoking a light is better for me. I feel that smoking a light is a huge tradeoff but I know that it's worth it. I much prefer full flavor taste and do not think it's too strong. I choose my brand on taste. I feel like I am on a permanent "diet" because I smoke a light.

The report listed Winston Lights, Marlboro Lights, and Camel Lights as brands for taste compromisers. 2063687348-7527 at 7362, 7357 (US 39820*); Bonhomme WD, 45:1-22; see also, 2063686921-6942 at 6924 (US 88629) (indicating that a goal of Kane Bortree was to "[i]dentify marketable positioning opportunity(ies) for revitalizing Merit via low tar technology (3 mg tar cigarette that smokes like a 5 mg tar or possibly higher levels)").

  1. Under the heading "Consumer Learnings," the February 1998 draft report noted that "Merit can secondarily target Taste Compromisers by promoting taste," and under the heading "Preliminary Recommendations," the report recommended that Merit "[p]romote the benefits of light flavor rather than 'apologizing' for the fact that it is less than full flavor." Under the heading "Positioning Learnings" and the subheading "Exploratory Positionings," the report stated: "'Low tar' should not be highlighted, but may be needed as reassurance to more health conscious smokers." 2063687348-7527 at 7352, 7354, 7376 (US 39820*).

  2. An October 5, 1998 internal Philip Morris presentation regarding Philip Morris's premium cigarette brands discussed the Merit brand's positioning. Under the heading "Merit -- Brand Essence," the document stated that "[s]ince the brand's introduction twenty-two years ago, the core Merit proposition has been low tar with satisfying good taste. Merit is the brand that understands the desire to seek a lower tar alternative." Under the heading "Merit -- Brand Strategy," the document said that Merit's strategy was to "Convince: Smokers who want to switch to a low tar alternative, but won't sacrifice taste completely, That: With Merit, you can switch down to lower tar and still enjoy smoking Because: Merit delivers satisfying taste at every level of low tar." 2063690668-0687 at 0675-76 (US 39825).

861

(2) R.J. Reynolds 2262. An April 1974 Qualitative Consumer Evaluation for four Winston Lights Positionings

noted that those who liked Winston Lights believed that a low tar cigarette was a "'safe' cigarette." Consumers were excited by the possibility of having full flavor and low tar simultaneously because it offered "a 'safe' cigarette with a taste if not exactly the same at least similar to their current brand." The report stated that "[t]hey were generally skeptical that a less harmful cigarette could give them what they want in a cigarette -- taste -- or would the taste be sacrificed in some way." Communications with smokers indicated that the target audience was "concerned about the harmful effects of smoking and would be glad to switch to a brand which could deliver good taste with low tar and nicotine." 502041366-1415 at 1373, 1383, 1385-1386 (US 22147).

  1. A 1975 report, titled "An Evaluation of the 120MM Market and Its Potential for RJR," recognized that "smokers of High Filtration brands . . . feel the low tar and nicotine brands are much safer and much less of a health hazard. They are readily willing to sacrifice taste for a 'longer life.'" 500671364-1454 at 1436-1437 (US 22158).

  2. A circa 1976 Doral Brand Performance report noted, in a section titled "Other Brand Measurements Psychographics," that with respect to lifestyle, Doral smokers (relative to smokers overall) were "more conscious and anxious about health" and, with respect to attitudes and needs, would "sacrifice taste to get lowest 'tar' and nicotine." 501229581-9590 at 9589 (US 22118).

862

  1. A 1979 study related to Camel Lights indicates that the marketing campaign stressed that Camel Lights provided a product to individuals who wanted to smoke a low tar cigarette, but did not want to compromise on "rich taste and smoking satisfaction." The message itself was "a specific low tar message." 500731672-1707 (US 22168).

  2. A June 21, 1982 Product Research Report on Non-Menthol Ultra Low Tar Consumer Probes, published by the RJR Marketing Development Department, classified ultra low tar non-menthol smokers into two groups: (1) smokers who are extremely concerned about tar levels and (2) smokers who are moderately concerned about tar levels. The report went on to explain that "extremely concerned" smokers "primarily seek products that are lowest in tar. These smokers are willing to trade-off such smoking benefits as strength, taste/flavor and ease of draw for brands which may not deliver these benefits but which are lowest in tar." The report also explained that as compared to smokers of higher tar brands, "respondents generally characterized ULT cigarettes as having a harder draw, reduced smoke density -- which they expressed as 'smoking air,' less taste/strength/flavor, and less smoking sensation." 503394459-4485 at 4460-4461, 4463, 4467 (US 85036); Schindler WD, 75:14-76:16.

  3. A 1984 Vantage Family "Moderation" Situation Analysis explained that "relative to other segments, 'Moderator' smokers realize there are both positive and negative aspects of smoking, resulting in a desire to resolve the conflict by compromising/moderating on their brand choice." This process was depicted as adding the positives of smoking (personal ritual, anxiety reduction, social confidence) to the negatives of smoking (alleged health hazards and smoker image), compromising on the idea of taste and satisfaction with low tar products, and the image that they are "doing something positive." 502118237-8267 at 8241 (US 22119).

863

  1. A December 16, 1988 RJR marketing presentation stated that: "For a successful product the perceived health benefit must balance any sacrifice that must be made in terms of taste, satisfaction and traditional smoking pleasures." 650900829-0849 at 0831 (US 20951).

  2. In 1990, RJR undertook a marketing campaign promoting the fact that Now cigarettes had the lowest tar and nicotine levels of any product in the industry. The campaign focused solely on the fact of Now's "lowest" tar and nicotine levels not on taste. Some of the advertisements implicitly admitted that good "flavor" or "taste" was intuitively less likely in a low tar cigarette. For example, one advertisement asked, "Merit Ultra Lights Smokers: Is there a way to get 60% less tar and nicotine and still get flavor in a cigarette? NOW is the way." Similarly, another advertisement asked, "Benson & Hedges Deluxe Ultra Lights Smokers: Can you get 50% less tar and nicotine and still get taste in a cigarette? NOW you can." Still another advertisement asked, "True Smokers: How can you get 67% less tar and nicotine and still get real cigarette taste? NOW is how." Finally, an advertisement in this campaign asked, "Carlton Smokers: Can a cigarette have just 2 mgs. of tar and still be satisfying to smoke? NOW can." Along those same lines, one of the advertisements indicated, "THE LOWEST IN TAR & NICOTINE. Try Now. Surprisingly good taste." 2070717114-7436 at 7334, 7336, 7408, 7410, 7432 (US 22172*).

  3. A May 1991 consumer research report prepared for RJR, titled "R.J. Reynolds Project XB," stated: "Most respondents are interested in a new cigarette that could deliver the great taste and easy draw of current brands, with low tar equivalent to Carlton or NOW. They recognize Carlton and NOW are very low tar, but they perceive the taste and draw to be disappointing." The document further stated that "[r]espondents suspect there is a correlation between reducing the amount of tar and weakening the taste." As a "positive" of a proposed marketing concept, the document stated: "There is interest in an extra low tar cigarette that tastes great and has an easy draw. There is a consensus a lower tar product would be better for them." As a "positive" of a different proposed marketing concept, the document stated: "Respondents, especially women, feel this cigarette could alleviate their concerns about tar levels. They expect the cigarette to be better for them." 514343517-3566 at 3559 (US 51848).

864

(3) Brown & Williamson

  1. According to Sharon Smith, former B&W Director of Marketing Services and

Operations, internal B&W research documents "indicate that some smokers are willing to smoke low tar cigarettes, even though these smokers feel they don't taste as good." Smith WD, 52:7-16, 55:1622.

  1. A January 1977 report prepared for B&W by Post Keyes Gardner, Inc., stated that

"health" was the most important driver of consumer trends, compared to mildness, which would not, of itself, cause smokers to switch brands:

"Health": In our opinion, this is by far the most important factor and trend in the market. All major shifts in smoking habits seem to be a function of "health" concerns, as they pose a deep psychological question that every smoker must somehow answer. The manifestation of "health" concerns can be seen in the filter revolution of the 1950's, the emergence of menthol, as well as new hifi's in the 1960's and today. . . . Mildness: This is more or less a taste experience. It is best characterized by the acceptance of filter cigarettes -- not the reason for them. In our view, mildness is not a dominant trend, and thus does not cause major shifts in smoking habits. . . . It, therefore, is unlikely that smokers would switch to milder cigarettes primarily because they are milder. We suspect that the deeper concern of "health" is the dominant motivator to mildness. . . . Some smokers will seek justification (rationalization) for staying with a full taste brand, others will move on to the continuing compromise of less satisfaction while continuing to smoke

865

[by switching to low tar cigarettes] . . . the latest compromise between taste and tar.

Sharon Smith admitted that this document shows that some smokers "were choosing their cigarette not due to a preference for a "milder" tasting cigarette, but out of health concerns." 776158413-8426 at 8418, 8419, 8425 (US 22339); Smith WD, 54:21-56:15.

  1. A July 25, 1977 B&W internal marketing study stated: "It must be assumed that Full Taste smokers come down to 'low tar' expecting less taste . . . [t]hey are willing to compromise taste expectations for health reassurance." 775036039-6067 at 6052 (US 21053); Ivey WD, 57:11-58:11.

  2. An October 1979 B&W "History and Key Trends in the U.S. Cigarette Market" compiled by E.T. Parrack, Vice President of Brand Management, stated that some of the then "new products" such as Merit and Real "seem to be capable of attracting some smokers from the Full Taste segment, thus drastically changing the terms of the basic tradeoff between taste and low tar in effect for 25 years." The paper added:

Viceroy [is] perceived as smooth and perhaps mellow, but it is not significantly weak, mild, bland or light as are the Hi-Fi brands. . . . STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE Increase Viceroy share of market by positioning Viceroy between full-filter flavor and Hi-Fi as the ideal compromise between the need for full taste and the need for low tar.

The document added that some smokers "have struck a compromise between taste/satisfaction and personal concerns. They smoke low 'tar' line extensions hoping for the full taste of high 'tar' brands and the relative benefits of lower 'tar.'" 670624932-5364 at 4942, 5102, 5157, 5240 (US 53869). Again, Sharon Smith admitted that "this document indicates that Brown & Williamson was aware that some smokers smoke lower tar cigarettes even though they prefer the taste of higher tar cigarettes because they wish to lower their tar intake." Smith WD, 52:17-53:21.

866
  1. A March 12, 1981 B&W memorandum from Sue Finley to B.L. McCafferty, titled

"Apollo Strategy Recommendation," revealed that consumers were smoking ultra low tar cigarettes because they wanted to lower their tar intake, despite the fact that they disliked the taste:

In 1980 the number of ultra low "tar" (1-6 mg 'tar') cigarette brand styles on the market went from 24 to 38 and the segment's share grew from 6.28% in 1979 to 8.73% in the 4th Quarter of 1980. . . . The segment's growth has been generated primarily by smokers' "tar" concerns, as most of the ULT products have no other perceivable consumer benefits. The products are considered extremely hard to draw and weak tasting. In qualitative research, smokers have said that drawing on ultra low products could "cause hernias" and that they taste like "sucking straws" and "there's nothing to them. . . ." While cigarette marketing has historically been image oriented, initial ultra low "tar" cigarette advertising was very clinical. All ULT brands advertised extremely low "tar" with little, if any, taste support or smoker imagery.

Discussing the marketing for the proposed new ultra low tar cigarette, APOLLO, the Memorandum stated:

Smokers are subjected to relentless pressures to quit smoking or reduce "tar." They continue to smoke because they derive pleasure from the experience and, while they may trade down in "tar," they view "tar" reductions as pleasure reductions. To make the switch to low "tar" a more satisfying experience, APOLLO should be presented in a positive, warm and enjoyable manner.

Sharon Smith explained that "this document states that people were smoking ultra lights because they wanted to lower their tar intake, despite the fact that they viewed it as a pleasure reduction."

670635571-5593 at 5571, 5576 (US 85037).

  1. An April 1985 consumer research report prepared for B&W by ADI Research, Inc., titled "Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation Light and Ultra Light Smokers Concept Reaction

Study" stated: "The light and ultra light categories are problematic to consumers because of problems with taste and inhaling and drawing. There is overwhelming agreement by all groups." The report discussed how Barclay's position was succeeding at getting consumers to believe that Barclay provided a solution to taste and draw problems. The report also noted, however, that "[t]hose in the minority that did not perceive a solution thought there would be drawbacks. If Barclay is better tasting and drawing, then it would have to be higher in tar and nicotine, hence, less safe and more harmful." 465626645-6722 at 6647, 6656-6657 (US 87911).

867

  1. A B&W document circa 1996-1997, titled "Carlton Creative Plans," stated that "CARLTON is the trademark of choice for smokers who have made an intellectual decision to seek the 'lowest' in tar and nicotine without unduly compromising taste." Carlton's "TARGET AUDIENCE" was described as: "Smokers who want to cut down in tar and nicotine as much as possible and are willing to sacrifice some product performance." The first "Primary" trait of the target audience was "Health conscious." The then-current brand positioning of Carlton as "The Lowest" was said to "satisf[y] the brand positioning." 176020783-0800 at 0783-0786 (US 23351).

  2. A B&W document, titled "B&W 1997-1999 Plan," indicated that consumers "switch down" in tar primarily for health reasons, and that this switch down in tar represents a sacrifice in terms of cigarette taste. "Carlton Target Markets" were identified as

Smokers Who Want To Cut Down In Tar And Nicotine As Much As Possible And Are Willing To Sacrifice Some Product Performance -- Primary -- health conscious. . . . CARLTON Is The Trademark Of Choice For Smokers Who Have Made An Intellectual Decision To Seek The 'Lowest' In Tar And Nicotine Without Unduly Compromising Taste.

The document even discussed plans to reduce the emphasis on taste indicated by Carlton packaging to ensure that the message that Carlton had lowest tar and nicotine was conveyed: "CARLTON's

868

Packaging May Contribute To The Low Awareness Of The 'Lowest' Tar Positioning By Communicating A Higher Level Of Tar And Taste Than The Product Actually Delivers." 462224560-4766 at 4706, 4709-4711 (US 22085) (emphasis in original).

  1. A B&W document faxed from "Marketing Operations" on January 20, 1999, titled "Current Trends in Lights and Ultra Lights," stated under the heading "Learnings": "Consumers were ready for low tar before Marlboro Lights. Health concerns. . . . First low tar cigarettes failed due to: Lack of flavor and smoking satisfaction. . . . Smokability is critical for success." 430403186-3194 at 3193-3194 (US 22084); Ivey WD, 58:11-22.

(4) BATCo 2280. A September 1992 BATCo Business Review prepared by Norma Simamane, BATCo

Lights Project Manager, stated, regarding low tar cigarettes, that consumers felt that "'[t]he lower the [tar and nicotine] numbers, the higher the sacrifice on smoking pleasure.'" Lights represented "a total compromise," and negative aspects included: "'It's like smoking hot air'" and "'Deprive you of a true smoking experience.'" Lights were perceived as "for people who . . . want to quit but can not." The aspects of the "Inadequate product performance" of low tar cigarettes were: "lack of satisfaction/not satisfying"; "lack of smoking quality"; "poor quality of flavor"; "not strong enough"; and "need to smoke more." 321683062-3099 at 3087, 3090 (US 28586).

  1. A BATCo document circa 1996 titled "Lights Segment Project Consumer Insight Into Smoking Lights" stated, under the heading "Benefits of Smoking," that "[l]ight smokers criticized Ultra's as bad tasting . . . but accept this lost taste characteristic." The document further stated "light cigarettes (especially ultra) = pleasure sacrifice." The document further stated that "Ultra smokers find it necessary to explain to others and themselves why they consume a product that provides hardly any pleasure (taste)" which led to the "negative cliche" of a 'weak willed addict.'" The document stated that to counter this, "we need to reassure light/ultra smokers that it is okay to smoke lights through communication." 321546706-6724 at 6707, 6708, 6709 (US 22052).
869
  1. A BATCo document, titled "Barclay Business Review 1996," discussed low tar smoker motivation:

The results of the 1MG smokers motivations study in Belgium show that the key drivers to the [ultra light] segment are health concern and peer/family pressure. Consumers expect a reduction of negative aspects. . . . As amount of taste is the main consumer indicator for strength, 1mg. products are expected to have the least taste among all cigarettes.

700767443-7457 at 7448 (US 22123).

  1. A BATCo document, titled "Firefish Kent in Dublin Qualitative Research Debrief July 2000," concluded that, with respect to Kent's charcoal filter, consumers found communications providing health reassurance "more appealing" than communications about taste: "'Kent Taste System' The Charcoal Filter communication was appreciated. . . . However, they felt the emphasis should be on Filter -- rather than taste -- help filtering out the 'crap' was more appealing than advantages in taste." 321626872-6906 at 6901 (US 22059).

  2. In a document, titled "What is a Light Cigarette," dated September 29, 1998, BATCo scientist David Creighton described two "main types of Lights smokers[:] Those who start smoking Lights . . . and those who have been smoking a full flavour product and wish to switch down to a Lights." Creighton explicitly acknowledged that Lights smokers who "switch down" do so because they believe it is a "conscious . . . exchange" of taste for "the reassurance of the lower tar delivery":

[T]he down switcher, who has been used to a higher taste level[,] would prefer to maintain as much taste as possible with the

870

reassurance of the lower tar delivery of a Lights. . . . The down switcher makes a conscious decision to give up some taste satisfaction in exchange for the lower delivery potential.

770009958-9964 at 9962 (US 78253).

  1. A January 15, 2001 BATCo document written by Steven Coburn, titled "Project Balcony," which referenced Santa Monica, California marketing studies related to proposed campaigns, reported that smokers prefer the taste of higher tar cigarettes, but smoke lower tar cigarettes because they believe lower tar cigarettes are less harmful: "[L]ights don't satisfy as much as a heavier cig when trading down . . . less tar less nic -- less harmful." 325239017-9018 at 9017 (US 22082). A January 17, 2001 document with the same author and title that also referenced Santa Monica smokers, stated under the heading "Benefit": "Has carcinogens of a lights but taste of full flavor[.] May be not as harmful -- which is why some people smoke lights." 325239023-9024 at 9023 (US 22082). An additional document with the same date, title, and author, referencing Santa Monica smokers stated: "Benefit . . . Lights that smoke like a full flavor -- not sacrificing anything[.] Lights with a full flavour -- important -- lights better for you but still taste like a cig." 325239025- 9026 at 9026 (US 22082).

(5) American Tobacco 2286. A 1967 Annual Report prepared by American, describing American's Carlton

cigarettes, defined a "light cigarette" as "one that is low in 'tar' and nicotine yield," and made no mention of any particular taste characteristics. MNAT00029170-9201 at 9176 (US 21222).

  1. A March 2, 1976 American document, titled "Background and Product Positioning Recommendation Project LOTC," predicted that:
871

[T]he most significant growth will take place in the "middle ground" where taste claims prevail, yet where the perception of a "health benefit" is still strong. In other words a compromise between low-tar and taste (which is unmistakable to consumers) may not represent as traumatic a change for full flavor smokers as a change to "super" low tar.

ATC0494235-4235 (US 87912).

  1. A January 1984 document from American Tobacco's files prepared by Andrew Thurm

Associates titled "'NO ADDITIVES' CONCEPT TEST" concludes that low tar cigarettes are associated with weak taste and that Carlton cigarettes have a weak, negative taste perception with consumers:

"Carlton . . . shows traces of an additional impediment -- weak taste perceptions. . . . Carlton's weak taste image acts as a secondary impediment. . . . In a certain sense, being low in tar peripherally suggests a flavor identity because of its connotations to mildness at the expense of taste strength.

970384072-4111 at 4076-4078 (US 85121).

  1. A February 29, 1988 American Tobacco memorandum from Richard E. Smith,

Director of Brand Management, to K.P. Noone, Product Manager, stated:

If the switching motivation is better taste, [smokers] . . . will certainly not switch to Carlton, a brand which their experience has often taught them is lower taste. . . . [M]ost smokers will continue to seek lower tar. . . . They have demonstrated a disciplined willingness to sacrifice taste. . . . Carlton brings less than nothing to the better/stronger tasting party.

991216857-6858 (US 85115).

  1. A February 29, 1988 American Tobacco memorandum from J.M. Murray, Assistant

Product Manager, to T.M. Keane, Senior Product Manager, stated:

872

The Carlton and Now Groups almost unanimously cited "Lowest in Tar" as the single most important motivating factor in brand selection. . . . Importantly, the 0-3 mg. groups identify "Lowest" as the driving force -- they seem to have been prepared to make a taste compromise. There is nothing to indicate that [ultra light smokers] won't become available to Carlton. At present, they aren't ready to make a taste compromise. . . . As these people become prepared to step down, they will be ready to give up some level of taste and seek the "Lowest in Tar" (e.g. Carlton or Now) . . . present Carlton smokers . . . have already made the taste compromise and focus primarily on "Lowest. . . ." In conclusion, I believe we should focus our efforts on developing suitable advertisements which single mindedly communicate our "Lowest" positioning.

980355176-5177 (US 85122).

(6) Lorillard

  1. A December 1976 report prepared for Lorillard by the Nowland Organization, Inc., stated: "Those who do not now smoke SHF [super-high filtration] cigarettes perceive low tar and nicotine cigarettes in very much the same way as do current smokers -- i.e., as 'better for you' but not as enjoyable." 84053616-3706 at 3638 (US 55997).

  2. A June 1978 Report prepared for Lorillard by Foote, Cone & Belding Advertising,

Inc., "to assist Lorillard in understanding the . . . attitudes of reduced-tar smokers and their motivations in selecting brands" relayed smokers' beliefs that lower tar cigarettes had an unsatisfying lack of taste, and indicated that a low tar cigarette "with good taste" had not yet been developed, stating:

The major problem with [ultra low tar] brands was decided lack of taste/smoking impact. "Sucking on a straw in an empty glass -- nothing" was a typical reference to such brands. In point of fact, this was probably very close to the truth. . . . There is every reason to believe that ultimate technological breakthroughs will yield a tobacco product that is low in tar, with good taste. In that event, ultra low-tar

873

products will serve as a viable net for all smokers who desire reduced tar plus the satisfaction of good taste.

03297227-7249 at 7229, 7233, 7246 (US 88631).

  1. This document, discussing one of Lorillard's competitors' brands, added: Carlton's success was all the more surprising in light of the fact that it was totally unable to offer any taste benefits to the consumers. Apparently, there existed a strong need among a sub-section of reduced-tar smokers for a cigarette that was 'as low as you can go' in its tar and nicotine levels.

03297227-7249 at 7240 (US 88631).

b. Defendants Internally Recognized that Smokers Rely on the Claims Made for Low Tar/Light Cigarettes as an Excuse/ Rationale for Not Quitting Smoking (1) Tobacco Institute 2294. A May 1978 Tobacco Institute document, titled "A Study of Public Attitudes Toward

Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry in 1978 Volume I," prepared for the Tobacco Institute by the Roper Organization stated that

low tar cigarette smokers . . . are potential cigarette quitters. . . . And more of them than the average have tried to quit smoking. Since low tar smokers are an expanding share of the market, their greater desire to quit smoking poses a special problem for the cigarette industry.

501565967-6019 at 6008 (US 21866).

(2) Philip Morris 2295. Philip Morris conducted research on former smokers to assist it in marketing

purportedly less harmful cigarettes to draw them back into the market and to dissuade potential quitters from actually quitting. According to Carolyn Levy, who worked as a research scientist for Philip Morris in its Behavioral Research Group from 1975-1980 and as the Assistant Director and later Director of Consumer Research from 1986-1991, when she was in the Consumer Research Department, she "performed research on quitting on behalf of Philip Morris," and when she was in the Behavioral Research Department in the late 1970s, "[q]uitting was also a subject of interest and research to Philip Morris."

874

  1. A report titled "Exit-Brand Cigarettes: A Study of Ex-Smokers," written by F.J. Ryan and approved by Dr. William Dunn, dated March 1978 and distributed to certain Philip Morris employees, including Levy, stated: "If the industry's introduction of acceptable low-nicotine products does make it easier for dedicated smokers to quit, then the wisdom of the introduction is open to debate." The report further stated that "experience in dealing with 'quitters' suggests that most people who quit smoking will resume after a while. Hunt and Matarazzo show data suggesting that 50% of quitters resume smoking within 3 months and 70% resume within a year." Levy said that she was "aware when [she was] studying quitters that most quitters resume smoking." Levy WD, 26:1-5, 26:20-28:10; 1000368057-8081 at 8060, 8066 (US 20098*) (emphasis in original).

  2. Levy stated that Philip Morris was "studying the factors that influence quitting," including whether "people quit because of health concerns," so that Philip Morris could "design products or line extensions of existing brands that addressed those factors." Levy testified that "[t]o the extent we determined that people quit because of health concerns, that would be very important in reaffirming Philip Morris' commitment to develop cigarettes with lower harm or risk." Asked if the purpose was "[s]o that people would keep smoking Philip Morris cigarettes rather than quitting," Levy answered: "Yes, if Philip Morris could design new products to address those concerns." Levy WD, 31:9-22.

875
  1. An August 14, 1978 consumer research report prepared for Philip Morris by Wells,

Rich, Greene, Inc. regarding Benson & Hedges stated:

Those who are currently smoking "Lights" do so because ". . . they are better for you. . ." than full flavor cigarettes. Although some experience that they actually smoke more Lights, they perceive that they are cutting down and it is an alternative to quitting -- which most cannot accomplish.

1004888470-8484 at 8480 (US 85009).

  1. A January 1979 study prepared for Philip Morris stated:

[W]ith respect to ultra low tar brands there appear to be particular additional motivations for smoking this type of cigarette . . . [h]ealth problem forcing a change to a safer cigarette (as an alternative to not being able to quit) . . . [p]eer and family pressure to smoke a safer cigarette (as an alternative to not being able to stop smoking). . . . Characteristics of ultra low tar smokers were: people who want to quit. . . . In point of fact, smoking an ultra low tar cigarette seems to relieve some of the guilt of smoking and provide an excuse not to quit. All of these smokers expressed an awareness of a health hazard from smoking, but felt that they had alleviated some of this hazard by smoking an ultra low tar brand. They described these cigarettes as 'safer'. . . . With these justifications, there may be less of a compulsion to quit smoking . . . .

2040066740-6766 at 6747, 6751-52, 6754, 6755 (US 20435).

  1. A March 1979 report prepared for Philip Morris, titled "A Study of Smokers' Habits and Attitudes With Special Emphasis on Low Tar and Menthol Cigarettes," stated:

The percentage of adults who smoke has stabilized for the first time since 1965 -- at 34%. This could well be due to the greater perceived safety of low tar cigarettes and their resultant neutralization of the health threat. . . . The number of cigarettes smoked per day per smoker continues to climb, in part at least because low tar cigarettes seem to cause people to increase the number of cigarettes they smoke.

2049455309-5318 at 5313 (US 22218); Bonhomme WD, 25:15-26:1, 46:19-47:7.

876

  1. In a September 28, 1987 inter-office memorandum written by Levy and sent to David Dangoor, Executive Vice President at Philip Morris, titled "Critical Consumer Research Issues," Levy outlined what she called "the most important consumer-related questions which should be addressed in 1988." This document contained "information about some of the types of research that Philip Morris planned to conduct in the upcoming year." Among the questions Levy posed in the memorandum were: "Can we determine the relative importance of various factors which influence quitting?"; "What are the factors which influence brand choice of smokers reentering the market? Can we capitalize on these?"; and "Which new product options will . . . appeal to former smokers?" 2080009516-9522 at 9517, 9520 (US 88155) (emphasis in original); Levy WD, 28:20-30:8, 31:5-22.

  2. Philip Morris conducted a "major study" on quitting in 1988, titled "Critical Issues -- 1988 Progress Report," which Levy described in a September 26, 1988 memorandum she sent to John Zoler, then Director of Market Research. Under the heading "Smoker Dynamics," Levy wrote: "Conducted a major study on quitting showing: demographics of quitters, quitting by brand, reasons for quitting, methods used to quit, substitutes used for cigarettes." There were 506 people surveyed in the Philip Morris study, and "[t]he research results indicated that the number one reason for people quitting smoking was health concerns." Levy WD, 32:2-33:8; 2080009523-9529 at 9524 (US 88156).

  3. A June 20, 1988 memorandum on Philip Morris USA letterhead from consumer researcher Jan Jones to Dr. Ed Gee, titled "Statement of Position on the Social Pressures Construct," discussed Philip Morris's goal of introducing a "socially acceptable cigarette" that "could capture the trend-setters who might find such a product preferred over current cigarettes, be a welcomed alternative to quitting, and might attract new smokers who would not otherwise choose to become product users." The memorandum further stated:

877

With the recent attrition rate of smokers, attaining "new" smokers is no longer synonymous with capturing young smokers. We already have Marlboro as the brand of choice for young smokers entering the market. We do not have a product that meets the needs [sic] of the growing population of ex-smokers. Many of these ex-smokers will resume smoking, and the product that they choose could cause a swing in market share. These quitters (and those who are soon to become quitters) are dissatisfied with certain aspects of a product that previously met their needs. . . . These consumers have not yet as a group found a satisfactory replacement for their previous product – a textbook example of a market opportunity.

2050801835-1853 at 1845 (US 38763); Bonhomme TT, 2/10/05, 12936:6-12939:7.

  1. A March 1993 Philip Morris document, titled "Quitting Dynamics," showed statistics from "Smoker Tracking" that indicated that more Low Tar smokers did not try to quit (53.5%) compared to Full Flavor smokers (43.2%). 2062362453-2474 at 2473 (US 39555).

  2. In a July 1993 Philip Morris presentation, titled "Merit Franchise," prepared by Norma Suter Drew, Brand Manager and Marketing Director for Merit cigarettes from 1992-1994, she reported that the "Intended Audience" of Merit advertising was "self-conscious low tar smokers who want to cut down on tar and nicotine but who won't sacrifice taste completely." 2070661683-1727 at 1714 (US 40337); accord 2041453659-3754 at 3678 (US 23906) ("Merit's consumers are self-described 'Uncomfortable Smokers' who tell us they are self-conscious about the fact that they smoke"); 2063690017-0018 (US 85002); LeVan PD, United States v. Philip Morris, 6/25/02, 178:13-181:2.

  3. In November 1994, Philip Morris commissioned a study from the research firm Guiles & Associates, titled "B & H Qualitative Research Exploring Out-Switching," to "understand more about how Benson & Hedges smokers exit the franchise." One of the conclusions reported in the study was:

878

For many smokers, the ultimate ramification of all the anti-smoking rhetoric has been their heightened commitment to quit (or at least reduce) their smoking. For these, the greatest evidence of this commitment has been in shifting tar levels (even to different brands, as necessary). . . . For many, lowering tar levels is the next best thing to quitting.

2072622442-2451 at 2444, 2445, 2449 (US 41562); see also 2063688212-8284 at 8226 (US 39823) (Jan. 18, 1994 document prepared for Philip Morris USA indicating that Merit is perceived as a "quitters brand"); Bonhomme WD, 41:4-44:5.

  1. Philip Morris's 1994-1998 Plan Overview stated: If ultra low tar segment growth accelerates, we will launch Marlboro Ultra Lights to prevent Marlboro from losing smokers. Marlboro Ultra Lights will reinforce Marlboro's appeal among tar 'conscious' Lights smokers and improve Marlboro's ability to retain smokers as they age.

2071032180-2206 at 2188 (US 21964); Bible PD, United States v. Philip Morris, 8/22/02, 163:8- 165:2.

  1. An internal July 1995 draft presentation, titled "Marlboro Women," bearing the handwritten notation "Approved as Revised, VMM [Virginia Murphy, a Philip Morris attorney] 8/9/95," includes a section titled "The Marlboro Lights Female." The presentation stated that "[p]opularity and low tar are why they initially smoke the brand." The presentation further noted that for female Marlboro Lights smokers, 27% of 18-24 year olds, 29% of 25-29 year olds, and 34% of 30-39 year olds were "Under Pressure To Not Smoke," and that 21%, 16%, and 30% of each age group, respectively, "Intends to Quit." 2071373667-3751 at 3709, 3750 (US 27272).
879
  1. In a March 26, 1996 cover memorandum, Shari Teitelbaum delivered to Jodi Sansone, then Brand Manager for Merit cigarettes, a consumer research report commissioned by Philip Morris to "gain an understanding of consumers perceptions of the lowest category, as well as the motivations and wants of smokers of Carlton, Now, and Merit Ultima, and potential down-switchers to this category." Under the heading "The Decision to Enter the Lowest Category," the attached consumer research report found:

At some point in their smoking histories, these smokers decided or became more receptive to the idea of a lighter or lower brand than the one they were currently smoking. Some cited perceived health concerns. Others had been "bugged" by family members at home to cut down, or stop smoking.

2045628312-8328 at 8320, 8326 (US 22217).

  1. In August 1996, Natalie Ellis, Senior Manager at Philip Morris, and Urvashi Kohli distributed a June 1996 consumer research study, titled "Marlboro Ultra Lights: A History," to a long list of Philip Morris employees, including Norma Suter Drew, then Director of New Products for Marlboro, gauging consumer reactions to the contemplated launch of Marlboro Ultra Lights. The study found that Marlboro Red smokers see Marlboro Ultra Lights as "a brand for quitters and people who are trying to cut down." 2071535027-5090 at 5090 (US 22020).

  2. In an October 4, 1999 letter, titled "Schedule for Merit Competitive Lights and Ultra Lights Study," Beth Hooper of Leo Burnett discussed an upcoming Philip Morris study being conducted to "[e]xplore adult smoker attitudes toward the Lights/Ultra Lights category" and to "[b]etter understand the impact of Marlboro Ultra Lights on the category overall." Under the heading "Background," Hooper noted:

880

The dynamics of the Lights/Ultra Lights category have changed significantly over the past several years, particularly with the entry of Marlboro Ultra Lights. In the past, Lights and Ultra Lights were stops on the way to leaving the tobacco category. However, today, we are seeing that both segments are the destination of choice for many adult smokers.

2080929561-9562 at 9561 (US 27786).

  1. According to Jeanne Bonhomme, Director of Consumer Insights for Philip Morris, the company was aware that some "consumers who wanted to quit were switching to several of its light cigarette brands instead of quitting." Bonhomme WD, 45:17-19.

(3) R.J. Reynolds

  1. A 1969 RJR Survey of Cigarette Smoking Behavior and Attitudes recognized that

"[a]s a group filter cigarette smokers were more conscious of a possible relationship between smoking and health," and recognized the "willingness of an increasing number of smokers to compromise -- to smoke what they considered to be a less harmful cigarette rather than give up smoking entirely." 650340129-0193 at 0180, 0183 (US 20948).

  1. RJR's advertisements for Vantage cigarettes employed signed testimonials by smokers who claimed to have considered the risks of smoking and decided not to quit smoking, but rather to switch to Vantage. The Vantage advertisements included the following:

1971: "You don't cop out. Why should your cigarette? Vantage doesn't cop out. It's the only full-flavor cigarette with low 'tar' and nicotine." (no bates) (US 3545).

1974: "Instead of telling us not to smoke, maybe they should tell us what to smoke. For years, a lot of people have been telling the smoking public not to smoke cigarettes, especially cigarettes with high 'tar' and nicotine. But the simple fact is that now more Americans are smoking than ever before. Evidently many people like to smoke and will keep on . . . no

881

matter what anyone says or how many times they say it. Since the cigarette critics are concerned about high 'tar' and nicotine, we would like to offer a constructive proposal. Perhaps instead of telling us not to smoke cigarettes, they can tell us what to smoke. For instance, perhaps they ought to recommend that the American public smoke Vantage cigarettes." (no bates) (US 4403); Schindler WD, 79:9-23.

1976: "To smoke or not to smoke. That is the question. With all the slings and arrows that have been aimed at smoking, you may well be wondering why you smoke at all." (no bates) (US 5198); Schindler WD, 78:18-79:8.

1975: "Out of the last 6 years of smoking, I've only enjoyed the last 5 months. I started to pay attention to all the fuss about smoking about 6 years ago. That's when the uproar about 'tar' and nicotine started to get in the way of my pleasure. For me, it made the real difference between just liking smoking and really enjoying it. I thought of quitting, but I really didn't want to. So I decided to switch to a low 'tar' and nicotine cigarette." (no bates) (US 4954); Schindler WD, 79:24-80:9.

1976: "How many times have you decided to give up smoking? If you're like a lot of smokers these days, it probably isn't smoking that you want to give up. It's some of that 'tar' and nicotine that you've been hearing about." (no bates) (US 4998); Biglan WD, 377:12-379:22.

  1. A June 1975 RJR marketing plan stated that the introduction of a Salem high filtration line extension was, in part, to "[p]rotect the current Salem franchise from quitting and switching losses." The introduction was to "[t]erminate the trend toward reduced consumption currently in evidence among the Salem Brand franchise." RJR recognized that Salem King smokers were reducing their daily cigarette consumption "at least partly due to concerns about the alleged health hazards of smoking." 502313230-3308 at 3235, 3240 (US 22151).

  2. In discussing RJR's Limit, a new low tar cigarette, a 1976 memorandum noted that

"LIMIT will satisfy the needs of smokers who wish for the ultimate in low 'tar' assurance -providing the strongest health reassurances available in cigarettes today." Under the heading "Target

882

Audience," the memorandum stated:

The extreme worriers. That large group of smokers on the fringe of quitting who are on the verge of that final step: quitting smoking all together. This enormous group of smokers of various ages who have unsuccessfully tried to quit. Our target group will also include smokers whose concern with the health implications of smoking surpass their needs for full flavor in a cigarette.

502784092-4100 at 4097 (US 22153); Schindler WD, 77:11-78:11.

  1. An August 19, 1976 RJR document, titled "New Product/Merchandising Directions," stated that the

"worrier" segment of the market (17% of smokers are so classified) . . . seek products with tangible/visible features to assuage their "concern" about smoking. "Numbers" products have a growing appeal to these smokers. Products in the 1-6 mg. "tar" range will continue to build successful long-term franchises (e.g., Carlton's growth rate, NOW's immediate acceptance).

500672011-2172 at 2069 (US 20645).

  1. An August 5, 1980 RJR memorandum marked "RJR SECRET" from M. D. Shannon to Dr. W. M. Henly and Dr. R. A. Lloyd (all three were RJR researchers), titled "Project HR," stated:

ULT ["Ultra Low Tar"] smokers. . . . Very health conscious -- These smokers are well aware of the smoking and health controversy and have switched to ULT products in an effort to decrease "tar" intake. Many of these smokers are victims of pressure from peers and loved ones to quit or reduce smoking. Therefore, they smoke ULT brands to "get people off their backs. . . ." Feelings of guilt about smoking are very strong . . . . Many would like to quit smoking but cannot. This tends to fuel their low self-esteem. . . . These smokers do not feel good about themselves. [S]everal concepts were developed to appeal to these smokers: 1. To convince the HR target that the new brand represents a payoff or reward for his forced decision to sacrifice by going down in "tar" level. . . . 2. To convince the HR target that the new brand is a reflection of his rational, sensible decision to

883

switch to a low "tar. . . ." Again an attempt is made to make him feel better about smoking . . . . Advertisements were developed . . . to address these concepts and present them in a manner that would be positively received by the target audience.

500251567-1570 at 1567-1569 (US 21563).

  1. An August 1981 report prepared for RJR by the Beaumont Organization advised that ultra low tar brands, such as Now, Carlton, Cambridge and Barclay, can cause smokers who seek to eliminate the "danger" of smoking to keep smoking, because these smokers believe the ultra low tar brands "reduce the alleged health risks" of smoking "to an acceptable -- minimal -- level":

Some smokers have been strongly alarmed by the extensive publicity concerning alleged health hazards of smoking, to the extent that they seek not merely to moderate their smoking but to eliminate entirely the "danger" that it may present. Such a smoker has two options. Firstly, he may simply cease smoking altogether. However, in some cases, the smoker does not wish totally to elimate [sic] the benefits of smoking. His second option is to seek a cigarette which he perceives to reduce the alleged health risks to an acceptable -- minimal -- level. Within this second option, the smoker essentially seeks a brand that will protect him from the dangers that are alleged to attend smoking. He is often prepared to sacrifice most of the benefits he previously derived from smoking to achieve this. Such a brand provides the consoling sense that the smoker has eliminated the risks of smoking by "quitting," while continuing to engage in ritualized behaviors associated with cigarettes. An increasing number of brands addressed this benefit, including Now, Carlton, Cambridge and, perhaps, Barclay.

503972013-2063 at 2038 (US 66448); Orlowsky WD, 86:4-7.

  1. A 1983 NOW Brand Image report prepared for RJR recognized that

[a] major motivation in brand switching has been concern over health. . . . Most people chastise themselves for continuing with what they refer to as a "bad habit." They are aware of mounting pressures and criticism from non-smoking groups. They speculate about planning to quit, but they are not sure if they will be able to do so. . . .

884

The typical solution to this dilemma is the two pronged approach of trying to cut down and/or moving to a lower tar brand.

The report further stated:

Respondents were asked what the words "low" and "lowest" in the ads meant to them. At the literal level they say this means that the two brands are very low or lowest in the amount of tar and nicotine they contain. They interpret this to mean that the two brands are "safer" and pose less of a health hazard. Consequently, they reason, this would make the brands more appealing to younger people who are very health conscious or to older, long-time smokers who are concerned about the long-range effects of tobacco.

506671319-1418 at 1326, 1379 (US 22160); Orlowsky WD, 85:8-19.

  1. A November 3, 1998 e-mail from Mario Possamai to Randy Tompson, then Director of Issues and Information Management for RJR, discussed the results of an October 20, 1998 Gallup Survey regarding quitting behaviors and motivations. The survey found that "the number of smokers who are very interested in quitting has increased dramatically in the last five years," specifically noting that 36% of all current smokers are "very interested" in quitting. Health concerns were cited as the primary reason smokers want to quit, with 43% of smokers reporting that they were more concerned about health than they were five years earlier. Although 77% of smokers had tried to quit an average number of seven times each, more than half (54%) of smokers reported resuming smoking within one month. Over half of all smokers (53%) smoked light, low-tar or ultra-light cigarettes. According to the survey, "many of these smokers believe that they will get some health benefit from smoking non-regular cigarettes, including: 'to be healthier/improve health' (11 percent), 'reduce exposure to toxins/tar' (10 percent), and 'reduce exposure to nicotine' (9 percent)."
885
  1. A January 19, 1978 memorandum from Dr. E.F. Litzinger to E.T. Parrack, with copies to Dr. R.A. Sanford and M.L. Reynolds, titled "Social Smoking Studies," stated:

We search for answers to the questions "Why do people smoke?" and "Why do people stop smoking?" to provide us with direction in developing new products. Perhaps answers to another question "How do people stop smoking?" could lend insight into the creation of new products. Having answers to this latter question we might then design products to "intercept" people who are trying to give up smoking.

650510607-0607 (US 87138); Smith WD, 63:10-64:7.

  1. A February 7, 1979 letter from Stephen D. Schwartz of Grey Advertising Inc., stated that ultra low tar smokers of brands like B&W's Carlton and RJR's Now, have "consciously decided to sacrifice taste for low tar," and that these smokers "want a way to quit smoking."

774138538-8545 at 8539 (US 54613).

  1. A "confidential" March 5, 1980 report prepared for B&W by Hawkins, McCain &

Blumenthal discussed marketing strategies for a proposed new B&W brand pursuant to its "Project

Omega." The report stated: "The objective of all advertising and promotion will be to convince low

'tar' smokers that this new brand is the only one that combines the two most important qualities a contemporary cigarette should have -- a satisfying taste and the lowest 'tar.'" The report further stated, under the heading "Conclusions":

  1. Low tar and ultra low tar smokers share personal "concern." The difference between them lies in the depth of the concern. . . . 3) Most of these smokers would quit if they could. The pressure to quit is omnipresent from all sources. . . . 5) To reach these smokers we must acknowledge their concerns. 6) This acknowledgment must make them more comfortable (at ease) about smoking the Omega cigarette.
886

The report further stated: "These executions are built on an expanded strategy which includes an understanding of the target audience and the need to create a maximum ease or comfort level that addresses the concept of 'cognitive dissonance.'" 660026713-6718 at 6714, 6717-6718 (US 85030); Smith WD, 64:19-65:14.

  1. A May 7, 1982 report prepared by a consultant for Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (the Canadian sister company of B&W) stated that youth believed the "truly light brands" were

false safety brands for the older worried smoker who cannot quit. . . . Of course, they knew this because some . . . had tried to go very low for exactly the same reasons as smokers two or three times their age do so. All they found was increased consumption and frustration.

Statements from young smokers included: "I think all the stuff coming out the past couple of years about how bad smoking is for you made a lot of people go down to a light cigarette to sort of ease their own conscience." 566627751-7824 at 7817-7818 (US 20938).

  1. A 1984 B&W internal marketing research document, titled "Why People Smoke, Brand Imagery and New Product Opportunities," stated that both smokers of B&W's Barclay cigarettes and smokers of other brands "perceive BARCLAY to be for one who wishes not to smoke." 670132512-2597 at 2566 (US 20964).

  2. A 1986 B&W document stated: "Quitters may be discouraged from quitting, or at least kept in the market longer. . . . A less irritating cigarette is one route. . . . (Indeed, the practice of switching to lower tar cigarettes and sometimes menthol in the quitting process tacitly recognize this). The safe cigarette would have wide appeal." 566628004-8083 at 8015 (US 20940).

  3. A December 16, 1999 "Presentation of Findings" for "STAR Tobacco Focus Groups" prepared for B&W by "Rabid Research" identified "4 segments of light/ultra smokers (segmented based on motivation for smoking light/ultra variant)." One of the four segments was identified as

887

"those who switched to lights/ultras because they were attempting to quit." It also noted that some consumers "started smoking lights after making an attempt to quit." The document also shows that

Defendants intended that their claims of reduced harm regarding low tar cigarettes lessen the social pressure on smokers to quit:

The benefits of switching to this new cigarette are not just health related[.] Would reduce the pressure on them from friends and family members to quit[.] Would allow them to feel better about themselves[.] At least I'm smoking a cigarette that isn't as bad for me[.] Maybe people wouldn't be as worried about me smoking around them cause it's a better cigarette.

190200047-0116 at 0061, 0071, 0106 (US 22162); Ivey WD, 59:1-10.

  1. A July 27, 2000 document prepared for B&W by Kay Harwood Marketing Analysts,

Inc., titled "Topline Report of Findings for Carlton Advertising Research," reported that smokers view Carlton cigarettes as a less harmful alternative to quitting smoking:

As participants described their transition from heavier to lighter (i.e., higher tar to lower tar) cigarettes, they frequently used phrases like "working my way down" and being "that much closer to quitting." Ultra light cigarettes were frequently associated with trying to quit smoking. . . . [M]any participants intimated that ultra lights already represent a sacrifice (i.e., less taste for a cigarette lower in tar and nicotine).

A "summary of the most common perceptions/images associated with" Carlton and Merit Ultra Light included descriptions of Carlton as for "[s]omeone trying to quit/cut back/smoke lighter" and descriptions of Merit Ultra Light as a "[c]igarette used to quit smoking/almost ready to quit/cutting back." Among the Report's "Key Findings" were the statements from the focus groups describing their perceptions of several Carlton campaigns. The statements included:

888

Trying to quit/cut down . . . to change/cut down. . . . If you can't stop smoking, smoke Carlton -- it's better for you if you can't quit. . . . Cut down on smoking -- better for you. . . . Diet restrictions/ quitting/cutting back. . . . The least you could do . . . if you have to smoke. . . smoke the less harmful cigarette. . . . If you've got to smoke, smoke this one. . . . Cut down on your smoking. . . . Directed to someone who wants to cut down is better for you if you cannot quit. -- Quit smoking, or smoke less nicotine cigarettes. . . . Don't feel bad if you can't stop smoking; if you smoke Carltons, you have accomplished something. . . . Use these in case of emergency nicotine fit while quitting. . . . Smoke when trying to quit – emergency cigarette. -- Switch to Carlton when quitting.

250255336-5347 at 5339, 5343-47 (US 22031). These statements were repeated in an August 8,

2000 document prepared for B&W by Kay Harwood, Marketing Analysts, Inc., titled "Carlton

Advertising Research: Report of Key Findings." 250255060-5075 (US 22170); Ivey WD, 60:1362:22; Smith WD, 62:9-63:6.

(5) BATCo

  1. A March 22, 1979 internal BATCo document written by Terry Hanby, who researched "Smoking & Health reassurance" for BATCo, concluded that the sale of low tar cigarettes as "health reassurance" products would stem the decline in cigarette sales:

It is quite clear that the emergence of Hi-Fi products has been welcomed by much of the smoking community and their use is emerging as an important health reassurance mechanism for many smokers. . . . [T]he growth of Hi-Fi brands will increasingly ensure that up-market smokers will turn to them as a health reassurance mechanism. . . . [W]e feel that in the markets of 'developed nations' the incidence of smoking may continue to decline but that the various reassurance mechanisms listed above will ensure that this decline will eventually plateau at a level not too far removed from current incidence levels.

109883112-3117 at 3115, 3117 (US 20264); 105657908-7909 (US 20248).

889
  1. A BATCo memorandum dated April 4, 1979, titled "Year 2000," contained predictions for the future of the tobacco industry:

Low tar products will eventually and substantially define the tobacco business. This will serve as an important mechanism for reassuring smokers. . . . Quitting rates will also not increase as existing smokers become increasingly reassured by the growth of Low Tar brands. . . . the ready availability of Low Tar brands will supply high reassurance.

109883101-3103 at 3101, 3102 (US 21518).

  1. An April 23, 1979 BATCo Research Report concluded that "most smokers wish to quit smoking." 105562110-2189 at 2114 (US 21516).

  2. An April 28, 1981 memorandum by Dr. Martin Oldman, titled "Low Delivery

Cigarettes and Quitting" and delivered to Dr. L.C.F. Blackman, Director of Millbank, stated:

The role of low delivery cigarettes in a health-conscious market, and for the health concerned individual, can probably be best explained in terms of a simple balance model. This would suggest that the individual smoker seeks to reduce the tension arising from the perceived incompatibility between his health concern and continuing to smoke by making various psychological and behavioural adjustments. For some the tension will only be sufficiently reduced by quitting. For others, an adequate discharge will be achieved by reducing the number of cigarettes smoked and, for yet others, a switch to lower delivery cigarettes is the appropriate modification. In all cases, the model would suggest, the individual makes only that change in his smoking behaviour which is sufficient to offset to a tolerable level the tension arising from the perceived conflict between smoking and his health concern.

105399687-9689 at 9688-9689 (US 85032).

  1. Notes of a July 12, 1983 meeting of BATCo's newly established "Sidestream Working

Party" stated: "Smokers who are concerned about the smoking and health aspect but who have not given up, have done all they can (by moving to lower tar brands) to avoid the pressure to quit." The notes continue, recognizing that

890

[m]arket research undertaken in the US and the UK indicates that smokers would welcome a reduction in the visible smoke they are creating as it would ease the social pressures being increasingly placed upon them and provide a degree of solace, in that they themselves can do no more -- short of quitting -- having already moved down the tar scale.

109881462-1467 at 1462-1463 (US 26230).

  1. A circa 1984 BATCo "R&D/Marketing Conference" report stated: "It is useful to consider lights more as a third alternative to quitting and cutting down -- a branded hybrid of smokers' unsuccessful attempts to modify their habit on their own." This document also stated that lights "offered one solution to the smokers dilemma" regarding the adverse health effects of smoking. 100501581-1657 at 1593 (US 20187) (emphasis in original).

  2. An internal document from Imperial Tobacco Ltd., the Canadian sister company of B&W, and a subsidiary of BATCo, stated that the company viewed the promotion of light cigarettes as the "ability to reassure smokers, to keep them in the franchise for as long as possible." 689466032-6789 at 6351 (US 31053).

  3. A BATCo document bearing the heading "Barclay Business Review 1996" reported that ultra light cigarettes are particularly attractive to people who may start smoking again after quitting. The document stated that, due to its packaging, the Barclay cigarette (in the Netherlands) was "not clearly perceived as an ultra light and consequently lost attractiveness particularly amongst re-starters who look for an ultra light offer." This appeared under the heading "The core positioning of the brand needs to be clarified in the minds of the consumer." 700767443-7457 at 7446 (US 22123) (emphasis in original); Ivey WD, 79:5-22.

891

  1. A January 2001 BATCo file, titled "Consumer Concept Trial Notes Jan 2001 Project Baltec II," contained a section dated January 10-12, 2001, titled "Philadelphia -- General Impressions and Summary," that detailed the results of consumer research on low tar cigarette smokers, stating: "General feeling that lights are healthier. . . . Who the consumers of the product might be -- . . . Smokers who don't want to quit but are concerned about their health[;] Step toward quitting[;] Trading down to lights." 325238922-8994 at 8992-8993 (US 22079) (Confidential).

  2. A January 15, 2001 BATCo document written by Steven Coburn, titled "Project Balcony," that referenced California marketing studies related to proposed advertising campaigns, acknowledged that low tar cigarettes are smoked by people who want to quit: "3rd board highlights low nic/tar aspect -- quitters cig." 325239014-9022 at 9015 (US 22082). A document with the same author, title and date that also referenced California smokers stated "less tar less nic -- less harmful. . . . 2nd board implies a cigarette to be used as a substitute for quitting." 325239014-9027 at 9017 (US 22082).

(6) American Tobacco 2340. A November 11, 1976 report prepared by Fay Ennis Creative Research Services for

F. William Free & Company, an advertising agency used by American Tobacco, summarized focus group sessions relating to low tar cigarettes. The report stated: "By changing to a lower tar cigarette, [the panelists] felt less guilty about continuing to smoke and eventually hoped to stop smoking completely." The report stated that "[s]ome of the panelists actually tried smoking brands of low tar in a downward progression of milligrams in order to quit smoking entirely." ATC037310-7324 at

892
  1. A May 25, 1977 report, titled "Tareyton Lights Field Trip Report," prepared for American by SSC&B Advertising, reported results of focus group research conducted on Tareyton Lights, stating:

In general, most people who smoke would like to quit. Primary reasons for smoking low tars are: It is a means of cutting down on the amount of tar ingested. It is a first step in quitting; people step down in stages to a lower tar cigarette until finally they are smoking the lowest tar. Even among those who enjoy smoking low tars help alleviate their concern.

ATC0136995-7017 at 7005, 7006 (US 87906).

(7) Lorillard 2342. Lorillard's internal marketing documents demonstrate that Lorillard commissioned

extensive consumer research on its cigarettes. For instance, an August 4, 1975 presentation given to Lorillard by a marketing research consultant, titled "Cigarette Advertising 1974-1975," showed that several of the respondents concluded that Lorillard's "Quit or smoke True" advertisements communicated that True cigarettes are "LESS HARMFUL/BETTER FOR YOU." 03496228-6630 at 6277, 6280 (US 20057).

  1. A December 1976 report prepared for Lorillard by the Nowland Organization, Inc. "to develop market information useful to Lorillard in strengthening its position in the SHF [super high filtration]/low T&N [tar & nicotine] cigarette market," titled "SHF Cigarette Marketplace Opportunities Search and Situation Analysis Volume I," stated: "As would be expected, the advantages of low tar and nicotine cigarettes are seen as health related." The document further stated:
893

On the more positive side, many SHF [super-high filtration] smokers note that the existence of low tar and nicotine cigarettes, and their switch to such cigarettes, has alleviated some of their health concerns. . . . A number of SHF smokers note that they turned to this "compromise" smoke because, while they felt they should quit smoking (a few on doctors' advice), they were unwilling or unable to do so . . . yet. They see smoking low tar and nicotine cigarettes both as a way to cut back on the intake of harmful substances without cutting back on the number of cigarettes habitually smoked; and (in some cases) . . . so that they will be able to quit more easily at some future time. The fact that many SHF smokers (women especially) now find themselves smoking more than when they smoked regular cigarettes works to defeat their purpose in switching, and is a source of considerable annoyance to them.

Under the heading "Reasons for Prior Brand Switching The Switch to SHF," the document stated:

As discussed, most SHF smokers deliberately chose to switch to low tar and nicotine cigarettes because of health concerns -- to get less tar and nicotine, for a milder/gentler smoke, and/or to relieve specific smoking-related symptoms. Often, the actual switch was precipitated by. . . .

  • experiencing or becoming more aware of, or more concerned about personal ill-effects from smoking (e.g., cough, throat irritation, difficulty breathing)
  • a failed attempt to quit, or a (perceived) inability to quit, coupled with the heightened perception that one 'should' quit

The main advantages which they feel they experienced in this switch are . . . they have less (or no) smoking irritation . . . they like knowing they are getting less tar and nicotine.

84053616-3706 at 3618, 3628, 3632, 3637, 3678-3679 (US 55997).

  1. Volume II of this Report contained the following "Key Highlights":
894

Health concerns are the usual reason for switching to a low T&N brand. Such cigarettes are "better for you" -- milder and less irritating (now) as well as less likely to cause serious problems (later). . . . To many SHF smokers, a low T&N cigarette represents a compromise smoke between a more satisfying smoke and not smoking at all.

The report also stated: "Those who smoke low tar and nicotine cigarettes generally do so because they believe such cigarettes are 'better for you' . . . there is less tar and nicotine to do long-term damage . . . reduces smoking anxiety, guilt." 84053709-3744 at 3712-3713, 3716-3719 (US 21073).

(8) Liggett 2345. In a December 2, 1968 letter from Max Samfield, Senior Assistant Director of the

Liggett Research Department, to Copeland Robinson, New Products Manager at Liggett, Samfield discussed the importance of releasing Dorset brand cigarettes, citing: "The obvious void in the 4-6 mgm range for a low tar cigarette with acceptable taste. I firmly believe that those who switch to Marvels, Carltons, or Life cigarettes are in the last stages of quitting smoking. The Dorset, however, is a low tar cigarette one can 'live' with." LWDOJ8006760-6760 (US 87909).