502 



•22- 



Ch«a A, U4 *itt> c^M txctptloo* til rtced D t^oal to or illihclj tCroQctr 

 tKan C. Ttau« (W r«cln|t for itrtnsch rtfltcced ooc only ch« ordtr of 

 the alcocln* ^Uvtftti buc alto ch« laccrvalt bctvcca cltar«ct«« vitk 

 rctpece to aicoCW* JtllTtry. Tbi« It thown la Fifurt 1, where th« 

 average ratiogt foirjCi^rengtk given by Che cotal saople of rcspoo^eact 

 are plotted against th«^cocln« deliveries of the regAjlar size versio&s 

 of Che tetc cigarettes. Ortbe oth«r attributes, the ratings for taste 

 and satisfaction showed some sigfis of c relationship with nicotine 



delivery, but there were aany except/oos aaoof individual clusters.. It 



'C^ '< . 



wcMllil therefore appear that respondent^ >«i th« whole were sensitive to 

 ■ ^^ 0- 



-^ ■-* ^ 



cbe di/fereoces in nicotine between Che teM;-cigarectcs, even in soiae 



catet CO eke very saall interval separating D tij^ C, and that they 



used prlocipaVVv the scale of streagth-mildnets to'-£DdicaCc Che differeaces 



ch they percerv^^ In addicien Co cheir relative pva^ngt of the 



"^- .A 



wh 



4 cigarettes, elaacersTV^re in fairly good agrecnent as to their «bt«l«tc 



levels of strength. For 1^t clusters the strength of their "ideal" 



cigarette fell within (h* ran|^<of fered by the test cigarettes; however 



two of the tow Need clusters indi£4Ced an "ideal" strength coaing 



somewhat below that of cigaretc* k. Cy. 



Contrary to the situation with tcrengJl), respondents considered 



S 

 Chat Che cigarettes compared unfavourably wiev^heir regular brand in 



- ^U 

 terms of smoothness, taste and satisfaction. Howler it would be 



' ''/ 

 unwise to read too much into this comparison, at ic sceos to be cooiaoa 



OR 

 C 



experience that even when consumers are offered chtir own resular brand c 



in a disguised form they Cend Co find faulc wich ic. Of Bor«\^ceresc 2 



"■p * 



is the coraparison of the 4 cigarettes among chcmselves for these 7 ^ 



