Kent Golden Lights
Excerpts from Kent Review
Prepared by Kent Brand Group
December 7, 1981
Recommendations for Forward Development
2. Product - There are no indications that product strategy aimed at keeping Kent Golden Lights's deliveries below or no higher than major competitive brands in its category is incorrect. The objectives are to have a Kent brand at pre-emptive or at least competitive levels for League Tables and to reinforce the brand family positioning as the definitive range of U.S. blended cigarettes for concerned smokers. A program is now underway to develop phased delivery reductions for implementation at the appropriate time. Ultimate reductions should take deliveries down to the bottom end of its category (i.e. 5.0 mg. 'tar', 0.5 mg. nicotine). Image perception research has shown that Kent Golden Lights has inherited Kent???‚¬?„?s poorer taste/satisfaction attributes. It is anticipated that adaptation of an image oriented advertising campaign will help overcome the negative attribute perception resulting from consumer inability to differentiate between Kent Golden Lights and Kent.
Recommendation - For Kent Golden Lights to maximize its potential in the low delivery category, it is essential that deliveries be kept at non-pre-emptive levels and quality of smoking characteristics maintained at the highest possible level. Contingent upon positive results for consumer product testing now underway, it is recommended that deliveries for all three styles be reduced to 7.0 mg, 'tar', 0.6 mg. nicotine at the earliest possible time. Additionally, it is recommended that phased reduction work be continued in 1982 to develop acceptable product candidates at 5.0 mg. 'tar', 0.5 mg. nicotine to hold in reserve for implementation at the appropriate time,
3. Pricing - It is recommended that the current pricing strategy of keeping Kent Golden Lights at parity with the equivalent Kent Parent style be maintained. This strategy should be followed even in markets where a decision might be taken to reduce pricing for Kent in order not to position Kent Golden Lights at a disadvantage for broad base appeal. Additionally, it is believed that premium pricing for Kent Golden Lights relative to Kent could jeopardize the Parent's quality image.
4. Packaging - It is recommended that packaging strategy aimed at helping differentiate Kent Golden Lights from the Parent be maintained. It is also recommended that consideration be given to developing alternate packing (i.e. 10's/14's) for Kent Golden Lights following the Parent's lead where appropriate in order to aggressively compete for broad based appeal.
5. Development of Mild/Low T&N Segment- Experience over the past four years indicates that the mild/low delivery segment, where Kent and Kent Golden Lights brands are positioned and compete best, has not developed and grown at the pace originally anticipated. The shortfall in development of this segment focuses mainly on developing countries where smoker concern has not emerged or been progressive. If the potential for the Kent brand family is to be maximized, it is recommended that affirmative action be implemented to heighten consumer awareness/understanding of benefits associated with mild/low delivery cigarettes in markets where these brands are appropriately positioned to benefit from shifts in consumer trends favoring expansion of this segment.