According the results of the two marketing researches that R. J. Reynols Tobacco Company accomplished was different due to the fact that the objectives and the aims of the survey were unlike.
First, the firm wants to attract Marlboro smokers to a new brand of cigarettes by an innovative slide cigarettes box; the research was based through this fact. Analytically, they test the outcome of the new brand in a conventional crush-proof box, against the slide-box, indicated that the slide-box would improve the new brand’s appeal among prospect smokers.
The results of that concept product test were encouraged for the launch of the new product.
When the management team of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco interprets the finding of the survey and saw that the slide-box is preferable, consider the challenge to put it on their established products.
Thus, the second research based on the consideration to put the slide-box on their establish products. The most vital question was which existing brand or brand should use the slide-box that is and the aim of the new survey. The research was planned with two objectives. The first objective was to establish which of company’s major conventional brands has an image reliable with the image projected by the slide-box. The other objective was to determine the quantity of interest in this new slide-box packaging among each of these brand’s prospect smoker groups.
Hence, we could not compare the findings of the two surveys due to the fact that are completely different. They have different hypothesis, different aims and objectives because they appear perceptions for different products for a new one and for existing products. So, there is no correlation between the results of the two researches and the different findings are normal.
Many marketers have called packaging a fifth p, along with price, product, place and promotion. Packaging is and the problem that we examine to this case study.
The R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. made two researches. By the first research they test the outcome of the new brand in a conventional crush-proof box, against the slide-box, indicated that the slide-box would improve the new brand’s appeal among prospect smokers. The second research based on the consideration to put the slide-box on their establish products.
The findings of the first research were encouraged in addition to the second research.
We start by the assessment of the second research findings. Indisputable, according to the results of the second research the consumer’s perception of the new package slide-box was unenthusiastic. The overall evaluation of packs find as the most favorable packaging for the existing brand of cigarettes the conventional crush-proof box. Also, the researchers found that the slide-box had functionality problems as compared to the crush one. Their image of the slide-box was more consistent with their image of their current brand than their image of the conventional crush-proof box user. At this point forward we must underline that packages contribute to instant recognition of the company or brand. The consumers connect the package of a product with the product it self, the image of it and the brand equity. Thus, a change of a dominant package of a product is not always acceptable.
Summarizing, the company must reject the transformation of the conventional crush-proof-box to a slide-box for their existing products.
According the first research the outcomes encouraged the new slide-box package for the new Marlboro’s cigarettes. Complementary we can take same findings for the slide-box of the second survey. The consumers had seen the slide-box as having cosmetic advantages, such as being attractive, modern, being its own case, and having an edge over the conventional crush-proof box. Also, the new package was perceived to be more gimmicky that the conventional box. It’s important that the user image of the slide-box was, with one exception, not felt by respondents to be compatible with the user imagery of the brands for which the package was being considered. The characteristics of the consumers that prefer the slide-box were pictured as white-collar, upper-class women seeking changes and new experiences.
That’s results fits entirely with the image of the new cigarettes. The consumers of the new Marlboro cigarettes were more sociable and had more appeal to both male and female adult smokers.
A vital note is that innovative packaging can bring large benefits to consumers and profits to producers and well designed packages can create convenience and promotional value.
Concluding, in conformity with the higher up analysis we accept the slide box as the package of the new Marlboro cigarettes and we reject it for their existing products.