Table 4

Real versus “imagineered” reduced irritation (Player’s Premiere)

October 1993Position Paper #2, p 5Consumers have “a need for real product improvement”
January 1994Position Paper #3, p 2“[T]he greatest challenge will be to actually deliver on the promise”
January 1994Position Paper #3, p 9“[T]he product must in the very least deliver on our promise”
March 1994Phase III Research Results, p 5None of the “novel product features . . .appeared to add any tangible credibility”
March 1994Phase III Research Results, p 5“What remains to be done, in our view, and what is essential to the success of the Tomahawk proposition, is to develop the product that fully delivers on the promise that we are about to make to consumers”
March 1995Interim Tomahawk Position Paper #1, p 5 Interim Tomahawk “can be driven by imagery rather than significant product differences”
November 1995Position Paper #4, p 3“Tomahawk requires a product that delivers noticeably improved product characteristics”
November 1995Position Paper #4, p 5 The “specialty gap filter . . .could be used as a communications tool”
November 1995Position Paper #4, p 3 “[T]echnology is credited with the ability to deliver such a product”
May 1996Total Offer Test Research Brief, p 1“What is less complete, however, is the product”
March 1997Communications Plan, p 7 “Emphasis on filter = credibility of the concept”
January 2001Ricard interrogatory, p 81“We want to give them information to understand how one brand is different than another on key attributes”
January 2002Ricard testimony, p 1615“The script and the font of every word in every ad is all done by design. It’s all researched very, very closely”