Transcript of Record — United States v. Continental Can Co.

Supreme Court brief1964

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED:

APPEAL . FRO

OcToBER -TeERM, 1963

No, 367 -

UNITED STATES, APPELLANT,

_VS.

CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, ET

; . 5 nf ”

ei \ 7

_ °. SOUTHERN, DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

| * Volume IIT

INDEX "

Record from the United. States District Conrt for the

Southern District of New! York—Coptinued

GovERNMENT’s Exnipits—Coptinued et

76—Report entitled, “The GCMI-Giant Study-—

_A- Study of the Optimum Utilization of,

Glass Jars. and Cans in the Fruit and.

Vegetable Sections of a Modern Super-

market” by Kenyon & Eckhardt,. Ine.,

March 1958, (excerpts) Sy Ra

77—Industry Bulletin #66 dated November 3,

1958 from R. L. Cheney transmitting ex-

cerpts from-GCMI-Giant Study ~ ‘

, mK

AL. 3

Jriginal

SUK

316

79—Excerpts of report entitled, “Survey of Con- °

sumer Preference for Food Containers”,

with trapsmittal letter dated January 25,

1955 from Ford Sammis té Glass Con-, ~

tainer Manufacturers Institute, Ine.

819°

M THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

eM rvs

1957

1960

1963,

—~soe

_the United States District Court for the

a Distriét of New York—Continued

Goyers mp t’s Exnrhts—Continued

”

"VSO Excerpts of report entitled, “Glass Container

* oq ‘National Survey 1954—Summary”, with’

' transmittal Ytter dated October 25, 1954 .

from Ford Sammis to Glass Container

Manufacturers Institute, Ine.

Si—Excerpt of report entitled,

sumer Surveys on Glass Containers 1955”

with transmittal letter dated April 20, 1956.

from Ford Sammis & Company to Glass

Coptainer Manufacturers Institute

’ 82—Exeerpt of report entitled, “National Market

“National Con |

S54 Survey. on Glass Containers 1956—Sum- .

y mary” with transmittal letter dated De-

o., ’ cember 27, 1956 tvom Ford Sammis &.

ompany to Glass Container. Manufac-

turers Institute :

83—Summary of talk delivaced May 22, 1956

entitled, “Dynamies of the Container Mar-

'. @ ket” with? transmittal indated letter from

a Ford Sammis & Compatiy to Glass Con- ,

tainer Manufacturers.Institute, Lie.

84—"Glass Container Motivations”, “hart-talk

, delivered at annual meeting of Glass Con-

tainer Manufacturers Institute, Ine., May

27, 1957, and “Consumer Preferences and

Motivations on Containers 19544957",

* Chart-talk delivered at semi-annual meet-

, Odtober 1, 1957

85—Min

Promotion Committee, by’ R. L. Cheney,

Seer¢tary, April 14, 194

86~—Minuted of meeting, Market Research and

: Promotion Committee, by R. L. Cheney,

" Seeretary,May16,.1954

87—Minutes of meeting, Market Research and

‘Promot@n- Co nmittee, by R. L, Cheney,

.+ , Seeretary, Ser ber 22, 1954 h

sS—Minutes of ing, Market Reseafeh and

Promotion Committee, by’ R. L. Cheney,

Secretary, October. 24; 1954

80—Minutes. of meeting, Market Research and

Promotion Committee; by R. L. .Cheney,

retary, October 27, -19! .

tes of meeting, Market Research and

otion Committee, by R. L. Cheney,

* Seeretary,’ Mareh. 11905 ey:

o0—

. .

of meeting, Market Research and

406

415°

415

402

i , oe .

« 2

Record from the’ ‘United States District | Court for the,

Southern District of New York —Continued

Govern MeNT’s Exuterrs— Continued é

: 91—Minutes of meeting, Market Research and

Promotion Committee, by R. L. Cheney,

Secretary, May 8, 1955 . 422

92—-Minuyy of meeting, Market Research and

Promotion Committee, by R. L. Cheney, ,

Secretary, September 28, 1955 4235

93—Propoged Budget for 1956, Market Research

and Promotion Division by GCMI, Inc,

dated September 28, 1955 * 430

94—Minites of meeting, Market’ Research .and |

; Task “Committee, > Se *

‘Cheney, Secretary, ‘November 2, 1955 454

95—Minutes of meeting, Market Rescarsh and -

Promotion Committee, by R. L. Cheney,

Secretary, “September 26, 1956 437

96—Minutes_of. meeting, Market Research and

Promotion ‘Committee, by R. L. Cheney, ,

Secretary, January 16, 1957. .

'« 97—Revised Budget for 1957, Market reh

and Promotion, Division by GC Ine.,

dated. May hb, 1957 Hil

. 98-2Minutes of” meeting, Market Research and

Promotion Coinmittes, by R. L. Cheney,

Secretary, May 20, 1957

* 99—Minutes of meeting, Markbt Rbsearch ad

Promotion Committee, by XK L. Cheney, s

Secretary, August 27, 195 His

" 100—Proposed Budget for. 1958, Marht-Recsamh \

and Promotion Division, Angust 27, 1957 | 450°

7 of nierting, Market Research and &

‘. eens J Committee, by R. L. Cheney,

September 30, 1957 44

: 08—dheees of meeting, Market Research and

Promotion Committee, . by R. L. Cheney, ©

December 4, 1957 * 457

103-—Minutes of ing, Market Research and

e Promotion mittee, by R. L. Cheney,

: Seeretary, April 10, 1998 ‘ 460

106—Mingtes of meeting, Market Research and

Promotion Committee, by "R. LL. Cheney,

May 20, 1958 Pts ee BB

_ 105-—Minutes of meeting, Market Research “and : .

Promotion Committee, by Ri. Le Cheney,

Secretary, May 22, 1959 . 467 . Qj

106—Minutes of meeting, Market Research ghd

tion’ Committee, by It, L. Chendy,

‘2n16

-__ Seeretary, September 25 25, 1958 . 469

and Promotion Division by GCMI, Inc. _

int

; Ff OF

nigint

Fre

fel

112—Minutes of

113—Minutes of meeting, Beer Bottle ‘Subcow-

mittee, by R. L. Cheney, Seeretary, June

1956 | tee CORRS

114—Minutes of meeting, Beer Bottle Subcom-.

mittee, by R. L. Cheney, Seeretary, July

BN PS or i ee ase ve Sse, |

* 115 Minutes of meeting, Beer Bottle Subcom-

mittee, by R.-L. Cheney, Seeretary, March

26, 1957 : |

116—Minutes of meeting, Beer Bottle Subcom-

mittee, by R. L. Cheney, Seeretary, August

21, 1958

1\7—Teehnieal Committee on Glass Packed Prod-

ucts, Special Subcommittee on Nuclear

Tests, Semi-Annual Report of Activities

for the period May, to September 1957 -to

the Board of Trustees of Glass Container

Manufacturers Institute -y ;

118—Committee on Market Research and Promo-

tion, Semi-Annual Report of Activities for *

the period November 1955 to May 1956 to

the Board of Trustees of Glase Container —

' . 408

Manufacturers [astitute

/ 119—Committee on Market Research and Promo-

tion, Semi-Annual Report of Activities for

434

496

the period May 1956 to November 1956 to _—

_the Board of Trustees of Glass Container

Manufacturers Institute sheen

—

_ INDEX *: : v

BO ig MEMO EN ENOL) St8HE ESOGSEA T= | winte $0 eqqDEDNGREDEDERENERENEerDGeEnestegranenenengnends —_——

_ Reeord snei the United. States District Court for the |

Southern District of New York—Continued :

GOVERN MENT'S Exh nits—Continued “ Original = Print

120-—-Committee on Market Research and Promo- :

tion, Semi-Annual Report of Activities for

the period November 1956 to May Gh:

the Board of Trustees of Glass Con ner

. Manufacturers Institute... eds ye §12 - 2160 -

121—-Committee on Market sca paar Promo- --

. tion, Semi-Annual Report of Activities for

the period May 1957 to September 1957 to

the Board of Trustees of Glass Container ,

_ Manufacturers Institute ............. 519 2169

* 122-—-Committee on Market Research and Promo-

tion, Semi-Annual Report of Activities for - ee

the period October 1957 to May 1958 to

‘ the Board of Trustees of Glass Container

Manufacturers Institute... .. §25 - . 2178

123—--Committee on Market Research and Promo- ’ ;

tion, Semi-Annual Report) of Activities for

the period May 1958 to November 1958 to

‘the Board of Trustees of Glass Container

Manufacturers Institute... 532 2187

124—Committee on Market Research and Promo-

tion, Subcommittee on Beer Bottles, Semi-

Annual Report of Activities for the period -

May 1955 to November 1955 to the Board

of Trustees of Glass Container Manufac-

turers Institute jausheean's st] 2196

125—Committee on Market Research and Promo- .-

° tion, Subcommittee on Beer Bottles, Semi-

Annual Report of Activities for the period

* . October 1957 to May 1958 to the Board of

- Trustees of Glass Container Manufacturers

Institute 540-2197

126-—Committee on Market Research. and Promo-

tion, Subeommittee’on Beer Bottles, Semi-

Annual Keportof Activities for the period

May 1955 to November 1958 to the Board

of Trustees of Glass Container Manufac- Las

turers Institute «+. Sit 2203

127--Commiftee on "Market Research and Promo- :

tion, Subcommittee on Milk Bottle Promo-

tion, Semi-Annual Report of Activities, for

the period May 1957 to September 1957

Semi-Annual Report of Activities for the

period of May 1957 to September 1957 of ‘es

the Committee on Market Research’ and

> Promotion, Subeommittee on Beer Bottles

to the Board of Trustees of Glass Con-

i, tainer Manufacturers Institute - 545 is« 2204

ENDEX

Record from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York—Continued *

Governuen?’s Exuinits—Continued

.1%8—Teae Committee, Semi-Annual Report of

Activities for the period November 1954

to May 1955 to the-Board of Trustees of

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute

-129—Committee on GQyernment- Industry Rela-

tions’ Semi-Annual Report of Activities

for the period May to November 1956 to

the Board of Trustees of Glass Container

Manufacturers Institute... ..

130—Committee on, Market Research eat Promo-

tion, Subcommittee on Beer Bottles, Semi-

. Annual Report of Activities for the period

May 1956 to November 1956 to the Board’

of Trustees of. Glass Container Manufac-

turers Institute

131—Committee on Container Design and Specifi-

cations Semi-Annual Report of Activities

3 for the period November 1955 to May

1956 to the Board of Trustees of Glass

Container , Manufacturers Institute.

138—“Fifth Annual coer ree a ata Con-

tainers” prepared by Benton & Bowles,

Inc., Sicoeben: 1947 (excerpts).....°

.145—Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Admin-

istrative Committee fpr the Research Divi-

, sion of Can Manufac Institute, Inc.,

> November 17, 1941 (excerpt) .

147 & 148—Digest of Recommendations. presented

‘to the Administrative Committee of the

Research Division of ‘Can Manufacturers

¢ Institute on November 17, 1941 by Dr.

Miller McClintock, Director” ..

156—Minutes of a Special Meeting of the ‘Ad-

ministrative Committee for the Research

Division of Can Manufacturers Institute,

Inc., May 11, 1942 (excerpts)

158—Minutes of a Special Meeting of ‘the Ad-

ministrative Committee for the Research

Division of Can Manufacturers Institute, ©

Inc., June 1,.1942 (excerpt) .. .-

160—Finaneial statement, Research Division, Can

Manufacturers Institute, Inc., May i

, 1942-April 30, 1943

1 inutes of a Special Meeting of the Ad-

ministrative Committee for the Research

Division of Can Manufacturers Institute,

Ine., December 14, 1942

—<

Original Print

548 2208

555 2217

558” 2221

' 560, 2223

564 2229

688 2245

689 2246°

691 2248

3. 2240

693 + 2251

694 2251

nF Record from the U nited States District Court for the

Southern District of New York—Continued

Goverxwent’s Exninits— Continued

_170B- 178—Proofs * of advertisements on “Soft

#in Cans” prepared for publication

185—"The- HE 1S. Glass-Forming : Machines”,

informational booklet

235A—Memorandum dated 1/ 18/54 from CGB to

MAH re Narrow Mouth Prices

:; 235B—Memorandum dated 3/15/54 from CGB to

te SLR re Glass Container Price Increases

‘5 =. 235C—Report of R, M. Koehrinan-re Sales Policy

ty Meeting July 29 and 30, 1954

rm _ 235D-—-Report of R. M. Koehrihan re Sales. Poliey

Meeting February 23 and 24, 1954

_ 304—Pamphlet entitled “Articles of Incorporation

and Code of Regulations” of Glass Con-

“ tainer Manufacturers Institute, Ine., June

5, 1945, as amended

317—Bulletin 30-L, 24 Ed, entitled “Processes for

’ Low-Acid. Canned Foods in Glass Con-

tainers”, by National Canners Association,

Research Laboratory, September, 1955

~ 318—Bulletin 26-L, 8th Ed., entitled “Processes

for Low-Acid Canned Foods in Metal Con*

tainers”, by National Canners Association,

. oa Research Laboratory, Deecraber, 1055. . .~«

* 948-—Study of Can Costs versus 1-way Bottle Cost

to Brewer, Owens-Illinois Glass Company,

821 °

‘dated May 4, 1956, prepared by Glass Con- .

tainer Comptroller's Department :

34SA—Study of Can -vs. Glass Prices—Florida

, Fruit Packs, dated April. 1, 1955, enpenee

by Comptroller's Department,

tainer Division oh

348B—Stady: of Quart l-way Beer Containers,

Glass v&. Tin, Owens-Illinois Glass Com-

palty, dated Jung,4, 1956, prepared by

os Glass Container Comptroller's Department

MSC—“Sourees of information, Can vs. Glass

Prices—-1942 = 1946 ys. 1-1-57", prepared

by Comptroller's Department, Glass Can-

tainer Division, 2/27/57

* HSD—*1: Way Beer Prices”, a comparative study

: . prepared by Comptroller's Department,

: Glass Container Division, April 23, 1958

MSE—"Cane vs, Jars Prive Pensf housand—

¢ ‘Ground Coffed,” report dated October 21,

105s by Instant Products Division

4 .

——, ‘

ied Ghai

from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York —Continued

Goveaxwent’s Exainits—-Continued

348F—“Baby Foods—Tin ts. Glass”, report dated

April 16, 1959 by Comptroller's. Depart-

ment '

348G—Memorandum dated April 27, 1959 from

Comptroller's Department, Glass Container

’ Division, re Beer Containers—One-Way

_« Glassws. To... = .

348H—Memorandum dated May 6, 1959, with

charts altached, from Comptroller's De--

partment, Glass Container Division, re

Can va. Glass Prices™

- 349—Report dated" April 2, 1958 re prices of con-

Se .

and liquid waxes

. and polishes,

349A—Memorandum dated Mareh 19, 1959, with .

tables attached, from Comptroller's De-

partment, Closure & Plastics Division, re

-containers

e polishes —

357—(List) of Revlon products, March 195% to

ae hg '

363—List, June 21.. 1960, of glass container.

machines shipped by Embart Manufactur-

ing Company to Hazel-Atlas Glass Com-

pany and Hazel-Atlas Division of Conti-

nental Can Company

364—Letter dated October 21, 1958, from Emhart

. Manufacturing Company to U. 8. Dept. of

.+/. forming machines and related subjects,

; with attachments

S« 4 ‘

400—Memorandum datéd January 10, 1954, from :

Dana Hill to R. G, Fisher transmitting

repert “Tih vs. Glass—United States and

Canada” ae

400A——Memorandum dated November 34, 1947,

: from R. 8. Hatfield to G. H. Math, trans-

.4o1—“The Packaged Syrups Market"—An ap-

praisal of the Metal Container’s Competi-

tive Position—Commercial Research De-

partment, April 1949 (excerpt)

402—“The Market for Peanut Butter in Cans"—a

report by the Commercial Researeh De-

. partment, November 25, 1952

”

902

_ ol

Original

2470

Record from the United States Distriet Court for the

Southern Distriet of New York—Contunued

Goverxwent’s Exnipits—Continued

404—*Continental’s New Savorlock Can”, Conti-

__pnental Can Company Products Bulletin

_ from R. D. Cleaves, August, 1956 ;

405—Exes of i “Conti

| New BSavorlock Can” with memorandum

June 1956 from R. D. Cleaves to -

‘L- vision Managers of Sales and District

'405A—Packaging Engi ing Report, Progress

Be Report No. 1, dated November 21, 1956,

entitled “Test Pack of American Home

Foods’ Soluble Coffee in Sayoriock Cans”,

with Tables I and II es =e

406—Excerpts from pamphlets ‘issued by Conti-

’ nental Can Company entilled “Conti-

- nental’s Coffee Container—Sales Informa-

5 ig GR ck i covgivns itep vn deans

407—Pamphlet of Continental Can Company en-

titled “Instant Coffee by Chase & Sanborn”

408—Memorandum dated July 2t, 1955, from

R. D. Cleaves to P. L. Brachle, Central

. Division, Continental Can

R. D. Cleaves, to Sales Department List

. 411—Report entitled “Container Requirements for

. Coffee, Soluble” by H. P. Lankelma, Jr.,

' Special Products Section, prepared June

15, 1955, revised May 1, 1956

.412—Excerpt from report entitled “Instant Coffee

Container. Study”, dated February 14,

- 1955, condueted for Continental Can Com-

* “pany by National Family’ Opinion, Ine.

413—Excerpt of report entitled “Folger Soluble

j Coffee Can Investigation in Kansas City,

November 1955”, issued by Commercial

. Research Dept., December 1955

415B—Report entitled “Promotion of Baby Food

P in Cans—Structural Changes in Cans and

Advertising Programs”, dated July 13,°

ee ee re ; :

- 415C—Memorandum dated February 10, 1947,

from G. H. Muth to Messrs. Pearson,

Fogarty and Brachle

416—~Eacerpt of report entitled “Report of Con-

“Continental's” —

7 409—Memorandunt dated August 18, 1956, frow -

sumer Survey made in. Philadelphia on -

a Baby Food for Continental Can Conipany,

* t : Ine.” 2 ; ‘

Original Print .

1000-2353

1012-2563

1018 2567

1023. 2575

1028 2581

1045 - 2591

1049 ©. 2595

1054. 2602

1059 —- 2609

1063 2612

1065 2614

a: ;

1072 2633

1077 - 2628

Reeord

Sou’

—_—

)

INDEX

the United States District Court for, the

District of New York—Continued ~* «,

GoverY uen?’s Exutnrts—Continued

417—Repert entitled “Reelosure Baby Food Can—

Relationship between Market Acceptability

Inforpation and Contemplated Oan De-

velépments”, dated July*15, 1953 ?

419A, 419B, 419C—-Memorandum dated’ July. 5,

1945; from S. T. Frame, Manager of Mar-

ket Analysis, to Messrs. Fogarty," Perin

and Falk re Baby Foed Survey .

420—Excerpt of report entitled “Use, ‘Attitudes

and Opinions of ‘Cans vs. Glass Jars for »

Prepared Baby Food Among Young -

° Mothers and Doctofs” by S-D Surveys,

____. Ine, February, 1954... .

421A—-Memorandum dated August 13, 1953, from

S. B. Smart to W. K. Neuman

423.427—Reports on packaging guides for pressure

: dispensed foods: barbreue sauce, chocolate

_syrup, salad dressings, dressings: for salad,

‘whipped toppings .

429—Report entitled “Liquid Detergents, Analysis

of the Potential Market for Metal Cans”

‘with transmittal letter dated January, 19, °

104, from D. H. hosen to L. C. Mackel-

tent entitled “ ative Costs, Single

Trip versus Ret :Beer Containers,

. Year 1943, re rom ‘American

Brewer’ ”, dated Jur® 4, 1947

435—Memovandum dated June 10, 1947, from -.’

' G. H. Muth to T. C. Fogarty

- 436—Report entitle? “Comparative Delivered

- Costs, 12 oz. Non-Returnable. Beer Bottle

vs. 12-oz. Flat Top and Cap.Sealed Beer

» Cans”, dated August 7, 1947 —

438—Letter dated June 30, 1949, from Commercial

Research Department to All District Sales

Managers re One-Way Single Trip Beer

Bottle Priees (attachments omitted in

printing)

439—Letter dated July 11, 1949, from M. M.

. Dukehart, Jr., to All District Sales Man-

agers, with. data sheets attached

440—Memorandum dated October 31, 1952, from,

D. H. @Valker to M. M. Dukehart, with~*

report attached entitled “Current and

Prospective Markets for Beer Packages

Smaller than 12. Ounces”.

~ 1084"

1089

1132

1181

1188

2704

2705°

z= a.

, INDEX Sess a

2 éts 7 pera hth

Record from the United States District Court for the

Southern’ Distriet of New York—Continued es.

GoverNMEST’s Exninits—Continued ~

440A—-Memorandum dated January 29, 1952, frou

D: H. Walker to M. M. Dukehart, Jr.

441—Memorandum dated December 31, 1952,

from D. H. Walker to M. M. Dukebart

442-—-Excerpt from report entitled “A Comprehen-

_ sive National Study of Constmer Prefer-

ences for Different Types of Beer Con-

tainers”, dated January 1954

445—Report entitled “Retail Level Study of New

Quart Beer Can Acceptance in Chicago”

with transmittal memorandum dated Feb-

ruéry 21, 1956, from Dana Hill to C. H.

Backley

446—Report entitled “Carbonyl Compounds in

- Sehlitz Beer (Test Pack C659)", dated

_ December’ 5, 1957

448—Report on packaged beer trends entitled-

“June Packaged Sales Soar”, dated August

25, 1958 : cerey

? 543—Report entitled “Beer Can Shipments”, dated

Marth 25, 1952, with table attached

. _ §88°-Report entitled “Beer Trends”, dated July 9, .

1948,

~589—Memorandum dated June 9, 1948, from L. E.

Dake ‘re beer sales and production, with

< tables attached

600—Pamphlet eatin PARL's—Cenning” of:

Continental C ompany .

. 600B—Memorandum ‘dated May 26, 1953, from

F D. H. Walker fo M. M. Dukehart, Jr..

601—Memorandum dated August 7, 1953, from

‘" D. H.. Walker to C. H. Buckley =~

612—Excerpt of report entitled “Attitade _ of

- Grocery ‘Chains toward Canned Soft

Drinks” by Continental Cari Company,

. , dated December 13, 1954 Si tat

613—Report entitled, “A New Lookat Roft Drinks

in Cans”, by C. H. Buckley, dated March

4, 1955 , /

617—Memorandum dated March 1956, from

Buckley to L. A. Carey, with :

641—Excerpt from “Canned Foods, Merchandiser

Digest’, issue of May 1957s

- 42—"Canned Foods, Merchandiser Digest”, issue

of August 1957

exigent

1197.

1200 —

xi,

ee ei . mae CU

Record from the United States District Court fer the

Southern District of New York—Continued °

GovURN MENT’s- Exninyts— Continued .

649—Exeerpt of newsletter entitled “Foods-in-

glass News " Vol. U1, No. 4, dated June. -

1957 se

656—Excerpt of “Canned Foods Newsletter for,

:; Brokers” dated May 1958

— 669, pg AA weg wc ar of . Hazel-Atlas Glass

in various trade

journals :

.615—Proof of advertiement of Continental Can

Company to appear im 1955-56 Dirgetory

of Breweries

684—Releate. $1113, dated August 31, 1955 to

— Sales List A-2, entitled “Publicity that

makes Continental stand out”, enclosing -

~*~ various newspaper clippings. (excerpt)

“1282

4s,

eek ae , ° or j L

. . *.

(fol. 306-307] Government’s Exutsir 76

ec.

° ¢ ! ‘ : - ©

Fy. a ios :

‘ : , 2

”

a 4

. .

Research Department—Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc.

A Stu

in t

Copy #46.

- ° Phe GCMI-Giant Study ~

. a P

dy of the Optimum Utilization of Glass Jars and Cans

he Fruit and: Vegetable Sections of a Modern Super- ‘

imarkgt ) > | a: | ak ha

+ © * Prep#ted for

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute

? With the cooperation of

Giant Food Shopping Center, Inc.,

A Washington, D. C..

4 ‘ by Kenyon & nop Inc.

to - March 1957 5. ey aes Bk

cme or de / ae

” ° 1958 . Bi ay eee : nist

; a a . 0 , ; ; 3 y,

. [fd1, 308] “Why The Study. Was Done: °

[f4l. 309] There is a great deal of competition for shelf

space in the supermarket. -New products“are_ perpetually

- introduced and existing products turn up in an increasing ©.

number of diverse sizes and packages. This variety poses’

a serious problem for the grocer. : ;

- On the’ one hand, he is besieged by. salesmen dnd pres-

sured by consumers. On the other hand, he has only a’

_ limited amount of shelf space at his disposal. a Wi

Accordingly, he must constantly cut and trim, adjust a¥id

improvise, eliminate. slow-moving products as he takes on

others which he hopes wil nove in volume.

These decisions are difficult ones to make, particularly

sence the pressure of each day’s problems makes it almost -

impossible for him to preceed according to any systematic

plan.

{fol. 310] The ‘present study was undertaken as a contri--

bution i this area—to provide facts which will be of help.

to the grocer.in deciding how best to utilize glass jars and

cans in planning the:arrangement of his shelves.

There are many product areas in which no particalar

packaging competition exists. Rickles, for. example, are

almost universally packaged in glass, while soups are pack-

-aged in cans. Many other gre however, are avail--

able to the. consumer in _ type’.of packaging. And

‘most importantein this area are the packaged fruits and

vegetables, which not only account for a good share of total

grocery volume, but also All a ‘substantial portion of the

grocer’s shelves.

Accordingly, ‘we have singled out the fruit and vegetable —

~” sections. of the modern supermarket for study. With re-

° /

' spect to these sections, we have tackled the following prob- 3

lems .

- Assuming that the grocer wants to maximize sales, which-

of several alternatives should he adopt? Shonld he con-

(fol. 311} centrate on glass jars, or should he concentrate .

on cans? Or,‘should he carry some’ combination of glass:

jars and cans? Should he carry some products in cans, only

and other products in jars only, or should he carry the

same producis both in cans and in jars?. What proportion

of glass jars to cans should he carry on his shelves? And

how, finally, should he handle the different types of pack-

‘ ee “

-Q

Paces

; @ po cigdaas Should he concentrate all iii jars ina.

; . separate glass section or should he disperse them through-

out his fruit and. vegetable sections? - .

° The experiments in this study were designed to answer

i nay these questions, .

V4 — [fol. 313] The study was condicted in four large modern

supermarkets of the Giant Chain in the W ashington, D.C. . x

\ >» area. The following four stores participated: — +e at

aa Store A +3240 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Va. ,

Jae _ Store B 420—8706 Georgia Avenue, ‘Silver Springs,

ae ee | res

- Store C #31—4804 Indian Head Highway, Mary lana’

Store D 20 S36 - ‘Wisconsin, Ave., N. W., “Wash- .

ington, D.C: .'

With the cooperation of the Giant Chain Management, and

of the managers of the four stores, ‘the packaged fruit ‘and

‘vegetable sections of the stores weré turned ‘into a‘labo- ® .

ratory from April 8, 1957.to July 2, 1957. . During this time,

two series of experiments weré conducted in the stores.

These expériments consisted of systematically rearranging

the shelves of*the stores for two- week: periods, and of meas-

diring resulting sales. 2

At the end of each two-week ON | a detailed ‘wadit was

taken of the Puit and-vegetable: sections of the stores.

Furthermore,“two full time research supervisors visited

each of the fourstores (two times a day a Mondays, Tues- —

days, and W edne&days, and three times-a diy on Thursdays; 5,

: Friday s, and Saturda to make cértain that the Shelves

had not been disturbec xcept for the normal flow of mer-’

chandise from them. The Same research supervisors kept

daily counts of the movement of products from the shelves.

{fols. 314-315]: Making use of the bi-w eekly audit data, of .

delivery records, and of the, detailed daily reports of the~

supervisors, it was possible.to compute the valume of move- 9

ment of each of the products involved in the eXperiment for

_ each of the four stores, for éach.of the two-week periods. *

Thus, we are noW in a position ta Assess the effects on

dest sales of the various experimental shelf display patterns-

which were instituted in the course of the study,

~?.

2 2

. [fol 312} - How Thie Study Was Done - —— an

‘Se

1960 Reta “ ; — — —-

- Uel. 316) sat soc carpnariels! EXHIBIT 7

pr Glass Canbaiuae Manufacturers [nstifate

; ‘Ae Market Research & Promotion Division sh

Industry Bulletin #66 ; : ec}

November 3, ee |

« ~©—.s GCMI-Giant ‘Study a

Attached is your copy. of the GCMI Giant Stores Study

‘ consisting of three parts as follows: . *.

27 A 24. -page booklet reporting pértinent results of this

extensive GCMI merchandising study.

ital, $2, SAVED: single. sheets—blue—presenting. detailed re-_

>, . | «ports on igdividual products covered in the Stutly.

" 3: X ‘show- to-use’’— background bulletin.

a 4 le . Fa

Reference to the booklet will Show you that this is avery

*.5 earefully conducted, well- authenticatéd study of the dra-

‘matic merchandising - ‘power of glass packaging for retail —

. food store items. o

‘It is our hope that this booklet with its enclosed work

sheets: will’ serve as. a ‘productive sales tool for the sales

departments ef GCMI glass container and Gosure member ~

£ompanies, serving to demonstrate to packers the sales pos-

sibilities of glass packs, and thereby opening up new or

‘enlargéd accounts." = / ; ee,

quest. Each copy witt be sent with the seven work sheets~

enclosed inside the front cover amd. instruction sheets at-

‘tached. GE ERND oe ;

R. L. Cheney, _ Exeentive Director and Marketing ~

ne.

[ fol. 317] How to Use t the GCMI-Giant Study Wiaegeer je.

This is a research study" on how glass sells. Iti is for your

use with fruit and v exetable packers who ought to pus art

Quantity ecpiés. of this booklet are av ailable upon re- 3 "

_of their pack into glass containers—or expa ctkx—__--—-———_-

“which they already have... ;

Y ou may, als find it ‘useful for other hres irises as

Qn oe . *, P _ 1961

juices, health Pa beauty aids, sens, honsebold cleaning

aids, beer, ete. ;

When you eall ona packer :

1.. Use the booklet to give him Sndifige for all’ ‘products ;

. to show the over-all merehandiging power of the

: Be container. ‘ ° ;

2. Then use the Individual Product Data Sheet which .

fits his specific sales problem.

3. Leave.a copy of the booklet—and of the. Individual

Product Data Sheet-—with him. (Additional copies

are available to'GCMI members on request.)

4. Use the material with discretion. Before making

your call, examine it carefully to see, how it can best

-fit-into-your- sales. aah a ane ia se ;

Background |

_ The GCMI- Giant Study gears into@hree basic areas, of

food merchandising :

The way woinen shop in today’ 8 supermarkets. | >

The. retailer’s need for maximum sales in presently .

available shelf space. :

The packer’s — to increase over- all sales °

How Women Shop In Food Stores

*tesearch shows us fhat— ae | N

—W ritten shopping lists are disappearing. ~

—Customers depend increasingly upon the store itself.

In the. words ef Progressive Grocer’s Super .Valu

Study: ‘‘She looks for reminders within the giant

shopping list that is the supermarket.’’ DuPont »

* studies show that instore decisions have gone’ up

20% in the last 10 years. ,

[ fol. 318}. a. et in today’s big food, arts (again, by

Super Valu) Yo really shop the store she. must see

260 items. every minute.

—<And the mental labor involved in making the many

in-store decisions required, causes het to shop in a-

semi-dazed condition. N,

1962, S + -

Therefore, = which causes her to shop more slowly :

* which.attracts her attention and brings her out ‘of the daze -

caused byshopping. . .-* &

Produces Greater Store les Over-all—and Particu- —

larly for Items She Wil See and Buy on ‘Impulse:

_ ‘The GCMI-Giant Study gives retailers and packers, an

important new profit idea, comparable in selling power to :

ih ‘‘related item displays,”’ ‘loss leaders,”" ete.

Glass Containers In Engincéred Merchandising.

It proves, by careful research, that :

* a merchandisi h packer and_retailer—...

—They work like actual Point-of Sale inaterial, like

: bright gpots of color in a black and white ad; act-

tainers are

‘-. -ing as ‘‘stoppers’’ for customers wandering list-

legsly past supermarket: shelves.

—So, for the retailer, they not .only sell themselves— -

but they produce sales for items in other container

as well. They produce greater store sales over-all,

with present shelf space.

—For the packer they’create extra sates. This is plus

business—not just a swap of sales in glass for.sales

im tin.

s¢ a ra iz rel

—

o.* ‘

{fol. 319]. GovernMENT’s Exar 79

Survey of Consumer Preference for Food Containefs

“ , ; ee For ;

oe Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

. &

». _. Ford Sammis & Company

Marketing Economists

1964

{fol. 320] Ford Sammis

- Marketing Economist

530 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles 14

Trinity 9549 °

January 25, 1955

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

99 Park Avenue

New York 16, N.Y.

. Attention: Mr. Richard L. Chaiiey, Director Market Re. r

search and Promotion Division

Gentlemen: gt .

Transmitted herewith is joie on “Survey of: Consumer

Preference For Food Containers,’’ condutted at\ your re-

quest for the information of your Institute and its member

companies.

Purpose of this survey was to study fields here glass

containers have not been traditionally used, to havestignt

(a) Extent and strength of consumer preference for

' glass or other types of containers in each field, « °

(b) Consumer motivations affecting container prefer-

ence—why certain. containers ‘are preferred, why

other types are not liked, :

——te)-Chareeteristics of the. market for each type of

product. — e

Emphasis | has been placed on consumer piilibouaias be- .

cause, in the final analysis, that is what determines the type

of contginer which will ultimately be used for any given

field. se

: a Respectfully, Ford Sammis

. * .

er on a

(fol. 321] Survey ‘of Consumer Preference for

Food Containers

Ps Contents

. cpa

' Description of Survey ee ee

Summary : ,

Baby Food ° .

Coffee

“Intermittent Use Prodnets

- Salad Oil

Ripe Olives

Chocolate Sauce & Ice C ream Toppings

Acid Products

Impulse Items

}

. o . . | .

. I

1966 : ’ >.

[fol. $22] - Description of Sarvey

The survey consists of personal ‘interviews with 8,021

housewiyes, conducted in 94 cities, towns, and caral areas

in 42 states. The sample represents a complete and repre:

sentative cross-séction of all U. S. families, balanced in pro<.

portion to pepulation by geographic regions, size of city, .

socio-economic level, race and other market characteristics.

‘Rural areas and farms have been included in proper pro- .

. portion. Field work was done during August, 1954.

Statistical accuracy is insured by the large sample, which

permits detailed analysis of the findings. The census re-

gions illustrated on the map below have been used for re-

gional breakdowns. : |

Tn considering the data, it should be realized that all rea-

son questions were ‘‘open-ended.’’ The answers recorded

were those given voluntarily by respondents on their own:

- initiative, without any reasons being suggested to them.

This survey, therefore, reflects those factors that areatthe

top of consumers’ consciousness. , “>

~ [fol. 323] +> 0g | Summary

¥ Major findings of this survey of food products which have

not been traditionally packed in glass are as follows : 2

1. Glass has secured dominant consumer preference posi-

tions in baby food and instant coffee, where it has been -

in generui use for several years, although it lags behind -

cans in the regular coffee field. Consumer preference is —

_ 7.4 to 1 for glass for baby food -

5 to 1 for glass for instant coffee

. 2.4 ta 1 for cans for regular coffee

2. Strorig latent demand exists in several new fields “where

glass containers are not now generally u inelnding

- Intermittent use-products (not used up-in-one serving)

Products with high acid content

Impulse items — .

1967.

3. Glass i is- preferred for many intermittent use products, _

- such as condiments, cooking ingredients, spreads, spices,

prepared sauces, rice, salt, ete. Consumer preference on

four selected intermittent mse products are

4tol foreglass for salad & cooking oil , -

°4to1for glass fordry mk

2.6 to 1 for glass for ripe olives

> 11 tom for glass for chocolate sauce & other ice cream

toppings

[fol. 324] 4. Glass is prefer red for acid See ey like | to-

“en

mato juice, tomato sauce, tomato paste, sauerkraut, .

lemon juice, fruit juices, Consunier preference is

1.5 to 1 for glass for tomato juice

. Glass containers stimulate sshes of impulse items, where

decision to buy is made after consumer sees product in

stores. Consumers like eye appeal and visibility of prod-

uct in glass containers for impulse items such “<_<

‘Specialty products, not regularly purchased

Products with high color or eye appeal

Products were quality varies among brands

Products that are ‘Unique in re Se

. Basic qualities of glass motivate consumer preference.

For proflucts studied in this survey, chief reasons con-

- sumers like glass containers are.

“Safe for storing foods in container after opening . -

Visibility of contents ° ©

Ability to reseal tightly

Ease of handling and opening |

No effect on flavor

Eye appeal, attractiveness

~. 5 .

fun, —,.

ie %.

1968

[fol. 325]

‘

GoverRNMENT’s Exursir 80

“-

_ Glass Container National Survey

oe)

Summary

_ Ford Sammis

Marketing Economist

ee ee ee

7 ag

—

ae Gelitlemen:

1969 -

(fol. 326] Ford Sammis .

. Marketing Economist

530 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles 14,

Trinity 9549

~ , October 95, 1954.

Ceiis Candela Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

99 Patk Avenue: .

New York 16, N& York -

: Attention: Mr. R. bs hikes Manager Market Research

& Promotional Division

- Transmitted herewith is our summary of the Glass Con-

_ tainer National Survey—1954.

eo]

This rT has been condueted at your request for the —

confident ormation of your Institute and its members.

This report is not to be reproduced in whole or. in ane

without our permission.

Respectfully, Ford Sammia..

1970

[fol. 327] Table-of Contents =”

‘ . a ° ‘ . $ Page

Description of Survey ° oo t ;

Purpose 1

Omnibus Coverage 1

Complete Cross-Section of Population +1

Nation-Wide Scope . 2

Regional Basis | 3

How Does Glass Stand in Consumer Preference!

Consumer Preference is Pay-Off ;

Glass Secure in Few. Traditional Fields

Competing Containers Hold Edge in Most Tra-

ditional Glass Fields . = 6

-Glass Has Proved Ability To Capture New :

Markets eden. wage

Opportunities Exist in Other New Fields ; 7

A, Intermittent Use Products Nimve., 4 x

2° Acid Products . _—

3. Impulse Items 10

What Markets are Most®Critieal —. g 7

~ Each Produet a Separate Problem . o -

1. Different Markets * ; els om a 12.

- 2. Different Preferences - , eer’ 12

3. Different Motivations: ~ ; 13

Milk - .

Milk Cartons Dominate in Stores, are Threat _

in Home oe ae

Carton Threa® Greatest in West ines) Se

Soft Drinks :

.Many Have Tried But Few Jlave Chosen . oa :

Canned Soft Drinks : ,

West Is Canned Pop Stronghold : ee P

Bottles Preferred, Cans Threaten « &

* + e

~ Beer

‘Prefer Cans For ae rf

West Js Beer Cans’ Strongest } Market a

_Returnable Sales Exceed Preference

-One-Way Sales. Below. Preference.

Why ‘One-Ways Don’t Sell Better’

Baby Food

Baby Food Struggle te Ww est.

Selective Approach .

_ Each Prodpet An Indiv idual Prcblni

_ Regional Emphasis |

Younger Age Emphasis

' . Big City -Emphasis

Educational Emphasis

How Can, Present Positions Be Improved?-

Three Phase Problem:

Overcome Negative Reactions

Correct Misconceptions . 2 |

- Promote Positive Advantages

Trade Problems

1972. one ile

[ fol. 328] Purpose,

To study preferences, prejudices and habits affééting use

of glass containers, comprehensive national surveys were

conducted during August, 1954, among consumers, retailers, ‘a

wholesalers and os store organisations. ke :

Omnibus Coverage

0 -

Utilizing a broad approach, 28 different product classifi-

‘cations have been investigated, involving over 314: million |

individual answers to questions asked in: more than 12,000

‘personal interviews . conducted by trained investigators. °.

Actually, this project represents 5 or 6.separate surveys; .

~ all conducted’ concurrently.. Tees

® e.

“Gemplete Cross-Section bf'Population

Because container choice rests ultimately with consum-

. ers, major emphasis has been placed on study of consumer;

habits, preferences and prejudices.

-G ONG0OO

‘ The consumer survey consists of a Lalievidels: in

homes with 8,000 housewives, 1,000 men and 1,000 children. .

All three samples have been balanced geographically, by

- -eity size, by socio-economic level; by age, and other. market

_characteristies. -Rural areas ‘and farms were ‘included in

proper proportions eat ane! 7

_ The survey thus represents: a complete and representa-

. tive cross-section of the entire U. S. population. al

(fol. 329]; The retailer- surv ey consists of nation-wide,

samples of 1,200 grocery stores and 600 drug stores (bal- .

_anced in proportion to size of store) and spot samples of

100 liquor stores and 100 hardware stores. In addition, ~

_ depth interviews have been conducted with officials of. rep-

> ¥esgntative: wholesale and chain: * organizations in various

‘parts of the country. .

¥ ‘

. . * 4 a

Nation-Wide Scope Sint et ae ;

Interviews were conducted in 94 interviewing points in

42° states, as shown by the red circles on the map.. This

provides. geographic dispersion and insures that the sur-

vey reflects local variations in habits and preferences.

-wiet 2

: ® say Sy ”

te ~,*

¢ ” ) t

) IE -d Gs }

—— cB) }

~ * ot:

o~ ~ — rm — >

fs ‘

a . 7 <.

é se | — Ya a

“ — > re)

end — o eo a is e

q.0* ™ — s ono ww | [4

06 Interviewing Polats Brokers (Ak **

Urben & Revel oom ,

' . & °

. f ° "

. . ? ; °

bp, ; ca

2 -

. . “Sead, ,

* ‘ 4 ; 6

. / P °

. . ¢ ae

. . . :

: x : . / , i ~

’

\@~

1974

= ft 8

[fol. 330] Regional! Basis

The large samples provide statistical accuracy and also

permit detailed analysis by geographic regions. The Cen-

sus regions illustrated on the map have been-used. im _this

. study as the most useful commor denominator. | .

The vast fund of facts accumulated in this survey will

be presented in separate reports on beer, soft dririks, baby

food, milk and other product classifications. This is a gen-"

eral summary of the major’ findings—n quick bird’s-eye

view of the whole picture.

In order to facilitate the most practigal application of *

the survey data, this report is divided into 3 sections :

Fid@—How does glass stand in consumer preference?

-Second—What markets are most critical?

Third—H6w can present positions be improved?

¢ _

| 1975

c ° :

=) I a = .

_ [fol. 331] GoveRNMENT's/ Exar Sb"

cree ‘ -

: q >

ak ae ae rit : 89 s

q 4 ‘ .

National Consumer.Surfys on Glass Containers

1955

— 4

. ee

we:

‘ ;

Conducted By

Ford Sammis & Company

‘Marketing Economists

“~~ Glass Container Manufacturers Institute

1976.

[fol. 332] ~ Ford Sammis & Company

° ° Marketing Economists

750 Giese Boulevard, Los Angee 41

April 20 1956.

99.Park Avenue we

' New York 16, N. Y.

Objectives of G.C.M.L's

gram are:

Attention: Mr. Richard L, Cheney, Manager

_ Market Research and Promotion Division — °

Gentlemen :

nsmitted herewith is a summary. report on the Na-

tional Consumer Surveys on Glass Containers conducted .

in October, 1955. This is the second annual survey in

G.C.M.L.’s continuing. market research program, and con-

sists of two parts: ;

(a) National survey of 4,000 ous isewives, representing :

a complete cfoss-section of all families in the

United States.

(b) Test market surveys totaling 4, 600. lievion 8,

- _ représenting cross-sections of the total population

(men, women and children over 10) in Akron, Dal-

las, Milwaukee, Los Angeles and Washington,

D. C., where special campaigns Weré conducted on’. *

soft drinks and milk.

1.. To measure market trends on basic factors affecting

sales of glass containers

2. To intensively study mnasilie problems of current

importance, In the 1959 survey, the principal spe-

cifie problem surveyed was effectiveness of the

"G.CM.L, advertising | campaign.

continuing market ene pro’

1977

D .

3. To dévelop new facts on consumer and trade prefer-

ences, prejudices and habits afftcting glass and com-

" peting containers, thus continually adding to our

_, Storehouse | f er -

— TY . a -

, \. wu Respect Ford-Gaumis.

~—r ae — A

1978 Cea ar . Ses

. iN [fol. 333] ° National re ‘onsumer Surveys ‘

3: ; On (ilass Containers—1955

ters eee. Contexts Tae eels

atts’ Oo: Page

New Facts on Consumer Habits . ged |

W ‘herd Soft Drinks Are Consumed & Purchased . l .

ah Deicke On Soft Drink Brand PETS eT a SE LE oo

Who Decides On Soft Drink Container ea te 3 <x]

Wee stave ee DEED =e etas eee 4

| _ Use Of Soft Drinks For Home Meals ..... adieene oe

ty Extent Of Drinking Soft Drinks From Container . 6 ;

“Market Trends :

_ Container Preference Trends: po 3

Soft Drink Returnable Bottles ..7...... es ae 7

Soft Drink No-Deposit Bottles’ ee

Home-Delivered Milk ............... ier 8

Stor Bought SE cc coh-ceuonede cde cameet ede. a §

. Tomato Juice—Fruits & Vegetables Jenene ness 9 .

Salad Oil—Instant Coffee .......... sees weeidees 10 ,

Dry Milk—Liquid Detergent ................. 11

_ Consumer Use Trends:

Dry Milk—Liquid Detergent ............... < 43 .

Instant Coffee—Canned Soft Drinks ......... : 14+ wes. ¥

Consumer Preference Trends: eta geo

*. Baby Food (West of Mississippi) ........ sated 16

Baby RT BL ee Se Ae ss 16

Consumer Demand For New Products. :...... Te.

Advertising Effectiveness " ° | } ; ‘

Coverage By G.C.M.1. National Advertising Media 18 a

G.C.M.I. Magazine C overage : LD dueation—Age— ; .' '.

FOUN dns ble cn ae ae os IE cacteahdarda wiltnaed 19

, Audience Reached By 6 sty of Ladies’ Hom

eas, ER CARTE EELS ONS «COTE OROEEa 20 ,

Readership Of G.C.M.L. Magazine pn SRE en ae 21

| : -

a meee Re Ererrerrrtrerererrercerprerverrererepr=Bie

1979 °

a ;2

A a ALL see,” Page

Coverage By G.C.M.L Media; Akron, Dalas, Mil-

WHERE: cpiccatvusnecubinccesuetet eres ae 2

Coverage By G.C.M.I. Media: Los Angeles ...... 23.

Coverage By Can Media—Los Angeles .......... 24

“Pet Peeves” On Contaitiers ..........-....0 eee _.. 2

Preference For Glass Containers ....... tg oe —

Soft Drink Preference—Before & After Advertis-

. Preference For Milk Container (Home-Delivered |

7 BENOIOODOOOOOUCOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO OC oor 29

Preference For’ Milk Container (Store-Bought —

Milk), ib beet Seotdeed cha baewesweee dee meenes 30

Purchaie Of Milk i Glass Bottles—W ashington,

D. Mn ce qecedecvcpeccrccceceeccecsecsencenes Ol

oe,

‘ OS

“1980

Rt 1 . a e

[fo 334] | Government's Exniprt 82 -

: |

jes 3 sao ie |

Nee * -Cationat Market Survey on Glass Containers

a ar ceca (eee |

. Summary

at s

: _ is Conducted BY iets “)

Ford Sammis & Company i

Marketing Economists —

o for : ae

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Incg © _

. e . ‘

VS 1981

(fol. 335] | Ford Sammis & Company

; - Marketing Economists

s | 750 Colorado Boulevard -

* Los Angeles 41, California

vail CLinton 5-7101

500. KifthAvonue: e

New York 36, New York.

; —€Hickering 4-4363

oe | “©. December 27, 1956.

( lass Contelner Manufacturers Sicieubis Ine,

99 Park Avenue | : ta “et

New York 16, N. Y. ,

i. 6 ° \ .

Attention: Mr. Richard L. Cheney, Direetor Market

Research and Promotion

‘ Subject: National Market Survey on Glass Containers, 1956

Gentlemen: St ae m7 Se s

This report is ‘a summary of the national market survey

conducted in August, 1956. Charts are those shown at the

Sémi-Annual Meeting at Phoenix, Arizona on November 13

The survey consists of personal interviews with nation-

wide cross-sections of . .

5103 housewives

2554 men

1254 retat® grocery store managers.

Data on baby food fram the 1966 so het sug ey have been

presented in a separate report.

Respectfully, Ford Sammis.

@: eae ——

genet > °

[fol. 336] “National Market Survey

On Glass Containers—1956

Summary & Table of Contents

For Getails, see page

Beer -

_ Glass preference is increasing, and can sales have

- now reached their consumer preference lev el, indi-

- eating a slow-down in future growth aa chaecbe ro 1

Soft Drinks

Glass preference in Tacrensing. Can sampli ng is

slowing up and can sales are not growing, due to

lack of consumer preference and poor distribution 4

“

_ Milk ial | "e

Glass préference has decreased slightly for home- -

delivered milk in medivm size cities and for store-

bought milk in small tow ns and rural areas. Store :

buying is on an increasing trend ............... 14

Dry Milk

Paper boxes have RORET UE: glass in consumer

preference, because brand leaders are packed in

EEA EE RES SVN, Syl ae hiiekacen 17-

Liquid Detergent —

Can preference is increasing steadily, now out-

weighs glass 31, to 1, due to use of cans by all lead-

ing brands. Cansumer acceptance of liquid type for

heavy duty detergent SPOON save dscewsdeticent

General

Preference is ‘shifting for tomato juice,. holding.

_ steady for instant coffee. Many opportunities exist

for glass-packed fruits and vegetables ........ a 24

[fol. 337] Govensuext's Exum 83 : 1 . INS

DYNAMICS OF THE —

CONTAINER MARKET :

Summary of Talk Delivered to.

Giass Container Manufacturers tnstitute

at the Annual Meeting, May 22, 1956,

White Salptbur Springs, West Virginie

Gg.

* FORD SAMMIS & COMPANT

9 MARKETING ECONOMISTS

[fol, 338] ;

1984 Forp Sammis &,C MPANY

s Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, lac.

». 99 Park Avenue

New York 16, N. ¥.

Attention: Mr. Richard L. Cheney, Director

—$<—<=—_ *' 3 Market Research and

Promotion Divisics

Transmitted herewith is summary of a talk given before your mercbers at

othe Annual Meeting, May 22, 19

Since the charts used in this talk speak for themselves in most instances,

comments are included only where necessary to convey data not shows by

chart. '

—— [fol. 529)

A085 |

.. CONTAINT

__ DYNAMICS

Ci + Ents

Case Studies .

Baby Food. ..... +--+ ++ e+ ecreetee cove 4

Dry Mith. 2. ee ee eee ci tsaene

Hig, ee Ig Liquid Detergents 6 61d: 63 we 6-0 6080 60.0 6 ° é-

Tomato Juice... .---- eee errr errs blade ae

\ ko °

s : °

Pa a

L * oy

SO ey ee Saar

* (fol. 340]

Gap he'¢

| DYNAMICS OF THE. ti

. °.. ‘CONTAINER MARKET.

r i)

west e .

‘&

t 4

*. >

- #8

—_—

{fol 341) ¢

aed

oe °

‘CONTAINER DYNAMICS’.

—— v - —

Every consumer product tends to standardize on a single type of cos-

tainer. Glass has become the standard, tiaditional container for a host

of products, including cctountitelad dressings, salad oil, instant coffee,

prune juice, mayonnaise, peanut butter, jams and syrup. Other products

have standardized on tin cans - regulae coffee, evaporated milk, dog

food, and most fruits, vegetables and juices. :

However, no traditional market is ever secure for aay type of container.

Marketers are apt to try out new containers at any time, in their coneibat

search for ways to increase sales.

When this happens, the result is a period of container competition, which

may run through one or more of three separate stages.

Container Competition - Stage 1 . .

CM cond SVE,

Consumers usually have an inherent prefejrence for a particular type of

container for any given product. They algo have definite braed preferences.

When brand preference and container preffrence come into conflict, brand

preference usually proves to be the stronger. But not always, and not for

all persons. :

A new container can become a potent sale

consumer preference exists (or.is promo

Recognizing this, secondary brands~ art

containers as sales incentive. While Yead ‘

fied to maintain ‘the status qué, ‘secon brands are willing to gamble to

improve their positions. AVE ary see ' “*

Oy NN

‘Stage 1 of container competition occur® when a’ new type of container is

first introduced by a secondary brand. ae

° \ *,

Leading Brand ——— : >

Secondary Brand

Stage 1 was reached in the instant coffee field- during the past year. Folger

test-marketed tin cans (or their instant coffee in. more than a doze6 mid-

west markets. In spite of special promotions, the new container: wot

take hold with the public, and has recently been withdrawn from the market.

Glass remains the standard instant coffee container, at least for the time -

being. ' é

° yv .

al *

—

. nd » §

‘ }

‘

ei" @ . ‘

OR?

| fol, 342]

Container Competition ° Stage 2 .

f the period whee it is

increase isu

rt and cormmpetitors alike.

actors may actually be more

circumstantial evidence points

If a secondary brand increases its sales duri

introducing a new type pf container, the sal

attributed to the new container, by mar

Advertising, product changes or othe

important than the new container, bu

to the contaicer.

——Leading brands are not prone to sit idly by while competitors cut inte

“\ their’share of the market. They tend to cover competitors’ bets by

offering both traditional and new types of containers to their customers.

This creates Stage 2 of-containér competition. :

e - —_ Pp : °

Leading Brand ——» > ‘

‘

)

Secondary Brand

ie Gas

oe page. i

{ fol. 343]

oe . :

ontainer i - * ; .

When leading brauds are available in a choice of containers, consumers

container preference is no longer in conflict with their brand preferences.

They can have the brand they want in the container they want. Sales of

leading brands.under these circumstances seek the level of consumer

preference for each type of container.

If preference for one type of container greatly exceeds preference for the

other type, the products then tends eventually to standardize once agais

ona single type of container ~ the container most consumers prefer. This

process is subject to promotion of container by brand marketers or coe-

——“| tainer manufacturers. ¢ alternate outcome can be favorable to either

the new or Re traditional container. i .

Container competition has recenUy gone through all three stages in the

fields of regular coffee, salad oil, and soft drinks. Cass beve won out

for coffee, glass for salad oil and soft drinks. ee

Other fields where glass is currently engaged in container competitios

with other types of containers are desc ribed in the enemas © case studies,

presented in chart form.

‘ -

—

1990

{ fol. 344]

BABY FOOD

(WEST OF MISSISSIPPI) _

CONTAINER COMPETITION IN STAGE ONE

a | 2 . =

tes ee Uo) goa

(fol. 345] —

“BABY. FOOD

(WEST OF “ MISSISSIPPI)

CONSUMER PREFERENCE HAS BEEN IN FAVOR OF GLASS

- a ;

1953 2 ‘on :

. eres oe myvegeeecereeeceeseeereereses|

\ 45% _ , 16% 39% :

. ° c a ‘

1954 :

| + VII TITIT

i% “11% - 28%

1955 Apr :

"y I Tag

* 67% 1)% 22% :

ae Co Glass ([] No Preference [ZJ) Prefer Cans

.- é SE Aaa

. : ‘a z,

BABY FOOD

” (WEST OF MISSISSIPPI) i -

GLASS SALES ARE C®TCHING UP WITH CONSUMER

PREFERENCE

: °. rf

1953

-pamtaseeS ae

ae a

1954 x

ee ji aa

24% >

1955

L ij . :

40%

Oo Glass C) Cans

QQ2.

[fol. 246} LUO

Megs! BABY FOOD 3

. (WEST OF MISSISSIPPI) ,

e~ 0

° ; ty ’ 2 =)

BRAND LEADER MAY SOON BE FORCED INTO GLASS TO

OFFSET SALES DECLINE. :

‘ : ‘

Beech- All °

Sh ie Other Gerber

1953 ‘

| = TITTTTT TTT TT TOT TTT TT ES

a8 Be 9% \13% 5 Ae 13%

; .¢

1956 ;

| wd VOT TTT TTI eS

19%. : 24% Th 50% 2

: a COMMENTS

: : : .

: . Container competition in the baby food market is confined to the area ,

- West of the Mississippi. In the East, glass has over 90% of the market.

Consumer preference inthe ‘West is sto l in favor of glass, and glass

sales are growing rapidlystoward the preference level. In 1953, Beechnyt

was the only brand offered in glass in this area. Heinz was in cans io

1953, and had 13% of the market. Since switching to glass, its share has

gone up to 24%, and Beechnut has increased to 19%.

Store audits conducted ina ‘panel of Los Angeles super-markets reveal

the following sajes trend: ;

SALES OF BABY FOOD IN LOS ANGELES

« . . bl ’ suP ER M ARKETS e

_ Oct.- Nov. 1954 ’ ‘34%

. Dec. - Jan 1955 - 3» . ;

oFeb~- Mar 37

April - May ‘

os June - July A : :

, . Aug - Sept. \ ;

. Oct. - Nov. : 38

Dec. - Jan. 1956 43° .

> ' Feb. - March. ’ 43

Heinz and Beechnut gains (in glass) have been at the expense of the

brand !eader, Gerber (imtin). It'is reported that Gerber has started to

offer both glass and tin in several Western markets, This indicates that —

baby food container competition 15.00 entering Stage Two.

& .

—e

1993

DRY MILK

CONTAINER COMPETITION IN STAGE TWO™

*. r —<—s

es 1994 a Se i: , 3 . : . |

- -_ . Sie

mol GLASS HELD DOMINANT CONSUMER PREFERENCE

OSITION BEFORE CARNATION ENTERED FPELD.

1 . !

TITITLLLLLL LG LLL

49% Pry 3 11%

“or . ‘ f .

WITH CONTAINER AND BRAND COMPETITION, PREFERENCE

HAS SHARPENED. GLASS HAS GAINED, BUT OTHER

CONTAINERS HAVE GAINED MORE. | . oe

TTT T 7 : ° . 3

; 56% 1% 25%

J (ID Prefer Glass (__] No Preference C— Prefer other Containers

DRY MILK Cr

7 . GLASS IS STRONGEST EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI

East of Mississippi

: c ae Won oh

- ° 23% 17%

a °

*West of Mic Jissippi : e ‘

C ; um I TIM . -

47% y lo 34% :

3 Prefer Glass (__] No Preference J]J} Prefer Other Container

[ fol. 349}

‘ DRY mu

COMPETING CONTAINERS HAVE GREATEST STRENGTH

AMONG OPINION LEADERS

Cottege. Graduates : eens .

CITITITHIITI LL SE EL — > —¥

> 2 rs 24% 30%

High School Graduates

—

58% 17h 25% .

Grade School Graduates : : Be Pe

MITTIN dL TT r » |

: 60% 1) 21%

(1) Prefer Glass (_] No Preference (J Prefer other Containers

Con

1906 FAS

{ fol. 350) 2 2

eae DRY MILK |

COMPETITION IS STRONGER WITH YOUNGER i gt

HCUSEWIVES. , ' Q

ee .

/ Under 35 yearsold +3

4 TTTITITITITI ILL ms Sn’

54% Sh s- - 31% .

35.- 50 years old .

(TTITITITITITITILILL EDD _ ———"y

54h 23%) 23%

Over 59 years old f > f

ITITITITITITIII LLL \ ——-

59%

19% 22%

. (D Prefer Glass (—) No Preference | me | Prefer Other Containers

; , : COMMENTS

‘

Before Carnation eniered the market in a- paper. box, there was no active

container competition in the dry milk field. Preference among users was

. heavily in favor of glass, but 40% had no-preference on container.

During the past year there has been active container competition between

leading brands. Carnation has merchandised its paper box and Pet has s

featured its glass jar in TV commercials. Resalt has been to focus con-

sumer attention on container and to sharpen container preference (81%

of all users now have a definite container preference). Glass is still the

preferred container, Dut has not gained relatively as much as competing

containers.

e .

o> a si an

Dry milk container competition has recently entered Stage Two: Petis

‘now offering a giant size in paper box, retaining glass jars for regular

size package. . °

[{fol, 351]

oe 4 e \

—*LIQUID DETERGENT»

©) -carhimen COMPETITION IN STAGE THREE

: 6 r ; @

{fol eo OOS | , I ,

LIQUID DETERGENT my

INTRODUCTION OF’ LIQUID LUX‘IN CANS MET A LARGE

WAITING CONSUMER PREFERENCE, i

1954 . eae

cients . Sooo

— ae “30% 26%

LIQUID LUX FOCUSSED ATTENTION ON CONTAINER, .

CREATED INCREASED PREFERENCE FOR CANS, FORCED

P & G TO OFFER CANS IN SELF DEFENSE.

— fj ; °; 2 < ons , “s

| . Le

(MIs CT wan Cod aTateseeTerass see rsI5 508 |

oy 44% + =o” ae 42%

~~ ? .

~ LIQUID DETERGENT

; , >

EVENTUAL QUTCOME LOOKS FAVORABLE TO CANS,

“BECAUSE YOUNGER PEOPLE PREFER CANS

- , e -

Under 35 years old : OQ« ° =

ss euagnneueeeneecauenscauseusetseceesiiisiitia ion WPS SOTO FIC ODS:

44% 9% . ? ‘47%

2 ©

35 ~ 56 yerrs old Pe o.. 7 ,™>*

itiilistis Lillis ibe sth j : Pie

" . 42% 17% 41%

Oyer 50 years old . :

Chouno ja cael

46% 18% 36% .

Ox0. Prefer Glass = No Preference CJ) Prefer Cans

ol rhe . . ’ i cy SY

, €

2 e ’

te LIQUID DETERGENT \

o \ : . J \

OPINION INFLUENCING GROUPS PREFER CANS

‘ r . Pe:

Upper Class ae ‘ Sees eA SOE Se

UTLOTTE ja ; a aimee me I

34% 15% 51%

Upper Nhiddie Class

MITMILIL ELE as = = Ms . po wee |

_ 31% 13% « ; 50% 3 4a ; °

Lower Middle Class 8 7, “ .

eee acnareUdUSDSUISUESUASUUGOUOUATIUIVITE 2 aha am |

45% 14% 41h ‘.

\ ‘ . . ' aL F

Lower Class ' ;

e IITITITIIIIL LLL ii | Sane mae |

! 53% 18% ~ ; 29%

~“{1]T] Prefer Glass [-__) No Preference (C)] Prefer Cane

: _LIQUID DETERGENT

ULTIMATE WINNER OF: LiquiID DETERGENT CONFLICT.

MAY GAIN THE ENTIRE DETERGENT BUSINESS.

Percent of Total Detergent, Volume

e y f.

25% C4

: : ?

$ ® , 4

1f% 2

10% : P og

LIQUID DETERGEN

5% ‘

: '

0 Ls 3 s | | ie | L l : I An

'48 "50 i %2 °° '54 56 a 158 60

ZOO er

[fol. 354]

- | oD a '

hare ter LIQUID DETERGENT

LIQUID DETERGENT WINNER MAY TAKE OVER

SOAP VOLUME, TOO. ee ° -

Pounds Per Person * °

¥ ; ¢d

of = ‘

10 a

DETERGENT

aes ee es ees teas ee

. ‘4 "49 es "52 1 #65,

Sore ” a

COJAIAENTS : we

In the short period since Liquid Lux entered the market in cans, con-

tainer competino® has progressed rusicly to Stage Three. The brand

leader, Joy, i§ now paced in both oi.ss and tin, and many other brands

have introduced tin cans.

CoPtaini r competition is not confined to dishwashing detergents. All:

mator brands ote starting to pack Heavy duty detergents in cans. Several

marketers feel that eventually all detergents will be sold in liquid form.

. 5 : . Py

Prissary ‘mpetus for spreSding uss ct cans for liquid detergent is the

stes Sovce’ss of Liquid Lex. Wathin She industry, ‘this success 1s attraw

Loted@ to tuusx's drip-proofe: nr. Hos tr, a pilot survey among consumers

‘na@vcates that the can w cel .tivel unimportant factor. The most

vrpertant factors in buiv => 7 = 5 _ th ve been (1) the well-known, wells

established Lux name, - 2) ce &, thet Liquid Lux is a very good

procduct==xceptionally r ad casy the hands. alate

— ee

{fol 355)

<r te

AES |

e a

TOMATO JUICE -

POTENTIAL CONTAINER COMPETITIOK .

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GLASS

20 2

[fol ney

. © TOMATO JUICE

Y/Y *@ONSUMER PREFERENCE 1S 2 TO 1 FOR GLASS,

: AND GROWING STRONGER

1954 -¢

ene 7 Anns

51% «15% 34%

, 1955 ; ee :

tees , 2 VIII LT a a

60% 12%. 28%

ae ea oe %

Cc) Prefer Glass [(] No Preference ZZ] Prefer Cans

‘TOMATO JUICE

ACCEPTANCE OF GLASS IS HIGH IN ALL AREAS

’ Te

Pa. . '

New England :

{ l VWI Li ih

20%

aa 12h 8%

' West and West South Central

| ' ew zz VITITTTT TT TTTT e

a 55% ; 11% . 34%

Rest of United States

I vaneeaaearhaneses|

“60% Te 24%

”

? Prefer Glzss eee No Preference [JJ] Prefer Cans

mh :

° : ; _

* Z00G

_ [fd 357) =

TOMATO JUICE

. c=)

SMALL TOWN AND RURAL MARKETS OFFER

BEST OPPORTUNITY

* or , ee .

Cities over 50,000 ; ’

eae j VT

56% 14%

Cities under 50, 000 and Rural Non-Farm eee

63% ; 10% * . 27%

Rural Farm

RETRO. ts I TTT a a a a a

- 68% ; 10% 22%

e , om:

.C) Prefer Glass (__}) No Preference V7] Prefer Cans

TOMATO JUICE

GLASS PREFERENCE CAN BE INCREASED THROUGH

‘ADVERTISING 7

Saw No GCMI ads

ee wa ee : a WITTITITT Iii ii iiss

: a Patek 7% 2% —C~S

Saw 1 GCMI ‘ad

oe TI T yageeereeeirarargrars

os ee 59% 12% 29%

‘Saw 2 GCM4 ads

ee ~ a VII I a

~ 63% 9% 28%

* Saw 3 GOMIads : - «

Cc —— I egmecsareraeaases|

a , 65% R 9% 26%

=" \ Saw 44 GC ads _

a a Lal Woon

+ 66% — ° 10% 24%

CO Prefes Glass C__) No Preference V7} Preter Cans

_ ; | ©

ax004 ; :

kfol. 358]

TOMATO JUICE

: ; : 3 Z

POTENTIAL VOLUME .IS LARGE. * ; ok

90% of all U. S. families are users of .

Annual Sales = 4,650,000 gross units

Glass now has less thas 4% of tomato juice volume j : \

o ._ * 165,000 Gross a

Uf sales paralleled consumer preference, glass would have

2, 700, 000 Gross | on rents | ix ©)

If this goal is accomplished, atl will eventually go to glass

4, 656, 000 Gross Cc cmeneedl

- -—

COMMENTS

a .

Glass packed tomato juice has been the market for some time, but

none of the brands packed in glass ha¥e wide consumer acceptance.

Therefore, glass accounts for only 4% of total tomato juice sales.

Consumer prelerence for glass is sd high that glass sales would increase

materially if one of mare of the major brands offered a glass pack,

particularly uf the container were featured in advertising and merchandising.

Glass preference is growing, the increase during the past year being most

noticeable in New England. A well-known packer comments as follows on

this point: ; :

“It so happens t t tor the past couple of years we carried on an extensive

advertising campaigo in New England - one of our better markets for our

Tomato Juice in glass, and we have shown very excellent results ig total

volume of sales which would bear out the decided improvement in preference

as shown in your report.” ‘

AG BTS

[fol. 359] Government's Exnuprr 84-

GLASS CONTAINER | Hy

. MOTIVATIONS

Chart-talk delivered at Annual Meeting

Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, loc.

ae : —

' White Sulphur Springs, West Virgiola

May 722, 1957 |

Forp SAMMIS. & COMPANY

wee.’

: see se psageees °

2006

[ fol. 560]

- - ZOU?

CONSUMERS ARE WOT MORALLY

, CONTANIER colscious

BRAND PREFERENCE MAY OUTWEIGH CONTAINER

PREFERENCE | . |

(% of those-preferring glass who use giass)

TOMATO JUICE

. fea " % ©

5% ’

BABY FOOD (West Coast) e

| meee “ i :. eae

A principle early established in the elie research studies conducted

for GCMI is that consumers are not normally “container conscious." They

are inclined to take containers for granted, without devoting much thought to

them, and concentrate their attention on.the product inside the container.

A corollary to this principle is that brand preference usually outweighs

container preference. For example, in the chart above, it is shows that

only 5% of those who preter glass for temato juice actually buy tomato juice .

an glass... While this is partly caused by spotty distribution of giass-packed Gs

tomato juice, lack of distribution is not a controlling factor in a similar

situation existing for baby food. On the West Coast, where baby food is

availabie in both glass and tin in practically eve:y super-market, only 49%

of those who prefer glass actually buy giass-packed baby food.

, ?

_ - ' = < . . . » ‘ . ee

é z é . .

{ fol. 362) 2( r Fay ‘ {

conTamieR consclousness

IS. 1MIEREASING

THE "NO PREFERENCE" GROUP 1S GETTING SMALLER .

_ (% of users with definite preference Op containers)

SOFT DRINKS eet he! ass (its

-~ 6 |) 7

x ‘ , 31%

LIQUID DETERGENT

— -— os een,

: 10% reat

DRY MILK . ? . .

— — , I — 80%

. e ; ; 60%

Consumer gonscidusness of containers becomes more prevalent and active under two

conditions: ; =e ¢ wt +

(1) Wher containers are droughi to their attention, particularly through

advertising <ht. ° ' :

(2) When a choice of containers.is available for a specific product.

_ It is only natural, therefore, that container consciousness has been increasing during —

the past two years, as a result of advertising by GCMI1 and manufacturers of other

containers, coupled with active cotitainer competition ia the fields of fresh milk, dry :

milk, liquid detergents, beer and soft drinks. ‘ “2%

For those products. the result of increased container consciousness has bed to

sharpen consurner Pdeterence for one container or another. For ona: in 1954,

only 8F%.of all aott drink users had a definite container preference, th remaining

19% having no preference between cans and bottles. By 1956, all but 12% had

acquired a definite container preference. p actu

With liquid detergents and dry milk, the increase is container consciousness and *

preference is even more marked. ait : ' *

20019.

(fol. 363)

‘arrention Is FocUssING ON

$P 1706 CONTANIER QUALITIES:

“HABIT” 1S A LESS IMPORTANT MOTIVATION

(% giving habit as reason for preferring glass containers)

LIQUID DETERGENT eS mn Fi 27% °

SOFT DRINKS 1 —__Iis

‘ DRY MILK ° i ie F .

“HOME DEL,. MILK cos

(% giving habit as reason for preferring competing containers)

TOMATO JUICE er I aca we

DRY MILK cI _ 3% ‘

9 >

A concommitant of the recent increase ig container consciousness has beds

focussing consumer attention on specific container qualities.

This is iNustrated in the chart above by decrease in the generalized reason

of “habit” as a motivation for preference |\of both glass and competing coa-

tainers. 7 ee . >

In 1954, 27% of those’ preferring giass jars for liquid detergent gave habit

as a reason for preference. In 1956 asares. of consciously considering

’ the advantages of glass vs. tin cans cop's prvduct, mention of habit dropped

‘ to 10% being replaced by such specific walities as visibility of contents,

ease of handling, and attractive appearance.

. . — . - x | - , , ‘ r ; " =

[fol. 364) 201) 0.

SANITARY FEATURES OF GLASS GAIN INCREASED

RE COGNIT ION

STORE BOUGHT MILK . om os :.

More sanitary 21%.

. 16% -

No wax in milk c_1_J1”%

- . 13%

Keeps better cI) 1%

. 1% -

DRY MILK

Sanitarykeeps better E— Reasen I : —js

\ 34% -

Re-use a we,

TOMATO sce.

Sanitary-keeps better L : : - : tC} 72%

©. 4

» The three qualities of glass containers that have evidenced the greatest

gains in consumer acceptance and recognition are: sanitary features, Mavor, _

and transparency. ;

Increased impact of the sanitary features of glass (germ-free, lack of

*e. product contamination, safe storage of urused portions in opened containers)

are apparent for store-bought milk, dry milk, and tomato juice. With dry

milk. this factor is the major motivation, being mentioned by 54% of all whe 7

prefer glass jars, an increase from 34% mention in 1954. - :

Re-use, though’minor, is @ motivation of growing importance with dry milk.

So is freedom of wax — milk, for store-bought fresh milk.

« # . yarn

. . ¢

Tfel. 365]

ne “unten 40S Sane

er <

ssORE IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO FLAVOR AND

TISIBILITY . : ..

BAB ; es : pe

Heat& serve in jat — 27%

_Better flavor cx age is Mio SORE a

Can re-cap <7 . iS

. Better flavor - fe Se cnnaniewel 20

_. Gan see contents | <a oa ‘

. x 9 : » " ;

LIQUID DETERGENT _ eee :

Gan s om«, i . 1 — 40 :

+ No sharp edges ~ Jp. 2 ever on

Cans rust —? ; e thee

Better favor, as a reason for preferring glass. ‘was mentioned ty more pefsons in

1956 whan in 1954 for baby food and soft drinks. The increase for soft drinks was

' 23% 20 4%. ; ¢

Visitility of cefitents has increased for both soft drinks and liquid detergent. In the,

latter product, the increase has been from 30% to 40% of all who prefer glass.

. . Y

Ore :* the most dramatic examples of rapid emergence of-a minor factor into a major

motisation has occurred with baby food. In 1954, so little mention was made of

abil:-s to heat and serve inthe container that no place was made for it in the IBM

code cf reasons for preferring giass baby food jars.

By 1755, heating tn and serving from glass jars was listed by so many consumers

that ao investigation of causes was instituted. It was traced down to a single

ecrtercial on the GCMI television program. where this use was dramatically

de nsostrated. SE pears

The agency imerted this appeal into magazine copy’in the 1955-56 campaigns, and

the ~e sult 1s that this. factor ts now the second most important motivation for baby

food -ars, being exceeded only by ability to store unused portions safely in-the opened

jar. ~ nse

——————1.-

[fol. 366} .

2112). 7 Sones

STRENGTH OF PREFERENCE

‘1S FOURDED ON SECONDARY

as “weer as”

oa . Mild ae f Strong iat

BEER - | |

Better flavor | oe : . I___) 43%

'. Easier to dispose of E11! | a

Appearance" cI10

Easier. to cai: s A j

SOFT D RINKS

> Better flavor — —t l_)36 >

Sanitarykeeps wetter fs 13 a

Appearance cols ehie ;

: met, 4 : aes .

- re

. ka

Rating of relative importance of various motivations i+ shown later on

With beer, better flavor was mentioned by 43% of those having 2

strong.

preference for giass, but "by only 34% of those whose preference for glass may

Mayon. MOTIVATIONS |

in this

report for eight different products. The charts on this and the following page

show that it isn't just the major factors that create strong preference for glass.

‘be classified as mild.. Better favor, therefore, is a factor that creates

greater strength of preference. So are the factors of ease of disposal,

appearance, and ease of opening.

sanitary features, and appearance.

of drinks, the principal factors creating strong glass preference are

Tol. 367] *

——

a 5 . a

: Mild Pref é : c ;

Keeps better, Mild Preterence Strong Preference

fresher = = | — 53%

Can re-cap tighter CL I___j20

; 13

Easier to pour from psoenenon mma | |

wnaey 11

Re-use | x"

5 7

) PEF alee a : ’ ; ‘

\s —S a \__} 64

: 55 &

Heat&\serye in jar t a | __J 29

RD EY, a iE}

fan’ see contents a ee BL)

hed Rober 3%.

Easier to open c_1I_) 10.

ig ° 5 a

Ability to safely store unused portions in the container is the principal

factor affecting strength of preference for dry milk and baby food.

For dry milk, ability to re-cap and ease of removing contents are

secondary factors. Re-use works in reverse, being less important to

those who have a strong preference than to those having ® mild preference.

For baty (80d, ability to heat and serve in the containe r, visibility of

contents and ease of opening are secondary factors creating strong

preference for giass. re

if {fol sua 4) 4 {ini Sioasatamec -

It was pointed out in 1954

independent and dilfereht, as tar as

may prefer tin cam for be rT; glass tles for soft drinks,

doesn't naturally carry ov

Such a carryover is, “of course, an obje

is part of the advertising strategy. But it will take

psychology and thought habits. . :

In an attempt to measure, the degree

existing at the present time, four pr

reasonable expectancy of inter-re

CONTAINER PREFERENCE DOESN'T

caRRY OVER DETWEEY PRODUCTS

THERE IS VERY ‘LITTLE "GENERAL" GLASS PREFERENCE

Preference For Glass - Users of 4 Products ‘ - es ,

ae - {364 | altar? 4 0/4 .

Ec: teres > a ERAS . rom nn mee |

16% 1 ee ~ “Ah - 20% &

Preference For Glass - ‘Users of 3 Products ~ : j Ory, ‘

eee as 3 0/3

—— vd = : quslianseaeds .°

25 ae 8 ee een me @,

» 2 5 ‘ . . :

that consumers consider each product as completely

containers are concernéd. The same consumer

Container preferenc

from one product to other products. ‘

ctive of GCMI's promotional campaiga aod

time to change consumer

¢ . . ‘

of glass preference carryover between products

oducts wefe selected where there might be &

lation.in container preferegce. These products.

were: liquid detergent, dry milk, fresh milk; and tomato juice.

It was found that among users of all lotr products,

them, 20% preferred glass for three out of the four,

on container pruference. In like manner,

of the four products, prefer

ese.

lt may be conctuded that from this that a certdin amount of “general

ex. sts, but ttquextent is limited at the present time to le

population. . ‘ .

16% preferred glass for all of

with 41% completely divided.

the majority of persons who use three

giass for either one or two of the three ptoducts they

O°

lass preference”

ss than one- ourth of the

’

a ciate 7 2045:

. . « . .

[fol. 369) - 7s at

S. » *

"GENERAL" GL

NORTHEAST, WE, ST 2

General Glass Pref. . Gen. Non-Glass Pref.

. TOTAL U.S. | . oe | P

er TT _ | mended J 7 ~ ss

27% is ae . 38%

@ .

NE, MA, SA er es

| 9000s reeerTEET senna mI . = +O LP ~~

ei 37 . : 34 ;

"ENC, ESC, WNC

FE adhe ale , ee oe ees ae

28% 33 ‘ 9

WSC, WEST

6? Dae | ia —

21% . 33 . ee , 46

“GENERAL” GLASS PREFERENCE IS STRONGEST IN- %

LARGE CITIES Pee

., \ -» Genetal Glass Preference. Waveving Preference _Gen.- Non-Glase Pref.

Cities of 1,000,000 4) -

= , “ :

Cc : = I 2

30% 7 «9 x 33%

Cities of 50, 000 - 1,000,000 . wv :

ee I : _ . ———3

28% 41 ; oy y

. Towns of 2,500 - 50, 000

es a = = —

21% _ 45

. Did ‘

an 27% S a » his 43 a

From the chart on the preceding page, it may considered that those who prefer

glass for 3 or 4 out of four products used, or 2\or 3 out’of 3 products used,

_ possess “general glass: preference." The above charts show geographic and city

» a Variations, .

General glass preference 1s strpngest in Northeastern states, weakest in the West.

It is also strongest in laree cities. weakest in ome towns.

am ZAG Sa pe | eee

enc PRoDUCT INVOLUGS DIFFERENT =

-morivations, With vA ayinG ELIPwASIS

Q:-

[sinter seseratton / y Te / x6 —

. i VE ALT bs

Sanitaryy keeps better .

Better favor ~ . : \ 2

Can see contents :

Easier to handle =

Appedvence OC bt . 1.81 6161.8

Heat/Serve io container

Easy to opes z 2 z:) 3 5

Easy to store | = Tw re ee

Easy to dispose of 5 qi. 4

Keeps colder 2) 4) 4

Can re-cap . . 1 i i 5 7 t

Re-use . 9 5 4

Durability - doesn't leak ;

Nothing gets ie product :

No sharp edge® mh : ae

‘No ruéting : — ‘ \

: . : cy

This*chart sets forth the motivations for preferring glass for eight different products.

Figures represent the percent of those preferring gies* who mentioned cack factor #*

~» reason for preferesce. °

Factors have bees classified tate major, secondary and minor factors for each product

by «olor symbols. It will be noted that the sanitary (eetures of glass are the most

a generally applied + factor, closely followed by better flaver. However. relative

importance of these other lactors vary considerably from product to product.

Motivating factors are listed in the order of relative importance among all product

classes combined. : .

y rer Hent/Serve in contatner yneans “like to drink out of bottles” for beer and soft

e risks.) > : :

. i

(fol. $71)

2047

MOTIVATIONS ON COMPETING CONTAINERS

Lighter, easier to carry

Gets colder, faster

Better flavor

Sanitary, cleaner

Cheaper

Re-use

Easier to open

Better sise

Danger of breakage is the most generally mentt

some other container than glass.

container'’s with soft drinks, tome

a oe oe 2

ee cae

pow omg ==

ht ts a major

and & secondary factor for all other products.

a) of competing conta

working-ageiast glass, Being & major

Factorsare iste in thei¢ relative importance for all p

oned reason tor preferring

motivation for competing —

to juice, baby food and liquid dete rgeat,

ners is the next most important factor

factor with fresh milk and dry milk.

roducts combined.

ued ; PIptoy,

{fol. 3721

er eel

PRICE IS. WeaPORTANT only

eth Ne

wird GER AND sorr oRINKS

-PRICE 1S MORE IMPORTANT wiTH SOFT DRINKS THAN

WITH BEER ; ’

-W ans :

+ SOFT DRINKS

Freee _———s

371% * 18%

PEER

L . af

20% “a . 54% 26%

The chart above iNustrates preference between cans, one-way bottles, aod

returnable bottles with the only difference in price being 2¢ vefund os

returnable bottles when taken back to the store. Preference for returnable

bottles under these conditions is, in effect,” a measure -of extent of price

consciousness among consumers. . :

For soft drinks. 45% prefer returnable bottles over either of the disposal

containers For beer 26% prefer returnable bottles. It may be concluded

that price ts @ factor ‘with both beer and soft drinks, but is more importact

with soft drinks.

« j ; . ae ‘ 4

ot | 2079

PRICE DIFFERENTIAL DOUBLES PREFERENCE FOR

ONE-WAY VS. CANS FOR. CONSUMER'S FAVORITE

BRAND OF BEER ‘ : :

Prefer One-ways No Preference :

| One-ways and Cans\at same price

Bin yi eal . —s

20% 10%

Ongayars 4¢ cheaper per 6 pack . :

— ee aoe x = ——1

ain 39% 6h 55% .

(Survey of Virginia Beer Drinkers - June, 1956)

In the survey of Virginia beer drinkers conducted in June, 1956, consumers

were asked to choose between one-ways and cans for their favorite brand

(a) at the same price and (b) with one-ways priced 4¢ lower per six pack.

20% chose one-ways al the sawif price as cans, 39% chose one-ways wheo

they were 4¢ cheaper.

A NEW BRAND CAN GAIN 25% OF BEER MARKET wiTtH

PRICE DIFFERENTIAL ON ONE-WAYS

favorite brand in cans and spme other brand in one-way tles (a) 4¢ *

cheaper per six pack, and (b) 9¢ cheaper. 25% chose the ther brand io

one-way bottles at a 4¢ differential. and when the differenthal was increased

te 9¢ preference for one-way bottles went up to 29¢. This has beeo

_ contirmed by ac tual sales tests in Norfolk where one-way bottles priced

‘ at-6°99¢ have secured 23% of total beer sales in storts carrying one-ways.

Another approach used in this survey was econ ee cofisumer's

Prefer new brand in one-ways Prefer regular brand in cans

_ N refer ,

One-Ways 4¢ ee ae 6 pack =

mame T a : —_4

25% % 66%

: |

One-Ways 9¢ cheaper per 6 pack

== : eae =

2% , “1O%. éi%

(Survey of Virginia Beer Drinkers - Jan. 1957)

(fot. 3741 2020 F

CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND

MOTIVATIONS ON CONTAINERS

1954-1957

——— :

Chart Talk presecied ot

Semi-Annual Meeting of

_ Glass Container Masufecturers testituts

Virginia Beach, Virgiate

Octeder 1, 1957

Foro Samuts & CoMPANY

fa et

mos) ° ForD Sammis & COMPANY <O21

oc 1954-1957

(eeeeeteee

730 CHORADO SOMFVAED —. - o@ mera vane

LOS ANGELES 41, CALWORMA PO’ nunlimetom, wEw Toes

Cumeee S008 ‘ HAmines 7.477

November 20, 1957

. - 2

Glass Cootainer Manufacturers Institute, Inc.

99 Park Avenue : .

w~ York 16, New York ‘

Atiention: Mr. Richard L. Cheney

Subject: Consumer Prefefences & Motivations on Containers,

Gentlemes:

Transmitted herewith are reproductions of charts shown before

your Semi-Ansua ing at Virginia Beach on October 1, 1957,

together with a transcript of my remarks.

This presentation represents nmary of the 1957 national

.consumer survey and importes which bave takes place siec

1954 in the container field. . ete

oS; ~ cerely.

{ fol: 376]

—————

Seen

2022 ; oe can SNARE PEERY

Pace

Consumer Preference & Motivations

1954 - 1957

' On Containers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIQUID DETERGENT oc. ccvecccsccecoscccoscsescceseedsres

setae cscaeusssevpesdsevbres Pees la we paula w s

TOMATO JUICE... ee eee ees e rer rreettt Pe OP See

acest DELIVERED WME o'W'n coe ieccgccnesscccecsecosesrercs®

BABY FOOD «2-2 --eeeeeereeceee reeset Ws ICR wakes OLE a HF

ML bccccccccedscccceczecccecesses® gaprealieeet ss

STORE BOUGHT MILK --- +0 es see ceerer cee Bees yeuee

Ey EE BEAT socbencbocevessdewess

* PRUITS & VEGETABLES...---cgeccreseuersreeee® SS ouigttn sas

SOFT DRINKS ...------ TPO or eT TEL TLS bd aes Oe wee ds kn

° ’

: : :

Poy a° a

/ Oo F Pee

. oi ee

——«_--- .

» ADS

(fol. 377) a =e t

CONSULIGR. PREFERENCE FOR GLASS te

1954-1957

-$TORE-BOUGHT MILK :

SOFT DRINKS

FRUITS & VEGETABLES

HOME-DELIVERED MILK

BABY FOOD.

= J uiauio vetencent ~

aa DRY MILK |

A fp | tomato Juice __ jf

* Since 1954, there have been many changes in consumer preferences on containers.

Out of sine important products, consumer preference has. remained static oo osly

three -- home-delivered milk, beer, and baby food. :

Preference lor glass has increased materially for stcre-bought milk, soft drinks,

and (ruits aod vegetables. Giass has lost ground in consumer container preference .

lor liquid detergents, dry milk and tomato juice.

What has bappened since 1954-in each of these product classifications is shows os

the following charts. , ' 2

. ee o— Pe

“s

224...

{fol 87}

LIQUID DETEROENT-

CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

fe 1954, 44% of all Liquid detergent users prefecced glass. ie contrast to 16% ;

preterence for tw cans. By the following year. Fe preference had caught up te é

glass, and bes continued te climb since thes th its presést posities a 6

During 1956 acd 1957, & large number of brands were introduced to the market te

cans. Joy is the only leading Drand stl! packed is glass }#rs. and Joy is available

in cans as well as jars. During this perved. preterence for glass bas r}

szapidly te the low \evel of 19% ve 19S7.

[fol. 379) eaten

DRY" MIRK-

CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

: + 25,0%° ——

: Rene 3? “T 30°

yoo Com 4 _

PENCENT OF voted] oust .

1954, 1955. 1956 ~«.~S«WNS

eee . °°» §

Ie 1954, glas¥ enjoyed simost « 5 to | preference over cardboard boxes among @ry

_ milk users. e— :

Carnation,” with its new type of non-hygroscopic ary milk packed ine carddoard box,

has made great gains im consumer acceptance since 1955, and is currently in No. 2

’ sales position. Along with Carnation's increase in sales has been a corresponding

; increase in preference for boxes to a current level of 46% of the market.

yw Pw tet ee ype

Glass preference has dropped to som

Or, “a ; - : . *

RORG

{fA 380) As

“DRY. MAILK-

” GLASS

ee oe

STAY. FRESHER 34% 49%

| DOESN'T CAKE

Eosier to hendle

Con See Contents i

” Hebit

, Re-use

' Con Re-cop

s o

Principal motivation for

Easier disposal and bett

importance since 1954.

er storag

- 25

% 10

12 6

NN 6

- 7

preferring glass for dry milk is

product fresh, without caking. This quality wasn't recogn!

before Carnation was put on the market,

chance to compare hygroscopic P oducts, like Pei,

_ Carnation, which doesn't require

important than 4 years 8go-

air-tight container to’

‘ . 7

° principal box mo

Danger of breakage of glass,

- CONTAINER MOTIVATIONS

BOXES _-

£ASIER DISPOSAL

| STORES. BETTER _

1954 1957

3% 20%

10 20

NO BREAKAGE

EASIER TO HANDLE

HABIT :

BRAND !S‘IN BOXES

Cheaper

More . Sanitory

24°19

as it is today, when consumers have had @

with the non-hygroscopic

remain non-caking.

its ability to keep the

ized as much in 1954,

tivations, have increased io

‘on the,pther band, is less

— ' . — [ree Sn cgcehe

‘ | ae pues be - “2 (95>'4?

[fol asa} ; rs

“Tomato yuIce- i, |

* CONSUMER’ CONTAINER: PREFERENCE

PERCENT OF TOTAL USERS : oe : “it

- . = ° ° ce PB a

1954 .- 1955 1956 1957 0

; In spite of the fact that only a small percentage of the tormato juice pack is marketed

in glass, 38% of all tomato juice users prefer glass. This is equal to the preference

for tin cans. ° ‘

During. the previous 4 years, glass preference was even higher than it is now ~~ 60%

in 1955. The decline ts believed ‘to be due to the inc reased percentage being packed

in small size cans, eliminating the need for storing unused portions in the container.

Under these circumstances, the major advantage of giass doesn't come into play. |

6 *

> x a § °. ’ ; ;

. 2 : &

‘345? a Pea a

* [fol 382] | yea | puna ; "eS -

TOLIATO JUICE- ecm tee va: |

wanes = CONTAINER MQTIVATIONS | Pree ope

0. ss CANS °

NO BREAKAGE 20% 29s]

| HABIT. -.33 22

STORE IN JAR 678

BRAND IS IN CANS

“| STORES BETTER. ° 45

°F

: The dominant reason for preferring glass for tomato juice is consumers’ belief that

unused portions can safely be stored in glass, mentioned by 67% of those preferring

glass. While this factor is non-operative in relation to small size cans which are

used up in a single serving, it might become important when coupled with possible

: price savings of large size glass containers vs. small single-use tin cane.

< Secondary motivation for glass is better flavor.

There are no strong basic reasons for preferring tin cans for tomato juice, except

price (mentioned by 6% of those preferring tin cans).

| fol. 383]

HOLIE-DELIVERED mek

"CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

PERCENT OF TOTAC USERS

Soqo000b000u0000

1954

1955

1956

There has been virtually no change in ¢énsumer preference for home-delivered milk

containers during the past three years.

3 1/2 times the preference of cartons.

Glass remains in a dominant position, with

% , ae -

[ fol. 384]

4 = 5

HOME, DELIVERED MILK-

2080 Saas onde ot

CONTAINER MOTIVATIONS ~ oa

.: GLASS CARTONS

- 1954 1957 1954 1957

CARTONS LEAK 28% é EASIER DISPOSAL 72%

MORE SANITARY ‘°20 27 . .

BETTER FLAVOR 25 NO BREAKAGE — 27

NQ WAX IN MILK 14 23 STORES BETTER "

EASIER TO HANDLE 20s«6s«éN Ea att eee .

° . More Sonitory | 6

Can See Contents | Easier To Hondle 6

Hebit on "| Lighter : 5

Gets Colder 10 :

. ; :

There have been no changes (except re-use) in any of the factors motivating preference

G.C.M.1. ads.

: \

for cartons. The dominant motivation ts easier disposal, mentioned by 72% of those

preferring cartons for home -delivered milk. Mer =

On the other Wand, several changes have taken place in relative importance of reasondg,

for preferrang bottles. “More sanitary” has increased in importance, from 20% to

27%. This factor has been stressed in G.C.M.1. advertising. “No wax to milk” has

increased from 14% to 23%, which may be a result of the “clean taste” appeal used in@

Several minor factors have dec réased in mention.

‘

——

| fol. 385}

ASE

BABY FOOD- . fey

CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

58 57

28° 1 4joownana poo

PEQCENT OF TOTAY USERS

—_

1954 1955 1956 1957

’ t

This chart relates only to the area west of the Mississippi. where glass jars are io

competition with tin cans for the baby food market.

Container preference has remained fairly stable during the last four years in the baby

food field. Preference for glass has cons: stently beer abowe 57%, can preference has

aot risen above 52%. Thus, in consumer preference, gtass leads tin 2 to 1, whereas

almost the révérse, situation exists in sales, due to the dominance of Gerber, the only

major brand still packed in tin id this ares. :

| (WEST OF. MISSISSIPPI) )

2 ai

{fol 3%] <:

BABY FOOD-

CONTAINER MOTIVATIONS '

Pena GLASS : CANS .

oo -B4eveeZ wos) 1957

STORE IN JAR ‘Bos NO BREAKAGE _ 35%

3 CHEAPER 13 30

HEAT A SERVE IN JAR - OW ;

’ BRANO |S IN CANS 20

ae .-o. (S328 HABIT a

Better Flavor -6 :

Can See Contents — 6 “Stores Berrer n 4

fasie® To. Handle 4 Easier To Handle . 13 4

Re-use , 8 3

In 1954, Beechnut was the only brand in glass

and its distribution and sales penetration was

any direct experience with giass-packed baby food. Asking

container wasctherefore largely « hypothetical

= ;

‘Since then, Hens has entered the market in glass aod. there is hardly a

that doesn't carry glass-packed baby food. An interesting chan

developed from the 1954 hypothetical situation

existing ia 1957. ;

As consufers have been able to see cans and jars side by side,

their minds regarding cans’ supposed superiority om stor

in the area Wesol the Mississippi,

so low that. few baby food users had had

question.

re)

their preference os

super-market

motivations has

to the condition fof aclual experience

Wey have changed

ing Setter, easier to handle

and lightness. Conversely. it has become apparent to more of them that caes are

cheaper, which has made (hrs & major reotivational factor.

Increased experience with glasa,das ao - adout > lower valuation placed o8 re-use.

224353

CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

ooo

eT ae

SBonobaboos 2

aiidemnienet

PERCENT OF TOTAY USERS

| GLASS }

1954

1955

1956

1957

Beer container preference has exhibiied no violent [luctustions, but there has been «

slight increase in acceptance of glass as a beer container, a8 shown above. This

chart represebis preference between cans and one-way bottles @#t the sarne price.

One-third of all beer drinkers currently prefer one-way bottle auover cans.

-—-

me CONTAINER MOTIVATIONS _

GLASS :

1954 1957 .

BETTER FLAVOR 36% 55% GETS COLDER

' STORES BETTER

DRINK FROM CONTAINER 12 19 NO BREAKAGE

Keeps Setter i BETTER FLAVOR

: Con See Contents 6 0 EASIER DISPOSAL =

Eosier to Hondle 2° 6 ca

, Gets Colder ay Lighter

Hebit 6 Eosiet To trondle

Drink From Con

. “>

Motivations, unlike preference, have undergone considerable change in the beer field.

All major motivations for both cans and one-way bottles are getting stronger, indica-

ting that consumers are giving more serious consideration to beer containers.

. Better Navor for-dottles has increased from 36% to 55% of those who prefer bottles.

- The factor of drinking from the bottle ts also up.

OFor cans, there is greater importance of getting colder (which also means gets cold

faster and stays cold longer); ease of storage, and no danger of breakage. Liking to ~

_ drink from the’ can ts less important. or

° ad a]

Lfol. 389) — : | . | , A 135

lé | TEST CITIES }

aaa ee

. i s

June 1956 Oct. 1956 Feb. 1957 Sept. 1957

ts Jone, 1956, one-way beer bottles were legalized in Virgims. Several brewers

ettered the market with one-ways, accompanied by radio and TV advertising, GOMI

conducted a newspaper aduettising campaige .e three test markets “~ Alexandria,

Richmond and Nortolk. © . . ,

This chart shows the percentage of beer outlets handling any brand of one-way bottles

in the theee test markets, and in’Roanoke, & control city where no advertising was

done.

One-ways achieved SO% - 53% distribution im both test and centrol citves erthin four

months after legalization, going up to 57% - 60% by February. 1957. Since then, :

distribution has dropped off in Roanoke.* where no advertising was done. but has

. Continued to climb to 64% in the test citees.

2086.

[fol |

ONE-WAY SHARE OF MARKET IN VIRGINIA 2

total beer sales wnt

Oct. 1956 Feb. 1957 Sept. 1957 —

In the test cities, one-way sales climbed rapidly within four months to 14. 2% of

hose stores handling one-way bottles. Sales have stayed at this

level ever since, increasing slightly to 15. 4% in September, 1957.

. Im Roanoke. where no advertising ~as done. sales increased ata slower rate, but

° : reached « level equal to the test cates in February. 1957. Since then, however,

Roanoke sales have

declined to 10. 3% of total beer volume.

{ fol. 321)

sEéR- USS O : tok % ,

FAVORITE BRAND IN CANS VS. SOME OTHER BRAND

IN ONE-WAY BOTTLES, lc CHEAPER .

Brand in one-way

bottles Ic cheaper

Favorite brand

” e)

* In Virginia, .the three brewers who achieved greatest success with one-way bottles &

priced therm at 6/99¢, compared with 6/$1. 0B for sectional brand cans and 6/$1.25

for premium brand cans. ; Se ae oi S

Under this price situation, surveys conducted in Virgima indicated that 2% of all

beer drinkers would switch {rom their favorite brand in cané to a lower priced brand

in one-way bottles. Sales results in the Norfolk area confirmed this finding.

To determine whether this same sensitivity to lower price existed in other parts of

the country, the same question was asked of all beer drinkers in the national survey

sample in August, 1957. 32% indicated they would switch to some other brand in

one-ways, if that brand were |¢ cheaper. ,

. ‘

L *

; | DOR

STORS:BOUGHT

cAeK-

CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

'pENCENT OF TOTA

im 1954, «t wa* —

preterred glass dor !

stores at that hme.

Since then, PF

existing pretetens

that a surprisingly lar

es, even though practice

elerence-tor bottles has increased

e tor cartoss.

1956 "1957

ge 33% of all store buyers of mmlk

Ly no milk was sold ts bottles throug® -

co 46%, slightly higher thaw the ;%

as Sen

{fol. 393]

_ STORE-BOUGHT MILK- ees Se eae

-* CONTAINER MOTIVATIONS

‘GLASS . . - CARTONS

CARTONS LEAK —-=«—s-33%f]_~— | EASIER DISPOSAL 674728

MORE SANITARY 16 30-3 ra

NO. WAX IN MILK 13 30° NO BREAKAGE 9

BETTER FLAVOR ; 23

Easier To Hondle “- 7

Con See Contents 10 5

Gets Colder s

The principal ‘motivation for cartons is easier disposal (not having to take bottles

. back to the store), mentioned by 72% of those preferring cartons. “Cartons ere

* lighter,” which wasg@n important reagon in 1954 has dropped to only 7% mention ie

21957. probably because few persons can remember what it used to be like to carry

_ bottled milk home frornm the store. : °

A number of changes have taren place in bottle motivations. “More sanitary” and

‘no wax en milk” have doubled in importance, becoming major motivations. (See

comments on G°C.M.1. advertising under Container Motivations lor home -detivered

milk ° * . amr .

) - q a a :

1934 1957 1954 1957 -B.

“

7 ;

* * ° ;

— AR TO iz Pa —= Vv

= ‘ 7 ’ , .

nn! 2040 2° | Seas

. [fol 398} —

SALAD é COOKING Olt

| CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

- USE, COMPARED TO YEAR AGO -

LIQUID ‘SHORTENING

: — ae . ee Bas _

— - | ~ = 9 SAME ~~ : Te bn

, | ae 64 <i.

SOLID SHORTENING __. aes

e . . 2 ; Fiz are +

ee iT ee

As shown by the top bar, 68% of all salad oil users prefer gises, one glass a Sto!

ratio over tin. :

The two bottom bars reveal‘a trend from solid to liquid type dienionieies that is

currently taking place. 20% are using, less solid shqupeung than they did a year ago,

25% are using more liquid shortening.

i 9

on . aE —

—

(fol. 295) -

. : . >

FRUITS 6 VEGETABLES = sti

wourd PAY 1 CENT MORE FOR-GLASS | PREFER, GLASS

APPLESAUCE ‘43%

Joos

33 ° d :

& ry

38 :

. .

33 - ;

“ 7)

TOMATOES 26 g ' ty

The total lengths of the bars above (red plus yellow) show the percentage of users

who prefer glass for each product listed. The red portion of the bars reflects the

percent of users who would pay 1¢ more per jar to obtain glass. :

It is obvious Lrom this chart that there exists not only wide acceptance of glass in

the (ruit'and vegetable field, byt alep that there i$ a genuine consumer demand for

glass. * . “en : »

60% of-all applesauce users prefer glass; 45% ave willing to pay 1¢ more per jar for

glass. The same. situation, ‘in lesser degree, exists for the other products shown.

Foe 44 ‘

‘UG. .=-* } 8

{foi. 396) —

~~“

SOFT DRINKS- ects fk ase

“CONSUMER CONTAINER. PREFERENCE + pie

1954 GLASS NO PREF. CANS tt

ee arse | woe

50 oo

ike, Se

65 2

Cénsumer preference for bottles as a soft drink container has increased from 50%

to 65% since 1954. Conversely, can preference has decreased from 30% to 18%.

This chart covers a complete cross-section of soft drink users - men, women and .

children of all ages.

ae ©

Vere r

{fol. 397] x.

re C @ °

fo] . , e

SOFT ORIMKS- WOMEN Beet sory

- CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE

3 | F |

“-PPERCENT OF TOTA USERS

1954. ~~ ~*1955

“1956 1957

To show the trend in soft drink container preference year by year, the above chart

on women drinkers only indicates that can prefetence has been steadily declining;

while bottle preference has been steadily rising. ‘

This chart, and the preceding one, reflect preference between cans and one-way

bottles at the same price, which measures preference for container material without

extraneous factors. A measure of preference which takes into account the 2¢ differ-

eritial on returnable bottles is as follows: .

Alu

Users Men Women Childres .

Prefer returnable bottles 55% 45% | 54% 62%

Prefer one-way bottles 22% 27% 27% 15% Ws

‘Prefer cans 9% 12% 6% %

‘9. 16% 13% 14%

No prelecence

Tfot x] aot | m |

SOFT DRINKS- | |

CONTAINER MOTIVATIONS |

GLASS

BETTER FLAVOR 24% 37%

DRINK FROM BOTTLE 18 -27

SANSTARY 4 7

CAN SEE CONTENTS 8 :

Petter Navor and drimking Lrom bottle are Leadingeasons tor preferring bottles ‘e —_

salt deimks. BGth Rave increased in importance since 1954. along with wisibility

contents aad ease of Randlveg. - ;

affecting can preference. Stace

Neo danger of Dreakage ts the most ne portant factor

can preterenve Ras decleed to the Bard core oF res! can lowers, this factor

became of greater sigeificcuce percentage - wise.

oe de

; \ ‘3 f

[fol 399] i + Jf i -

. SOFT DRINKS- ms i

. * SAMPLING & SALES OF CANS “8

| BUY CANS 6

o ioe i oo000

1955 - 1956 1957

It_is possible to reconstruct from G.C.M.1. astional consumer surveys @ complete

history of can penetration since canned soft drinks were firet put om the market io

1952. :

Within two years, bottlers of canned soft drinks had succeeded im getting 18% of all

solt drink users in the United States to try their preduct. By 1957, « total of 59%

had tried canned solt drinks, but rate of penetration of the market is slowing down.

In spite of this wide sampling campaign. fee persons have switched permanently to

cans. At no time since 1952 have more than 7% of total soft drink users bees

regular purchasers of cans. Furthermore, most of those «ho buy cane also buy

bottles, more bottles thae caus. -

2046

[fol 400] —-—

sorr RIWKS- = |

* |” CAIN PENETRATION BY AGE GROUPS

TRIED CANS

19. 19

20 a = 12

BUY CANS ]| 4 rae sia ts

Uo ue oesoooocomoooooooCsGDS

UNDER 100— 00-14 ‘15-18 19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 & OVEE

Canned soft drinks have had their greatest success with children, reachisg their

peak im the 10 - 14 year age group (sub-teenagers). 76% of this group bave tried

cade. ° -

Penetration of the can-sampling camparg™ falls off steadily as age "ac reases. Only

2°@ of the 60 and over group heve treed canned soft drisks.

Preterence for cans over one -way bottles decreases slightly with age, but reguler

wee is steady. Hewever, sales of canned sott drinks don't constitate over 4% of o

total soft der’ perchasers te any age i

~ eet

ooo

; eo. ° ° ‘ . ‘ ° np

[fol. 401) | | 204%

wy ® .

SOFT DRINKS- °

CONSUMPTION BY AGE GROUPS

Jo OF TOTAL VOLUME |~~—-_8

UNDER 10 10-14. 15-18 19-29 . 30-39 40-29 50-59 60 8 OvéR

This chart shows soft drink consumption by age groups, regardi¢ss of type of

container.

. .

The top bar represents percent of tital persons (both yexes) if each age group who

use soft drinks: The dotted bar shows the average nurnber of bottles per person per

oweek for soft drink users in each age group.

; ; *

It is obvious that soft drinks agg vertually a universal beverage among children and

teen-agers, with highe st per capita Consumption amang the high school group

Extent of use drops off steadily as age increases, but per capita consumption remarn

ata level plateau of 6 bottles per week until age 60.

The bottom line represents the percent of tgtal soft drink volume consurned by each

age grbup. The 10 16 year old group (covering two columns tithe chart) accounts

Lor 24% of total volume Howeyer, from an ddvertising tendyere the 19.39 group

may be mbre important, since they got only account for 34% wo! tota) volume them

selves, but are also the parents ofthe high per capita ch, cei

(fol. 402] Govensarewt’s Exmarr’ 85

Minutes of Megting

Market Researcli and Promotion Cominittee

GCMI Conference Room ~ :

° * New York, New York. a

ee {t 14, 1954

Present: ok

F. B. Pollock, Chairmap—Thateher Glass Manufacturing

Co., Ine., J. So Alzeo—Hazel-Atlas Glass ae ee

_Bensinger—Owens-Illinois Glass Company, E, J. Costa— >

- Crown Cork and Seal Company, J. C. Feagley ~ Armstrong

Cork arma 5 N. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass

Corporation, .J. S. Heuisler—Maryland Glass ¢ para

— Gy A, Mvngle—Brockway Glass Company, Ine, P. O'C

White—W hite Cap Company, - | ‘

Absent:

E. F. Ball—Ball Brothers Company, Ine: . FP. UL May—

Foster-Forbes Glass Compary. :

Others Present: 6

R. L. Cheney—GCMJ, S. B. DeMerell “Ane chor Hocking

Glass Corporation, J. W. Fisher—Ball Brothers Company,

Ine., Y. L. Hall—GCML1. y .

1. Call to Oriler. ©):

The meeting was called to order by ¢ Saleen Pollock,

wae presided, Mr. Cheney acted-as Secretary. .

> The minutes of the previous meeting, held on Novem

her 10, 1953 were approved as issued by the Seeretary,

% Plans and Organization—Progress Report.

(a) Mr. Cheney reperted that ghed progress has been

made in the basie Market Research phase of the Division

activity. Continuing gata collection is proc eeding under

* the direction of a trained research assistant, and a library

type file is set iy, containing current data ‘from nome sa)

2050

business publications,-all government sources, newspapers, |

and-many research organizations and associations.

(b) Mr. Ford Sammis has been engaged on a retainer

and per diem basis (for extra time) as Market Research

consultant. Other organization ‘progress has been disap--

pointing. In spite of widespread search.and over thirty

interviews, neither a satisfactory Public Information Di-

rector nor Packaging Engineer Qas yet been located.

(fol, 403] 4. Depth Survey.

The plans for Depth Studies on Glass Containers pre-

sented’*by Ford Sammis in his proposal of March 15, 1954,

were discussed and a progress report was given of the

work accomplished to date. Numerous suggestions wére

made as to the proposed areas of opinion to’be studied; and

Mr: Cheney -was. instructed to listen to recordings of early

interviews and guide the survey in line with Committee

revonunesdations. Mi ae )

The Committee expressed a desire to hear sample re-

corded interviews at its next meeting. The target date for

completion of the survey being May 15th, the Committee

requested that Mr. Sammis report ‘on this at thie May mem-

bership meeting. re it weet

_ ° ‘

5. Task Groups. ;

; ’ S ;

Mr. Cheney requested the Committee to recommend two |

task groups made up of Sales Managers to.whom he could

turn fpr guidance as-needed. Upon motion daly made, sec-

‘ended and unanimously passed, it was “ °

Resolved that the Board of Trustees be requested to

appoint two task groups vtomprised of representatives

of the’ following member companies :

Glass Company Task Grohp

-<Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation

Armstrong Cork Company ~ -

Ball Brothers, Company, Inc. ,

Brockway Glass Company, Inc.

Carr-Lowrey Glass Company

Glass Containers, inc.

Hazel-Atlas Glass Company

‘ o

2051

Lamb Glass Company

* Laurens Glass Works, Ine.

Maryland Glass Corporation. |, anne

Owens-Lllinois Glass Company ——

Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co., Ine.

_ Closure Company Task Group

Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation — .

Armstrong Cork Company

Bernardin Bottle Cap Co., Inc. :

Crown Cork & Seal Company ;

Owens-Illinois Glass Company. 5

White Cap Conrpany

(fol. 404]. 6 Baby Food Situation. Siar

.A quick survey othe St. Louis baby foed market had

been made by GCMI staff members‘and was presented, and_

the national market for baby foods in glass was studied and.

discussed. Further action was deferred for three months.

7. Carbonated Beverage Situatjon.

Mr. Cheney gave a report of the recent West Coast Sub-

- Committee meeting wherein. the segiousness of the competi

tion from soft drink cans was emphasized, He read a reso-

lution of the Sub-Commities recommending that a consumer

and dealer attitude survey be condyeted in Caljfornia and

in an appropriate eastern muirket, to determine the prog-

ress and acceptance of the can as a soft drink container,

Recent ‘developments and reports of the progress of cans

‘in markets across the country Were reviewed, and a One-

Way bottle “test market” merchandising program proposed.

~ by_a soft drink parent company was discussed. It was the

consensus of the Committee that the GCMI newspaper ad-

vertising program suggested by the latter coipany could |

not be considered at this time. *

The Director of Market Research and Promotion was

‘4mstructed that’ the Committee policy with regard to the

soft drink situation’ for the present Was to keep close watel

_of new developments,.to recommend and promote the Use

of One-Way bottles in those markets where there wa? it

consumer demand fora No-Deposit package, and to’ recon.

mend, as the occasion arises, that individual bottlers pro-

pee,

2052 °

tect their industry by vigorously advertising the advan- :

tages of beverages in bottles. ;

Soft Drink Survey. Upon motion duly made, seconded

and unanimously carried, the Director was authorized to

proceed with a Survey of Consumer & Retailer Attitudes

toward saft drigks in cans, in the Philadelphia and Cali-

fornia areas, asproposed by the Ford Sammis organization

in its letter of March 26, 1954. ‘ .

| “S: Beer and Soft Drink Packaging Cost Studies.

cv ae ee oe. : :

_ After reviewing a report covering the need and use to-

le made of certain proposed packaging cost studies in the -

_beer and soft drink fields, the Committee asked the Director:

“"€§"obtain definite_proposals from two or three cost engi-

neering agencies, outlining sPecifieally what information -

would be obtained, together with a definite plan as to its

use. This is to be diseussed further at the aext meeting, and

ea special survey of beer distributors is to-be eonsideged.

9. Milk.Bottle Publie Relations Committee. |

Messrs. Hatl and Cheney reported progress made by the .

Milk Bottle Publie Relations Committee, particularly as te

(fol. 405] the Buffalo and Milwaukee test compaigns. ‘No

survey data of results is yet available but dealer reaction

indicates considerable success. The Committee has recom-

mended a. third test campaign in the St. Louis area, and.

Mr. Hall reported that milk ‘bottle manufacturers repre-

senting over 90% of milk bottle production had signified

their destres to contribute to a fund to aggregate $35,000

‘for this purpose, at the rate of 5 cents. per gross of milk

bottles ‘shipped, until, the total is reached, and that: the

‘ Committee recommends approval of this project. ,

Upon amotion duly made, seconded and unanimously

passed, it was

Resolved that the recommendation of the’ Milk Bottle .

Public Relations Committee be approved and that the |

Board of Trustees be requested to authorize ‘the pro-

posed program.

10. Publicity Activities.

Examples of continued bad press notices regarding glass

containers based on inaccurate, uninformed or biased views,

+ were cited, along with opportunities for constructive pub-

licity. It was the consensus of the meeting that these situa-

_tions should be promptly handled, and that this pointed up

tlie need ‘for early engagement af a Pul®e Informatin *

Director. eee o~

) a Ja ee

4 11. Next Meeting. _ Sa ae \ .

It was decided to hold the next meeting of this Commit” -

tee at The Greenbrier; White Sulphur Springs, Wes} Vir

ginia, at 1:00 P.M.on Sunday, May °16, 195 mtn

’

12. Adjournment. |

‘Respectfully submitted, R. L. Chenéy, Secretary. :

: ) BLOCH : x

{fol. 406} ~ GoveERNMENT'S EXuinrt 86

“@

i \

There being no further business, the meeting adijourned.

| - Minutes of Meeting

» Market Research and Promotion Committee

Wohité Sulphur Springs, West Virginia»

Sunday, May 16, 194 >

_ Present:

; a fhe Greefibrier

;

: ass es '

! F. B. Pollock, Chairman—Thatcher Glass Manufacturins

Co., Inc., J. S. Algeo—Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, F. F.

Ball—Ball Brothers Company, Inc., C. G. Bensinger— -

Owens-Illinois Glass Company, E. J. Costa—Crown Cork

t yy and Seal Company, J. €. Feagley—Armstrong Cork Com-

& pany, W. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation,

b J. S. Heuisler—Maryland Glass Corporation, G. Av Mengle

| —Brockway Glass Company, Inc., P. O'C.. White—W hite

Cap Company. ,

2054

_ Absent: coe i | . ee

F. H. May—Foster-Forbes Gilags Company.”

Others Present:

‘Bush Barnum—GCMI, R. L: Cheney-=GCML,S. F.. Davis.

—Owens-Illinois: Glass Company, S. B. DeMeretl—Anchor

~ Hocking Glass Corporation, Ered BE. Fuller—GCMI General

Counsel; V. L. Hall—GCMI, H. C. Herger—Pierce Glass

~ Company, J. P. Levis—Owens-Illinois Glass Company, C.

R. Megowen—Owens-IlIlinois Glass, Company, Ford Sammis

—Marketing Economist, F. H. Ww ‘right—GCMI. iy

a Call to Order. fe a es fhe

The meeting was ealled to.order by the Chairman, Mr. F.

B. Pottock, who presided. Mr. Cheney acted as Secretary.

. Plans and Organization—Progress. Beport.- “4

“Mr. Bush Barnum, new GCMI Public Information Diree-

. tor, was introduced to the Committee, arid Mr. Cheney's

recommendations concerning plans for hiring a Packaging

Economics engineer capable pf handling important, high

level contacts, ‘were approved by the Committee. With the

- exception ‘of an‘ Editor, to be pired- later, this would com-

‘ plete the proposed organization. —

a Packaging Cost Studies—Beer and Soft Drinks. .

Proposals were submitted by the Director of M.,R. & P?

from three management enginéering firms, for diagnostic

lfol. 407] and cost. studies covering the packing and dis-

tribution of beer and soft drinks in,gans vs. One-Way bot-

tles. A thorough discussion folhowed whic ‘h dise losed the

Committee opjnion to be that’ top priorgty should be given

to a thorough diagnostic study of all phases of the merchan-

dising.and distribution of beer and soft drinks in One-Way -

bottles as compared to cans, with special emphasis on dis-

tributor activity and bottling house costs. A task group

consisting of C. G. Bensinger, 4. J. Costa, 8. B.;DeMerell,

_and G, A. Mengle was appointed by the C hairman to assist

in the selection of an outside agency to handle this study.

—

- .

Oe Re ee ee ee See en Se eee

Toor ey

—

~ .

» oom

Le eR, A ite ee trie SR

a ore

Pe ee eet

not Ale

‘

were > approved. ° shag a ‘

. 9055_

4. Brochure of Charts and Statistics. &

The Committee reviewed the dummy of a proposed bro-

distribution f6 business editors, giving thé basic statistics

on the glass container and othbr industries contained in

“A Survey of the Market Problems of the Glass Container _

Photostatie copies were taken by the Committee members

for further study—suggestions or additions to be submitted

to the Director as soon as possible.

& Plan for Retail Store.Panels.

A plan for Retail Store Panels.in Philadelphia and Los

Angeles, whjch would furnish a means for continuing audits -

covering the relative sales of soft drinks in ¢ans and bottles,

and of tinned and preseet baby foods, was overeat

The Director w

such store parels, as aacenied by the Ford Sanmis organ-

ization on March 23, 1954.

6. ‘Depth Survey Deginiques.

Mr. Ford. Sammis reviewed the results of ‘the Depth —

Surveys recently completed, and played. tape recordings

of actual interviews for the Committee. The plans to pre:

sent a report of these surveys at the membership meeting ;

A Publicity.

The opportunity for constructive ‘publicity and the need

for correcting mis- statements concerning the industry were -

stressed by the Committee, andplans were approved to han-

dle the. basie r requirements of this situation during the’

; 9

coming months prior to‘undertaking any broad program of.

product publicity and advertising, which may. later be

recommended. This activity will provide a means, under

the present budget, for dealing with the immediate needs of.”

the Soft Drink situation,

‘

a - npmmnnte 4

RE 2 fy,

Glass Company, FE. J. ae fas C

3s Ne

[fol. 408] 8. Joint. Meeting with Soft Drink Manufac-

turers.

Representatives of all companies “Thanufactiiring «soft

drink bottles were then invited to join the méeting, and Mr.

Ford Sammis gave a report of the Consumer. and, Dealer -

’ Surveys covering soft drinks in cans and. bottles i. the

- Philadelphia and California areas.

There was a lengthy discussion of the competition being

offered by the soft drink can, and the need was expréssed

_for earliest possible distribution of GCMI drawings cover-

. ing recommended designs for One-Way carbonated béver-

_ forth the advantages of glass bottles.

It was suggested that the Trustees be requested to set up

a special committee of soft drink battie manufacturers to |

keep track of continuing develepments in. this field and to

recommend action when needed. Mr. Cheney’ said’ he would

convey this suggestion: to the Board. -

De / Sdjp WN On tre.” pet EPs

tongs no further business, the meeting adjourned.

La syn tfully submitted, R. L. Cheney, Secretary.

” ped 9 oe Fie, °

(fol. 409} . GOVERNMENT’s Exuipit 87 |

Minutes of Meeting:

Market Research and Promotion Committee

: G CMI Conference Room

-New York, New. York

September 22 22,1954 —

Present:

F. B. Pollock, Fy ea ve ed Glass Mfg. Co., Ine,

fe J.S. Algeo—Hazel-Atlas — Company, E. F. Ball—Ball

Brothers Company, Ine., C. a Iilinois

and Seal Com-

‘pany, Inec., J. C. Feaglev—srmstrong Cork'Company,. W.

V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, J. S.

¥ 78 .

se ee 2057

. Heuisler—Maryland Glass Vad G. re Merigle—

Brockway Glass Company, Inc., P. orc. roan Cap

‘Company. ieee | : JL

Absent: - _ ak : ee Fok

KE. Dp. Easterby—Laurens Glass Works, Ine.

. | Others Pets! hes

: . Bugh Barnum—GCMI, R. L. Cheney—GEMI, 8S. B. De-

* Merell—Anchor Hocking Glass aha ae Fred FE. Ful-

le;—GCMI General Counsel, V. L. Hall—GCMI, H. W.

Kuni—GCMI, Ford Sammis—Marketing EF sconomist, W. C.

Schade—Ball Brothers Company, Inc.

1. Call. to Order. = ‘

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, We

FE. B. Pollock, who presided. Mr. Cheney acted as Seere-

tary. —

The Chairman stated that this meeting was called espe-

cially to review the results of the Market Research.program

to date; that the director and staff of the Market Research

and Promotion Division had been asked to make “reecom-

NCMMEIONS . woe isso os that might he undertaken which |

et looked promising” as instructed in the resolution: establish.

ing the division; that. division studies indicated” recom-

‘mendations ; that the purpose of the meeting was Committee

consideration of the division recommendations that, in

consequence, time would not be taken for detailed division

activities since e the previous mceting on Augu: it 12 A054.

agi oy ce ak tem getieliatoage sate eon nean eag te tet eee PAT BREE TERA neh RIN ,

_ Minutes of Previous’ Meeting.

T The minutes of the meeting held on August 12. 19; D4 were

= ed: as issued by the Secretary.

(fol. 410] 3. Consumer and Dealer Attitude Surveys.

* Ford ser presented infgrmation on (1) his depth

“survey, (2)° his ‘Philadelphia and California, soft drink

studies ju (3) the nationwide consumer and dealer survey.

The last named is an extremely ‘broad undertaking, in-

volving 10,000 consumers, ° 2000 retailer s and a total of séme

2058 * |

3,600,000: individual answers to be collated: In ‘the course of

the time avajlable, it was only possible for Mr. Sammis to" —

‘give highlights of his extensive program. This material was _

also covered in confidential, numbered reports issued only

to Committee members and entitled “National Container

‘Survey, Preliminary Summary, September 29-1954".

+ Beer Container Diagnostic Study.

Th ree representatives of McKinsey & Company,—Kverett

Smith, William Graham and David Fox,—presented an oral

réport of their recent, beer survey. Written reports will be

submitted to Committee members at a later date.

5. Milk Bottle Test Markets Resalts.

R. L. Cheney presented summaries of recent test cam-.

paigns in Buffalo and Milwatkee and written reports were

given to the Committee. fuss: ’ “<i

6. Recommended Jndustry Program. ;

Mr. Cheney then presented a 25 page report to the Com-

mittee entitled “A Recommended . Program for the Glass

Container Industry” which included the following sections :

Forward EOS Snaeee :

Competitive industries .

industry ‘Prends Std

Defining the Problem — - i :

Aims and Objectives

A Total Lmpact Program including ;-—.

Market Research

Public Information craks tw

Consumer Advertising’ Program ,

Choosing an Ageney

Merchandising and Trade Promotion

Concluston if

After full discussion, the following resolution was duly -

moved, seconded and unanimously adopted:

Reselved, that the Committee on Market Research. and

Promotion recommends to thé Trustees that the per-

centage of assessment whieh the Budget Committee has

2059

[fol.'411] proposed to finance ail regular activities of »

7 the Standing Committees, amounting to 14/1 of 1%

| be augmented by 16/100 of 1% to provide funds for

an advertising and promotional program as submitted

by the»Committee herewith, making the membership

dues for the year 1955 total 30/100 of 1% of net sales; —

Resolved Further; that the Committee recommends

to the Trustees that at the time the budgets for 1956,

and 1957 are under consideration there be included

an assessment.of 16/190 of 1% to finance advertising

- and promotional activities. ‘

} Respectf ully submitted, R. UL. Cheney, Secretary.‘

RLC:CH ) |

{fol. 412}, Government's Exnierr 88

Minutes of Meeting

Market Research and Promotion Committee

‘ | The Broadmoor.

‘ Colorado Springs, Colo.

ter et October 24, 1954 ve

Present: aS

F. B. Pollock, Chairman—-Thatcher Glass Mfg. Co., Int.,

J. S. Algeo—Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, E. F. Ball -Rail

Brothers Company, Inc., (. G. Bensinger— Owens-Illinois

‘Glass Company, FE. J. Costa—Crown Cork and Seal Comm-

- pany, Inc., J. C. Feagley—Armstrong Cork Company, J. 5.

Heuisler—Maryiand Glass Corporation, G. A. Mengle—

Brockwat Glass Company, Ine., P. O'C. White White Cap

~~ Company, h. D. Easterby—Laurens Glas- Works, Ine.

Absent : °

a : 3 ° - ‘ ° °

‘ _W. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glas= Corporation.

bs -

Present from West Coast Sub-Committee: .

. . . S ‘

K. C. White. Chairman—Owens-I|lineis Glas= Coupan).” -

PF. L. Bower—Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, R. H. Dalia-— —

Maywood. Glass Company, F. W. MeDonald—Glass Con-

2060

tainers, Inc.,. William ,Simkins—Latehford-Marble Glass’

Company.‘ |

‘ ‘te

Others Present; Ee

Bush Barnum—GCMI, R. L. Clieney—GCMI, S. B. De-

Merell—Anchor Hocking Glass Carperation, Fred F. Fuller

—-GCMI General Counsel, V. L. Hall—-GCMI], Ford Sammis

—Marketing Economist, W. C. Schade—Ball Brothers Com-.

pany, Inc.,, G. F. Rieman—Ball Brothers Cotpany, Inc.,

P. R. Goetz-—Ball Brothers Company, Inc. .

‘ACall to Order. - 2 Se miaie -

The/ meeting was cdlled to order by the Chairman, Mr. ;

FPNB/ Pollock, who presided. Mr. Cheney acted as Secre-

tary.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting.

e 4 7 .

The minutes&f the meeting held on September 22, 1954

were approved as issued by the Secretary. oh

°.

[fol. 413] 3, Review of Proposed Presentation to the .

Membership. |

Mr. Chetiey then reviewed a 2) page aor entitled “A |

Recommerded Program for the Glass Container Industry”

dated October 24,1954, which was the same as the document

of the same-name dated September 2, 1954 which had been.

reviewed by the Committee ‘at its previous meeting, except

that two or three seetions had been considerably condensed

sinee the speakers at the following days’ membership meet-

ings would cover the sections orally and with charts.

He outlined the plan of the Market Research and Promoe-.

‘tion Nepartment for presenting the Commitiee’s recommen-*

dation to the Industry at the meetings on the two following

davs, including the provision for a report illustrated , by

charts by Ford Sanimis covering the results of the major

marketing research survey: that had recently been com-

pleted. . iy

After distussion, upon motion duly made and seconde

the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

Resolved; that Mr. Cheney be authorized to present ‘*A

Recommended Prograir ter the Glass Container Industry”

—

SAN

& i RPcatre wat

« @

586 LPN er BC I!

. . é i ms: : 2061

‘ . °

as reviewed with this Committee today, to the Membership

at its meetings on October 25. and October 26 with the pro-

viso that he precede it with a statement to the effect that

this recommended program represents the best thinking of

the Committee at the present time in the light of present

market research findings and industry problems, as they

‘currently appear, but that it should not be assumed that the:

execution of the plan would necessarily follow the recom-

mepdation as presented here except in general outline, but .

that-if approved by the Membership any plan as put into*

effect would be with the approval of the Committee and the

Board of Trustees. , :

4. West Coast Marketing Problems. |

_ The members of the West Coast Sub-Committee then re-

viewed the marketing problems of the glass container in-

dustry in. the. West Coast area. Highlighted, were the fact

--that the’ position of the 1-way beer bottles had declined in:

that market; intensive competition lias been encountered

from canned soft drinks, particularly in the Los Angeles

-and San Franciséo areas; a second packer has switched

100% to glass for baby food in the California market and

the two glass-packed baby foods in that area ‘are advertising

heavily and are apparently gaining in market position: and

joint efforts between the bottle manufacturers and the Cali-

fornia Nevada Manufacturers. of Carbonated Beverages

were reported to have been quite successful in meeting the

advent of cans in the Los Angeles market. .

(fol. 414] 5. Next meeting.

It. was decided to“hold tKe ‘next meeting of the sub-

committee at 8:30 A. M. Wednesday morning, October 27,

1954. :

6. Adjournment. / - Bi ak

There being wo further business, the meeting was ad-

journed. rs Pat z

Respectfully submitted, R. L. Cheney, Secretary.

renee

er ad

. ») : \ —/ -

— . a

.. *

{fol. 415] GoverRNMENT’s- Exuipit 89

Minutes of Meeting

~~ Market Research and Promotion Committee

The Broadmoor

Colorado Springs, Colo.

October 27, 1954

Present: . |

iF. B. Pollock, Chairman—Thateker Glass Mfg. Co., Inc.,

J.S. Algeo—Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, i. F. Ball—Ball

Brothers Company, Ine., C. G. Bensinger—Owens-Ilhinois

Glass Company, EB. J. Costa—Crown Cork and Seal Com-

pany, Inc., J. C. Feagley— Arnistrong Cork Company, J. 5.

Heuisler—Maryland Glass Corporation, G. A. Mengle—

Brockway Glass Company, Ine., P. O’'C. White—White Cap

Company, BE. D. Wasterby—Laurens Glass Works, Ine.

Absent :

W. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation.

Present from West Coast Sub-Committee :

K. C. White, Chairman—Owens-Illinois Glass Company,

F. L. Bower—lHazel-Atlas Glass Company,.R/ H. Dallas—

Maywood Glass ‘Company, FE. W. MeDonald—Glass Con- ,

_tainers, Inc., William Simkins—-Latchford-Marble Glass

Company. «>

Others Present: . 2

“Bush: Barnum—GCMI, R. L. Cheney—GCML, = &

DeMerell—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, V. L. Hall

+GCMI, Ford Sammis—Marketing Economist, W. C.

Sehade—Batlt Brothers Company; bre. GL. F. Rieman—Ball ‘

Brothers Company, Ine., P. P. Goetz—Ball Brother’ Com-

pany, Inc. . °

1. Call to_Order.

‘The meeting was called to ‘order. by the Chairman, Mr.

F. B. Pollock. Mr. Cheney acted as Secretary.

DETER eA ads

_ 2. Selection of

param sc My —

Advertising Agency.

With the approvalby the members on\a_previous day of*

“A Recommended Program for the Glaes Container Indus-

try” and the report of the Budget Committee, the Chairman ~

[fol. 416] stated that he thought it was in order to author-

ize the selection of an advertising agency by the Director

of Market Researeh and Promotion. He stated that the’

Director had requested’ the appointuent of a special three.

man sub-committee of aa ee eines to aid in this

selection. . | y ;

Therefore, after discussion, upon motion duly made and

_ seconded the following resolutions were. unanimously

adopted: ph Sole

Resolved; that the Director of Market Research and

Promotion proceed with the selection of an advertising

agency in line with the plans for such selection outlined

by him to the Committee this day, and

‘Resolved, that Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation,

Armstrong Cork Company and Owens-Illinois Glass

Company-be requestéd to supply the serviees of their

advertising ‘managers to ‘act as a special Advisory

Committee to the<Director of Market Research and

Pronfotion in connection with this selection. —

"3. Soft Drink Industry Talks.

; The Director was instructed to cifeulate his talk which is

to be made at several meetings of soft. drink manufacturers

to all members of -G.C M.1. ;He was also instructed to pre-

pare a story for the brewing industry and for the dairy

industry, setting forth the facts absut_those two industries

which were incorporated in his soft drink talk.

4. Financial Analysts Program.

: _®

The Direct3r was instructed to send copies of the mate-

rial furnishéd to the financial analysts at New, York and

Boston to the financial analysts of the various insurance .

‘companies throughout the country.

2064 .¢

5. Recommendations for use of the labor press.

Mr. Cheney then read a letter from the Glass Bottle

-—~~Blewers Association recommending that a substantial

-. amount of the advertising funds of G.C.M.I. be devoted to:

- the labor press. It- was the opinion of the Committee that

_it was too early to consider this matter at this time and the

“Direetor was asked to so advise the union. 3

{fol. 417] 6. N. C, A. Prenstionsl Program.

The Director was instructed to refer to the Glass Con.

tainier Task Group of the Market Research and Promstioy

Committee any’ questions or problems involved in coopera-

tion with the N.C. A. promotional program. —

. Further report of Ww est Coast activ ities.

Members of, the West Coast Sub- Committee. then con-

-tinued a report of the marketing situation facing the glass

container industry on the West Coast..The discussion was

principally concerned with the opportunities for the sale

of 1-way bottles for the carbonated beverage industry on

the West Coast and it was reported that there seemed to

bé one or two. sitecess stories in ‘the making for this con-

-It was the concensus. of the meeting that the office of the

Market Research and Promotion director should keep more

closely in‘ touch with the West Coast Sub-Committee, for

an interchange of views and adequate.communication cover-

ing activities of the parent committee and the = sub-

committee, and of the office of the Director.

Respectfully cakacitied, R. L. CheneypSecretary

&. Adjournment ee " TAG

There being no further siness, ‘the meeting was ad- |

j journed.

= OE EN POT Ee re ee

ke eae . ~ + ode ve

2065

ffol. 418] | GOVERNMENT'S Fxnuipit 90

Minutes of Meeting

- Market Research and Promotion Committee

J GCMI Conference Room

foot _. New York, N. Y.

March 1, 1955

- Present: °

F. B..Pollock, Chairman—Thatcher Glass ‘ein

- Company, Ine., J.-S. Algeo+-Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, .

E. F. Ball—Ball Brothers Company, Inc., E. J; Costa— .

Crown Cork .and Sea! Company, Inc., W. V. Fisher—.

Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, GA. Mengle—Brock-

way Glass Company, ine., e. ore. White—White ae Com-

pany.

Absent:

C. G. SE a) Oe Iflindis Glass Company, E. D.

Easterby—Laurens Glass Works, Inc., J. C: Feagley—Arm-

strong Cork Company, J. 8. Heuisler— Mary land Glass ¢ Cor-

poration.

“Others Present:

Bush Barnum—GCMI, R. L. Cheney—GCMI, S. F. Davis

—Owens-llinois Glass Company, S. B. DeMerell—Anchor

Hocking Glass Corporation, J. A. Giddings—Brockway

Glass Company, Inc., R. H. Hetzel—Armstrong Cork Com-

pany.

“1. Call to Onder. A

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr.

F. B. Pollock. Mr. Cheney acted as Secretary.

2: Minsiaa of Previous Meetings. -

The minutes of the meetings held October 24, 1954 and

October 27, 1954 were approved as issued by the Secretary:

3. 1955 Advertising and Promotion Plan.

The following representatives ‘of -Kenyon & Eckhardt,

2066 ° | : 8

Inc., GCMI’s. advertising agency, were then invited to join

the meeting and were introduced by Mr. Cheney: es

D. J. Maggini, Account Supervisor

R. B. Shirey, Account Executive

Miss Leslie Munro, Creative Chief

3 G. M. Ule, Research Director eee ;

‘Hal Davis, Director of Publicity & Promotion.

J.P. Braun, Media Director _ hy : a

Cin. 419} : The representatives of the agency then pre-

sented a “1955: Advertising Recommendation for the Glass’ *

Container Manufacturers Institute,” and copies of this plan °

were distributed to those present and hater mailed to ab- ~

sentees. Proposed advertisements ‘were presented partly in

preliminary photographs and partly in rough art work form. |

> After answering questions from the Committee members .

_' the ‘representatives of the advertising agency Feft the

meeting. cee

_ Mr. Cheney then explained that the plan as presehted

today was a modification of a plan reviewed the week be-

fore by an advisory group of advertising managers from

the industry. Their many very helpful criticisms, sugges-

- tions and recommendations had been taken into account in

bringing the plan to its present form although because of

differing views on eertain points and because of the need

of accommodating the overall desires of the industry as he —

understood them, the Director alone assumed responsibility |

. for the plan in its present form.

' Mr. Cheney then presented the budget covering the plan

presented by the agency which was as follows:

Budget

Advertising ‘and Promotion

‘National Magazitres (Space & Prodtetion) ..$ 513,000.

Television (Space & Production) .....----- 188,000

Trade Papers .........0e+eeeseeeeeeseeees 30,000

abor.- Papers nonnacremnarctimnadrctennarnmnadetts * ~ 20,000°"

Merchandising and Publicity .......-.-.-- .. 75,000

Local Market Campaigns .....:.----2.++-- 232,000

Contingencles— .........-seeeee ees cd a daion 2,800

a ~——————_—_-- -

$1,060,300.

’

Yt sa eSoni ie ay ae es eee Se Mic

BOY ac Sis * e a

Siete.

The Director then Nien that in addition to the

advertising and promotion plan just covered; $50,000 he

appropriated for general publicity to be carried out under

the direction of Bush Barnunt, GCMI Publie Information

Director, and $22,000 be appropriated to continue the

milk bottle promotional program for the balance of 1955.

With these additions the total budget for adv ertising, pro-

— 4

motion and publicity is $1,132,800 which was in conform-

ance with the 1955 budget for GCMI as, sh ote by the

. Board of. Trustees and the members.

After many: “Yjuestions and considerable —_ of the

plan as presented, upon motion. ‘duly made, seconded and —

unanimously edrried; it was

Resolved, That the Market Research and Promotion —

‘Committee approve ‘the plans for the 1955 advertising

and promotion ald publicity as presented-by the Direc-

~ tor of Market Research and Promotion and the adver-_

tising agency and authorizes the Director to proceed

to..wark, out the details and 7 the plan into action.

"Tre. 420] 4. gest of Beer Bottle tidieudienlites Activi- -

2. es

Mr. Cheney then putea the recent meeting of the

Beer Bottle Sub-committee of this commitite. He stated

that the Board of Trustees had constituted this Beer Bottle

Subcommittee as a subcommittee of the Committee of

Market Research and Promotion, transferring it fromthe -

Committee on Container Design and Specifications since it

appeared that its activities would be. henceforth 1 in , field

of market research and promotion.

The committee had met and received a report from the -

representatives of McKinsey and Company covering their

' study of the possibilities of duplicating the marketing suc-

cess Which the one-way beer bottle was enjeying in Balti-

more to the, Detro.t market. After hearing the report it

had been the consensus of the. Beer Bottle Subcommittee

that in the abserice’ of basic changes in the marketing pat-

tern of beer in the Detroit market that it would not be

2068

possible to duplicate the Baltimore.experience there. The >

Subcommittee felt that in the light of all:studies mad? to _

‘date it was’ not clear what course GCMI should take in the

promotion of glass bottles for beer and it invited the parent —

committee to review. the McKinsey and Company report

and had recommended thet the Director ask the Kenyon &

Eckhardt research and marketing people to-study this

problem and see if ‘recommendations for action could be

developed. .

The great: importance of the beer container market to.

the glass container industry was stressed and the Director

was urged to take every possible step towards developing

activity in this connection’ which would offer promise of

success. }

5: 1955, Market Sentech Plaus.

Mr. Cheney: then presented plans for continuing the

market research activities of the Institute in 1955, which

plans were approved by the committee as submitted.

In this connection, upon motion duly made, secondéd and

unanimously carried, it was

Resolved, That the “Glass Container. National Pinbte

1954—-Summary” as presented by. Ford Sammis to the

membership meeting at Colorado Springs, and as

shown to this committee in printed form be held at

GCMI on‘ a library loan. basis to GCMI members.

6. Committee Directives. -

. As means of increasing the value of the GCMI advertis-

.ing and promotion campaign to its members the Market

Research and Promotion division was: directed by the com-

mittee to:

[fol.421] 1. Send a aii of the Kenyon & Eck-

hardt report to the membership to inform them of

the program.

-\.'2. Keep them advised of progress on the varioyparts

\ of the plan. v)

\3, Furnish: the naan with advance proof. of all

. ‘singer

4 ~ 2069.

ads at least thirty days prior to their first appear- -

ance in the ‘media. . a

4. Contact the advertising’ agencies of customer. in-

dustries and associations of those industries, ex-

‘plaining duc program endeavoring. to obtain co- —

- operation in their advertising. ;

5. Prepare and make available to the members. in the

necessary quantities material explaining the pro- . —

gram, including advance proof of the advertising,

and all other uséful information about it that could

he placed in the hands of the sales people in the

industry for their ase in merchandising the pro-

gram in.their contacts with the trade.

(. Adjournment.

ie |

‘There being no further business, the meeting ad journed.

Respectfully submitted, R. L. Cheney, Seeretary.

, . ° ——S———SS

' [fol 422] ( }OVERNMENT’S ExHipit 91

Minutes. of Meeting

~ Market Research and Promotion Committee

The Greenbrier ‘

W hite Sulphur Springs, West Vi ape

May 8 —

—_—

Present:

F. B. Pollock, Chairman—-Thatcher Glass Manufactur-.

ing Company, Inc.,. J. S. Algeo—Hazel-Atlas Glass Com-

pany, E. F. Ball—Ball Brothers Company, Inc., C. G. Ren

s-Illinois Glass Company, E.J. Costa—Crown _

~ Cork and “Seal Company, Inc., FE. D. Easterby—Laurens

Glass Works, Inc., J: C. .Feagley—-Armstrong Cork: Com- |

pany, W. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass Se ara

G. A. Mengle—Brockway Glass Company, Ine., P. O'C.

+ White—White Cap Company. \ oor .

rok: ye

2070 = 3 ie : ai . Se

Absent :

as .s. Heuisler—Marsland Glass * Corporation.

( Ythers Present: . oe

Aerie: Barnum—GCMI, R. “o CheneyGC MI, 8. B. De-

ee Mere!l—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, Fred-E. Fuller

: —GCMI General Counsel, V. L. Hall—GCMI, F. B. Hess |

Brockway Glass Company, Inc., M. Ri. Hellrung—Owens-

“- Tilinois Glass Company, P. I. Heuisler, Jr.— Maryland Glass

Sober ) ~~ Corpotation, F. W. MeDonald—Glass Containers, Inc.,

feet b ~ R..H. Roper—-Laurens Glass Works, Ine., F. H. W heaton—

a Wheaton Glass Company, | eF Wright—GEMI. ,

‘1. Call to Order. ° :

& St Re ‘The meeting was called to kar by the Chairman, Mr. .

* a ;! B. Pollock, Mr, Cheney acted as Secretary. a.

ems : ‘ : mane @

2. Advertising and Promotion Program:

The Chairman stated that as directed by the committee

at its last’meeting the Market Research and Promotion de-

ypartment lias issued Advertising and: Promotion Bulletin -

; No. 1 dated April 18, 1955 giving the. industry in complete,

i. : but: condensed outline form the details of the GCMI 1955"

Advertising and Promotion program which had been ap-

proved by this comniittee at its prev ious meeting. He the

& ~~ asked Mr. Cheney to review the progress that’ had ‘been

‘ ; made in this program since the last. meeting which he did.

‘He told of the working relations that have beet developed: -

with Kenyon & Eckhardt, ‘the adv ertising: ageney, and

‘, pointed out that they had developed in'a very satisfactory:

A ; -{fol..423]. way and that he was very pleased with the en-

at J ergy and enthusiasm with which they were attacking our

’ . - problems and. withthe quality of the personnel assigned to

GCML ¢

‘Slides were shown covering the photographic art work.

~ and layouts of the first four.in the series of national maga-

zine advertisements {covering milk, two soft drinks and

baby foods). A-slide was sliown covering tentative photo-

graphic art, work for the fifth. advertisement coyering

staples, ‘and a slide was shown covering artist layouts for ~

the ad covering cosmetics. =

—e~

-f 5 . - -* : . 9

the committee, . ;

: At a

Each of these was, discussed and many suggestions and

recominendations were submitted for the improvement of

the advertisements. Now that the program. has been

launched and enough lead time will be available to do 80,

Mr. Cheney was asked to submit ads in advance to informed

members of the industry for their advice.

Concerning ‘the staples ad it was the consensus that the

catsup was to- dark in color, the mustard too orange in color, |

the catsup bottle looked too unrealistic¢ and should contain

more catsup and should give some ev idence of having been

poured from with residual catsup on the inferior upper side

_ walls. It was suggested that the. blue background be

’ changed. as it gave the’glass a green cast which is undesir-

able-in catsup bottles: ,

In the cosmetics ad it was pointed out that the artist's

econteption showed | battles t war were too large .and, not

cosmetic type in appearance, 3

avoiding. private molds. A lotion bottle should be included

_ as well as an opal jar and a faney perfume. It was suggested

that GCMI ask cosmetic bottle manufacturers to submit

samples of appropNate bottles for the advertisement: The

theme of the ad was thought to be very good.

In discussing the labor press to be used for GCMI ad-

‘vertising, it was the consensus of the cemmittee that GCMI

‘funds could not be used for advertisenients in the Retail

~ Clerk’s publication over the signature of one of the labor

unions in the glass container industry. If this magazines

will not actept advertising from other than/a labor union;

it could not be included in any way in GC Mr’ Ssprogram.

~The Market Research and Promotion ‘division was’ in-

structed to furnish the industry with a I?st. of the dates on

which the GCMI commercials would appear on thee NBC

“Home Show” television show. ;

7.)

e ¢ . ‘

. Presentation of Committee Report—May 9 and 10.

«Mr. ( ‘héney then outlined his proposed plan for present-

ing the report of this committee to the GCMI membership

on-the following two days as outiined in the printed pro-

gram for thoge ‘meetings und ‘the plans were approv ed by

it was recommended that |

the most distinctive possible bottles be included while. still

2072 . Sn

[fol. 424} 4. Marketing Research Activity. |

Mr. Cheney then outlined the proposed plans ioe market-

ing research activtities in 1955 including laboratory tests

comparing sees with competitive container materials, 1959

sults, and vations for breaking down the data of the JS

survey. These plans were ra citing

5. Beer Bottle Subcommittee Activ ity and Plans.

entation to this committee of the McKinsey and Compa ’

report which had been reviewed hy the’ Beer Bottle Sub-

‘committee. However, the problems gf the industry in this

area have heen submitted to Kenyon & Eckhardt for their

study and recommendations as to” way “and means to attack ™

this problem. | 7

> -

6. Soft Drink Sadectey eanien to GCMI Activity.

Mr. Cheney reported that reaction to his talks to eight -

state associations and the national convention: of ABC 6

seemed to have been favorable. The headquarters of ABCB

have been infogmed of GCMI's advertising and promotion

plans for 1955 5 hd have reacted very enthusiastically, invit-

ing him and Mr. Barnum to present these plans to a meet-

ingvof, virtually all of the state presidents and secretaries

_of bottling industry associations and: officers and directors

of ABCRB, at thqir meeting in Washington on the afternoon

of May 9. The committee approved this-presentation.

7. Statement and Recommendations from a GCMT” . y

Member. A

The Chairman stated*that he had invited Mr. Frank bi

Wheaton, Jr. to present a statement and reecommendati

to this committee. Mr. Wheaton pointed out that the m R

research fBidings of the Miirket Research and Promotion

department clearly revealed the need for more technical

research on the part of the glass container industry and

the improvement of its product in order to maintain its .

competitive position with other pac kaging industries, He

presented his views as to how best some of this research .

eee

_ 2073

‘\

could be carried out by members of the industry. The indus.

‘try members expressed much interest in the subject, and a

willingness to explore individually ways and means of car-

rying out this research, hut it, was the consensus that it

was beyond the jurisdiction of this committee and therefore

a subject on hich this committee could not take any spe-

* cific action...

-—White Cap Company.

. Adjournment.

There beitg no furthgr bnsifess, the esate was ad-

journéd, . : ts

Respectfully submitted, R. is Cheney, Secretary.

—————

- [fol. 425) ( jOVERNMENT'S Exuiuprt 92

Minutes of Meeting

Market Research and Promotion Committee

GCMI Conference Room |

New York, N. Y. °

—~ - September 28, 1955

Present:

F. 1B. Pollock, Chairman— Thate cher Glass Manufacturing

Company, Ine, d. S. Algeo—tlazel-Atigs Glass Company,

i. F. Bal!—Ball Brothers Company, Inc., ¢. G. Bensinger-

Owens-Hlinois Glass Company, J.C. Feaglev—Anmnstrong

. Cork ompany, W. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass Cor-

poration, J. S. Heuisler—Maryland Glass Corporation, G.

A. Mengle® Brockway Glass C ompany,-Ine., P. O'C. White

Absent: ies 2

KE. J. Costa—Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc., B.D.

Basterby—Laurens Glass Works, Ine.

~ Others -P resent:

Bash Barnum GH, R L.. Cheney—GC a. &- Re,

DeMerell—Anchor Hocking Glass C orporation, Fred E.

Fulle r—GCMI Gene ‘ral Counsel, V. L. Hali—GCML.

AES =

- 2074 Dace ;

1. Call to Order. re A

The meeting was ‘called to order by the Chairman, Mr.

F. B. Pollock. Mr. Cheney acted as Secretary.

2. In Memoriam, Joseph M. Nester.

The meeting was opened with a a ee of silence, in

‘memory of the late Joseph M. Nester as an expression

of the deep affection and regard in which he was held by

. all members of the Committee, and in gratitude for the

outstanding leadership he had given to the Institute and to

the Committee during his-year as president of GCMI. . ,

‘ -

3. Proposed Advertising and Promotion Program for

1956.

The representatives of . Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc. whd

- were to present the agency’s recommendations for 1956 ad-.

_ vertising and promotion campaign for GCMI then joined .

the meeting. ‘Those present from the agency were:

- W.B. Lewis, President |

R. B. Shirey, Account Executive,

_ G. M. Ulé, Research Director

J.P. Braun, Media Director -

Hal Davis, Director of Publicity and Promotion

Miss Leslie Munro, Creative Chief

[fol: 426] The representatives of Kenyon & Eckhardt

then presnted the “1956 Advertising Recommendation for

the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute.” Copies of

this presentation were distributed to those present and later

mailed to absentee committee metabers. The presentation

consisted of the followi ing parts:

I The Problem ae ; | : ‘

-IIT Media Recommendation

TIT Promotion . ‘ oa,

IV Summary of Costs .

VI Special Recommendations.

sy Aer k

es 2075

Following ° the presentation committee iene asked

many questions of the agency representatives and furnished

them with “background information on the glass container

industry and its relation with the various markets for its

products which might have been overlooked in the prepa-

ration of the advertisements. In addition to questions and

suggestions on details of the art work and eopy of the ad-

vertisements, particular points questioned were the use-of

Parents’ ‘Magazine with its high cost per thousand of:

readers, the advisability of using the juice ad at all in its-

present approach, and the need for much .ntore engphasis

on work with the supermarket and-.other retailersi.

On this latter point itewas the consensus of the committee

that one of the biggest problems’ of the glass éontainer in-

dustry was the negative attitude of the supermarket opera.

tors and other retailers towards products packed im glass.

Great emphasis was placed upon the need for sufficient

activity directed toward the retail trade to at least change

the unfriendly attitude towards glads to a neutral one.

Following this the representatives of the agency retired

and the ¢ ommitte “mee ting é ‘ontinued.

4. Proposed Budget for 1956. at ae

Mr. Cheney then’ prese inted a proposed budget. for 1956, :

copy of which is attached to-these minutes. It covers:

A—Operating Expenses and, Market |

Research Activities ............ ete $ 238,300

ae Advertising and Promotion, Nite Medes 1,200,784

a hat. portion of Advertising and Promo-

tion “Expenses as recommended by ;

Kefvon & Eekhardt ............ aes 1,102,784

U pder B, Advertising and Pr omotion Expe nes, it was

pointed out that $50,000 was included for General Pub-

licity Expense, to ke carried out under the direction of Mr.

Bush Barnum in his capacity as Public Inforyation Direc-

tor, it is proposed that this fund be used to develop au

motion pictiire for GCMEI which could be used for presen?

tation to men’s and women’s clubs, association meetings,

conventions, etc. and so designed that it could be used on

©»

2076 : <.- i=

television as a public service or educational features on

whole and in, part.-In_addition, a budget of $48,000 was”

Included for continuation of the Milk Bottle Promotional

zapram along present lines.

[fol. 427] 5. Beor Bottle Subcommittee Activity.

The Director of Market Research and. Promotion re-

ported that the Subcommittee on Beer Bottles had approy. ed

a plan for the reséarch, promotion, and merchandising’

personnel of Kenyon & Eckhardt to make'a thorough study

of beér distribution in a typical medtum-sized. market with

‘a view to developing and lates testing in that market a

plan for promoting the use of ¢lass bottles for: beers 1 Funds

for this purpese ($50,000) were included and not ‘vet ex-

_ pended, in the 1955 budget, and funds for extension of any

" successful resulting pattern to one or two additional mar-

kets were available in accumuiated surplus of marketing.

funds carried forward from 194. - .

_ Approv al of Plans a Budects ae 7 a7

F gee this. there was a further’ discussion ‘of the plan

presented by the agency, the budgets and related material.

Among the: questions raised but left for further considera-

tion by the Market Research and Promotion department

were the advisability of including a beer ad in the magazine

schedule, the possibility of finding other media for heer

ads, the: possibility. ‘of using the labor papers for the beer

ads, and a question as to v alue of mayazine advertising dur-

‘ing the month of. August. On the latter point the Director

was asked to check readership studies with the ageney and

see if it would be adv antageous to drop this month and use

the money elsewhere.

The Chairman stated; and the Committee was in arree- |

‘ment that the last section, VI—*Special Recommendations”

—deserved ang required much attention from the Market

tesearch and Promotion department. Mr. Cheney stated

that he understood that paragraph 2, “Product linprove-

ment,” did not come within the jurisdiction of this eom-

mittee or its budget but that he-understoad that individual

members were expanding the technical research involved ¢

and thaf Plans for making research facilities along these.

VA | eh i

Ge take aa 4 te ae

; lines available to the industry as a whole were being dis-

cussed and considered by the industry.

He said that paragraph 1, “Product Research,” para-

graph 3, ‘‘Merechandising Aids,’’ and paragraph 4, ‘* Mer-

chandising Facts” ‘could -be handled within the market re-

. search activities of the departmentzand that the budget

included $20,000 which could be applied to these activities. 5.

It was the consensus of the committee that these activities

justified greater attention, and the Director was asked jp

develop specific plans to cover these areas, with ‘special

emphasis on item 4, and to reappraise, the overall budget

with a view to the possibility of assigning some of the

funds now “earmarked for natjonal . magazine advertising

‘to this area, if, necessary. } |

Chairman Pollock said he felt, the’ “committee should -

realize that the 1956 plan devotes its full budget for adyer- +

‘tising to national media and dees not include any local

programs or promotions as was, previgusly planneds After

further discussion 6T the plan and budget, upon motion

ifok 428] duly “made, cabiciaded: ‘and’ unanimously carried,

it was

co)

Résolved, That the. Market Researeh and Promotion

‘Committee approve the proposed budget dated Sep-

tember 28, 1955, as submitted, subject to the avail-

ability. of funds from that portion of members’ dues, wo

representing 16/100 of 1% of dollar sales to cover that *

portion of the budget designated “B— Advertising: and iy

Promotion”; and , het :

Resolved further, Tliat- they approve the dasic plan

, of media advertising, promotion and merchandising ;

and / gee

Resolved further, That after further studly, portions

of the media budget may be applied to Section VI of

‘the agency recommendation entitled “Special Mere ‘han-

dising Recommendations”; and ; ,

Resolved further; That diversion of funds for this pur-—.

pose, if any, be recommended to ‘the next scheduled .

meeting of the Market Researeh-and Promotion Com-

. mittee-which is to be held at Miami Beach in Novem-

‘ ber, prior to the membership meeting.

‘

2078

_ advertising and promotion |] $

Cheney, and R, B. Shirey and Miss Leslie Munro of ‘Keny on. |

(3 Invitation: to Address ABCB Convention.

- Mr. Cheney reported that he had been inv ‘ited to make‘a

brief talk at the ABCB Convention at’ Miami on November

16 concerning GCMI advertising and promotion plans and

the general subject of soft drinks in glass bottles. The eom- |

mittee approved his making this talk and authorized Mr.

Cheney to announce at that time that 'GCMI would have

an advertising and promotion program in 1956 which would

inciude soft drinks in glass bottles.

8. Conimittee Report to GCMI Membership Mepting.

It was proposed that this cofnmittee make a report to the

membership- on the morning of Wednesday, November 30,

which would inelude an introduction by Chairman Pollock,

a review of = advertising and. promotion.activities by

R. L. Cheney, a report of the 1955 nationwide. consumer

attitude survey by Ford Sammijs, and a presentation of the

Skcvam for 1986 by R. L.

& Eckhardt, Ine.

it Was

4 ye tee

Resolved, That this sobsilities should a e the proposed

report to the membership, subject to the approval of

the Program Committee and the Board of Trustees.

9. ‘Competitors Advertising.

‘Examples of paverticias hy silicic of packaging indus-

tries Which compete with the glass container industry were

{fo?. 429) discussed ami. it was the consensus of the com-

nifttee"that some of this advertising bordered on the un-

~—ethical. It was hoped that this ‘type of adVertising would

eease. "on ; Py 2 .

16--Next meeting-——

It was decided to hold the next meeting of this-subeom-

-mittee at the Fontainebleau Hotel at Miarni Beach, Florida

at 3:00 . on Monday, Now ember 28, 1955, preceding th®

On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously cneutaal

sada of’ the ae of Trustees whieh is to be held at

ee 00 P. M. that afternoon. . ) Sa

11. iidicdbamait.” -. °

° °

There being.no further business, &. meeting adjourned.

‘Respectfully submittéd, R. b. Cheney, Secretary.

— P ‘

[fo

1, 430]

-GOVERNMENT’S Exuisit 93

? re

‘4 & 3 ae

‘ 4 a

ees

¢ 7 4 : ‘ ¥

H 3: . a

- pS

ae .

k Proposed Budget for 1956

(°

Sinskot Research and Promotion: Division

Ghass Container Manufacturers Institute, Ine.

f - SEAN 3

if | | ) F300 ee ;

fol. 431). : Ah 3 a;

' Market Research and Promotion Division

Operating Expenses and Market Research Activities

Operating Expenses eS Oe, “1955 -1956-——-—»

. _ Budget — ‘Budget i

NEE 62 e005. Spr dak ave eter ' $ 80,000 $ 84.000

eicesa: | (CeCee ET Cn ) Seas 12,800 12,800 ¢

Stationery & Supplies. . OS A SO Oe 5.000 6,000

RRR aE ACA Sy EN ee RS 3,000, ~ §,000

Telephone & ee feds Rane 4.000 5.000

Travel & Maintenance... ....- eek ~ 15,000 15.0007

Publications & Services............. sas 1.000 1 OME

Committee Meeting Expense. __.. ect» , 2,000 "2,000

Market Research’ Activities *"~ * 7

- Retainer-Market Consultant ..........° 127000 - 12,000

Research & Surveys........ hae e 60,000 60 000 - 8

Contingencies. YET ee ee, ; aL ye 200 | 20.006 eer

. . ——-—|——— 4 *

Total, ....+5.- 492+. Ay er or er $23 2,000. 238 300.

ee. OS B

| Advertising & Protnotion

ee. : Re é : << 1956

7 : ot, Budget

———Pubtieiny (Gen eral — Motion Picture) <% £000 $ 56-000

. ~~Milk Bottle Promotihel ——— een 22,000 — ° +s 43) 000

"Advertising & Promotion :

As recommended by Kenyon & ; . Pee pk

Eckhardt (See Schedule C). Sa en 1 ,0E8 .000 1.102.784

ne iets Sree ar as i Mae

. - ——————— % - hs

etter $1,132, 800(' $1,200. 7840)

‘Reyenue @ 16/100 of 1Cjis ‘estimated.

(‘) to provide $1, 100,000 in 1955. .

(?) t6 provide $1 , 133,333 in 1956.

*s : »7 .

4, i oa *

$ y F? : ° ° . **

. >

. m. ‘

“Hel. 433) it Cc

= , Advetang ant Protas resmmenind by Kenyon & Pathan, Ine

| ? Ndvietiaing

e National Magazines pee ~

My ete co SB

Labor PW es peetiecons 25,000 |

Production. cata de wedetebae sais 75,000 & :

4c gg RIMM sce so ou seus vaca dosa ie $1,012, 784" .

* Promotion and Publicity , :

Home Economi | & En hgagtrond Service. 45.000 :

Media Merchatitising............... 10,000 =+:,.. —_—

Monthly Merchandising Mailer...... 30,000 —— :

ee peta wae Catala kee tec’ 5,000 ‘

: Total Promotion and Publicity... ... athogin: ‘90,000

e Meee a ik SO atin cs mio Oh, OTE

‘ (fQl. 434] GovernMent’s Exnistr 94 @

; Minutes of Meeting. ~ : ¥,

“

~» Market Research and Promotion Task Cog .

GCMI Conference Room . é

- New York, New York .

November 2, 1955 hit

Present: .

ays J¥ . Algeo--Hasel- Atlas Glass Company, S. RB. DeMerell

—Anckor Hocking Glass Corporation, W. H. Ellis—Lamb

— Glass C mpany, The, John H. Funkey—Carr-Lowrey Glass

_ Com ‘, James A. Giddings—Brockway Glass Company,

Inc., Ke neth Hay—Ball Brothers Company, Inc., Roger

be) Hetzel—Armstrong Cork omaeny: P. L Heuisler, Jr— .

Maryland Glass. Corporation, P. S. Holmquest—Thatcher

Glass Man@facturing Co., Inc., R. H. Roper, Jr.—Laurens

Glass ‘Works, Ipe., Kevin Solon-fOwens-Ilinois Glass Com-

pany. pee tae

=. - Others Present: |

Bush Barnum—GCML, R. '.. Cheney—GCMI.

I. Call to Order.

The meeting was éalled to order by R. L. Cheney who

¢ requested that a chairman ye selected’ Upon a motion duly

made and seconded, Mr. !etzel was unanimously elected:

chairman.

2. Purpose of Meeting.

Mr. Cheney outlined the purpose of th® meeting: to re-

___¥iew the 1956 Advertising and: Promotion Program.

ie 1956 Advertising and Promotion Program..

Mr. Gheney ‘then Gutlined the 1956 program and pre.

sented the following schedule :

February

March

_ fol. 435)

-— a--—- — -— | mere —-

. August

Instant Coffee

Fruits

Mik

“Beer —-—

Soft Drinks*

~~“

— “Roughs of the ten proposed advertisements were -next

gone over one at a time. Each was considered from

potentials and sales problems of. the ifidustry ; ‘artwork

and copy approach; containers used; closures used; other ”

props; other details inchading. Inhels, — of product,

ete.

4 Merchandising of the Advertisements.

Merchandising of the advertisements was next discussed.

. Points covered included lead time to members, lead time to

packers, best means of approach ‘in eaeh instance, etc. It

was agreed that a twelve-week lead time to members was

most advisable, and that this timetable would be —

as early in tho new year as possible.

[fol. 436] Retailer advertising and promotion, beer bottle

plans, promotion and publicity and home economics were

next outlined ~ Mr. so Sa and discussed by the. —

tee. ‘

5. Next Meeting. |

The next meeting was tentative

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.