# Transcript of Record — United States v. Continental Can Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0028%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1964 - **Citation:** 378 U.S. 441 ## Text SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED: APPEAL . FRO 4 . bo OcToBER -TeERM, 1963 No, 367 - UNITED STATES, APPELLANT, _VS. CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, ET ; . 5 nf ” ei \ 7 _ °. SOUTHERN, DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | * Volume IIT @ 4 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, oe —~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 &. ay 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— . . a of meeting, Market Research and 406 415° 415 402 i , oe . « 2 Record from the’ ‘United States District | Court for the, U 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 i 4 : 4 and Promotion Division by GCMI, Inc. _ int i iu li ; Ff OF nigint Hi Fre fel HD | i 112—Minutes of i 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 a — | 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 Copyright, 1958 : ce See ey . 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 e 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 “ ~~ s .? -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, ~?. os 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. — oa ® } . 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 ~ [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, _ Cc - 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 “ ¥esgntative: wholesale and chain: * organizations in various ‘parts of the country. . ¥ ‘ 4 . . * 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: J o~ ~ — rm — > fs ‘ a . 7 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. | . o 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 ‘ . a National Consumer.Surfys on Glass Containers 1955 — 4 . ee 3 we: ‘ ; Conducted By Ford Sammis & Company ‘Marketing Economists a » “~~ Glass Container Manufacturers Institute 1976. s [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 ae 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 ° [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 ts 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 e DYNAMICS OF THE — CONTAINER MARKET : |e Summary of Talk Delivered to. Giass Container Manufacturers tnstitute at the Annual Meeting, May 22, 1956, White Salptbur Springs, West Virginie oO Gg. r) * 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 —$ 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 : ° t Pa a L * oy SO ey ee Saar * (fol. 340] Gap he'¢ | DYNAMICS OF THE. ti . °.. ‘CONTAINER MARKET. r i) west e . ‘& ° & t 4 er ro *. > - #8 t oO » / eo —_— {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 * — i . nd » § ‘ } . ‘ ei" @ . ‘ OR? | fol, 342] Ec « £ 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. 2. ——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 . pe 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. - ‘ - — Gg es 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 ae 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 & 2) DRY MILK CONTAINER COMPETITION IN STAGE TWO™ o- ~ s @ *. r — —¥ > 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 . Pa 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. . ° 9g [{fol, 351] oe 4 e \ —*LIQUID DETERGENT» ©) -carhimen COMPETITION IN STAGE THREE : 6 r ; @ ae G {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 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 é F 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 L ZOO er [fol. 354] - | oD a ' hare ter LIQUID DETERGENT LIQUID DETERGENT WINNER MAY TAKE OVER SOAP VOLUME, TOO. ee ° - Pounds Per Person * ° 25 ¥ ; ¢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 ° be — ee o ° {fol 355) _ (% 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% 4 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 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, i% 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 . . ¢ 2. Tfel. 365] ne “unten 40S Sane oa er 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 a 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 a 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 - Se . ° 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 se ’ 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 a 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 a. 20% “a . 54% 26% ys 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 y == : eae = 2% , “1O%. éi% (Survey of Virginia Beer Drinkers - Jan. 1957) (fot. 3741 2020 F ' 4 ai 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 ad Foro Samuts & CoMPANY fa et - * mos) ° ForD Sammis & COMPANY '4? [fol asa} ; rs “Tomato yuIce- i, | * CONSUMER’ CONTAINER: PREFERENCE Ee 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. lower valuation placed o8 re-use. t 224353 CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE | ooo ed eT ae SBonobaboos 2 aiidemnienet 33 29 | 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] 2 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. ss 2086. [fol | 9 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. > 4 { 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) Y * 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 ry he 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 J 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 68 | CONSUMER CONTAINER PREFERENCE - USE, COMPARED TO YEAR AGO - LIQUID ‘SHORTENING : — ae . ee Bas _ — - | ~ = 9 SAME ~~ : Te bn , | ae 64 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 e 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 ‘ - 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, - | ‘ em 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 - _ 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- 7 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. ss — - . Oe Re ee ee ee See en Se eee ae Toor ey — a ~ . » oom Le eR, A ite ee trie SR . a ore Pe ee eet not Ale ‘ we were > approved. ° shag a ‘ . 9055_ 4. Brochure of Charts and Statistics. & The Committee reviewed the dummy of a proposed bro- clyre for glass company salesmen and for very limited © > 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 _ Industry” as presented by Mr. Cheney at Fort Lauderdale. © + 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, t \ 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- age bottles, and also for material in pamphlet form setting © _ 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: ’ “) 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 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. ’ v ae t 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. , S ‘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. = oe —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 . V Copy Planning © | 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 : . 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 © > = e ‘ (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 a 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 a =. - 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 —- U . August *s Be : Instant Coffee Fruits Mik “Beer —-— Sa Soft Drinks* ~~“ * — “Roughs of the ten proposed advertisements were -next gone over one at a time. Each was considered from es 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 tentatively set for early February. en ~ Respectfully submitted R. L. Cheney, Gecretary. —_—_ ° _ - - _—- =- se - Se ees TT ‘ . e . . e . . a \ — eet eo [fol. 437) Government's Exutsrr 95 — Minutes of Meeting __ ; Market Research and Promotion Committee ° GCMI Conference Room _ - ; ‘New York, New York September 26,1956 = ° Tat Present: ° __ F. B. Pollock, Chairman—Thatter r Glass Manufacturing Company, Inc., J. S. Algeo—Hazel-Atlas Glass Cenpany, E. F. Ball—Ball Brothers Compa *. —Owens-lllinois, 8. B. DeMerell—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, T. S. Gallagher—Crown Cork & Seal Com- pany, Inc., J. S. Heuisler—Maryland Cons orporation, - &, Malloy—Crown Cork & Seal Comps nc., G. A, Mengle—Brockway Glass Conipany, liic., © J. White— White Cap Company. ; 2 Absent : E. D. echiatlons:Sahesia Glass ‘Works, Inc.,. J. C. -Feagley—Armstrong Cork Company. ~ Others Present: . Bush Barnum—GCMI, ie ‘B. Cartoll—GCMI, R. L. '. Cheney—GCMI, V. kh. Hall—GCMI, D. L. Keys—Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc., H. W. Kuni—GCMI, 8 B. Shirey— Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc. 1 The reading of the minutes of the preceding meeting on | May 20, 1956 was waived. - 2. The recommended advertising and sihiaiitiaes program ~—_for 1957 was presented by R, B. Shirey and D. L. Keys in behalf of Kenyon & Eckhardt. Divided into parts, . I. The problem -. IL, Advertising _A. Consumer Media B. Copy Strategy C. Labor Advertising D. Trade Advertising ; IIT. . Publicity ° : A. Consumer : B. Trade IV. Merchandising the Advertising V. Merchandising Research °. VI. Store-Wide “Glass. Festival’ : [fol. 438] the sixty-one page report was eee in de- tail by the agency- representatives. Included were layouts . - of ten consumer ads for 1957 and accompanying copy. Pre- sentation of thewrogram and accompanying discussion took . re hours. 3 3. Mr. Cheney presented the proposed Market Research and Promotion budget for 1957. , 4. After discussion, upon motion duly padi Secowded -and unanimous!y carried, it was " Resolved, That ‘the Market Research and Promotion. Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees the adoption of the 1957 advertising budget" totaling $1,236,775 as proposed. 5. At Mr. Cheney's request, the department was author- ‘ized to announce early phases of the 1957 program to bottlers and packers, and to proceed with the first three consumer and trade,ads in the 1957 program so that time- — tables could be F reorted 6. Mr. Cheney reported on various phases of the Vir- | - ginia One-Way Ber Bottle Program, and discussion ‘followed. 7. Beer. studies in Syracuse were briefly reported by Mr. ’ Cheney and the Committee was advised that the full report — _ drinks in the Los Angeles area was covered by Mr. Cheney. on, the Syracuse study would be forthcoming from Kenyon & Eckhardt i in the near future. 8. The advertising and. promotion effort put behind soft 9. The nationwide consumer and dealer attitude : survey currently underway was also outlined by Mr. Cheney who stated a report of the results would be made by Mr. Sammis at the next Committee meeting. 10. It was agreed that the next meeting” the Marked Research and Promction Committee would held at the o—_--,-— two o'clock and that the West Coast Subcommittee should be invited to attend. 11. There being’ no meshuead besinées the meeting. was ad- journed. — . Respectfully submitted, R. L. Cheney, hy A [fol.- 439] Govanmniri’s Exurprr, 96 ‘Minutes of Meeting 2087 4 . Phoenix. Biltmore on Monday - afternoon, November 12, at Market Research and Promotion Committee : GCMI Conference Room New York, New York ee January 16, 1957" . Present : F. B. Pollock, Chairman—Thatcher Glass ose Masnfactnring _ - Company, Inc., E. F. Balli—Ball Brothers Company, Inc., C. G. Bensinger—Owens-lllinois, J. .C.. Feagley—Arm.- strong Cork Company, J. M. Foster—Foster-Forbes Glass Company, T. S..Gallagher—Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., G. A. Mengle—Brockway Glass Company, Inc., P. _O'C. White—White Cap Company. ‘Absent : J. S. Algeo—Contimental Can Company, Inc., Hazél-Atlas - Glass Division, E. D. Easterby—Laurens Glass Works, Ine., .W. V. Fisher—Anchor. Hocking Glass Corporatiqn, J. S Heuisler—Maryland Glass Corporation. Others Present: Bus® Barnum—@CMI, R. L. Cheney—GCMI, Ss. B. DeMerell—Anchor™ Hocking Glass "Corporation, re fH. Bik oA . w — : > . 4 il 3 ey 2091 = . ts * —s . . * (fol. 442) : Revised | 1957 G.C.M.I. Advertising and Promotion Budget e Gaayens Eckhardt, Ine.) ; Z ; - Amount .. p Original wi (over) or Revised ‘ Budget nereases =U -. Budget Consumer Magazine....: $ 743,500 $ 810,100 ($ 66,600 724,100, . Trade Advertising ov vie aa" : past, Glass Packer)... . 1057000 * °102,000 _ + 3,000 77,800 eee oe 30,000 eee 30,000 Production x . das 5 . (All Media). . eeeeee 100,000 - 113,810 ( 13,940) 113,940. Promotion— : ; rs “% - Merchandising... .. 85,275 i ere 73,175 —————Merchnmiisiig— rk debi BE "3 - " Research..........-.. . 60,000 68,000 ( 4,000) 68,000 Boat es Ae ace oa Neca 35,000 _ (35,000y ~ 35,000 ‘Total.............. $1,123,775 $1,244,315 (120.540) $1,124,015 ? _* [fol. 443) Consumer Magazine Cancellatjons* ; % Issue 3 Publication Advertisement * Date Cost Ladies’ Home Journal Soft Drink #1 July $26,411 25 , Good keeping Baby Food Sept 19,360.00 Woman's Day Soft Drink #2 Aug 13,600 00 McCall's" P Juice Ort. 26 642.00 Family Circle . . None None None | Budget Reduetion.......0.060 lee. csee een cesses ce eg es 986,013.25 * fol. 444) Panic Advertising Changes - ; Total * . 2 : _ Budget _ Publication Rate Advertisement Date Ch Chain Store Age $2.2902 00 Baby Foal Aug. $ 4.584 00 ; ; ‘pametics * Oct. _ Progressive Grocer 3,445. 00 ~~ Soft Drink #2 July 6.890 00 ’ Hy Cosmetics Oct. r Market 1,383.50 Soft Drink 82 ‘July 2,767 00 e ist Juices ~~ * + Sept. _Nargus Bulletin ~ 2359.50 Beer June 4,719 00. i x Juices Sept. Voluntary & Coop 1,165.00 Beer » June 2,330.00 erative + haa . Juices Sept. Supermarket. News 498 80 Soft Drigk&2 July8— 7.60 ‘ood T 200 00 Bab r — was 00 ‘opics - Aug. t, r ee ee eS Budget EERE S, SERIE PE ee SU ct tae ttaee er $24,207.60 , } J 2092 - . ; ifol. 445) CCl e 1957 Overall Advertising and Promotion Budget : , ws - Oct fee Reyised ‘ . ‘ . a ay Budget — Advertising and Promotion — ae Oeil « Eckhardt, Inc.) .. BD. .4.035...0. G8, 188, 7S $1,122,015 > Publicity, Gemeval. ............2...... va Sadan 65.000 79.000 Milk Bextle Prom Promotional Program . etna 48.000 48.000 See empayeees i fax .... $1,236,775 $1 249,015 [fol. 446] .. Government's Exursit 98 % Minutes of Mevting r + oa) a “Market Research And Promotion Committee _ White Sulphur Springs, West Vitginia > * May-20, 1957 a Present: , : Pe Se ce J. M. Foster, Acting Chairman—Foster-Forbes Glass Company, E. F. Ball—Balt Brothers Company, Ine., C. G. Bensinger—Oweéns-Illinois Glass Company, E. D. Easterby —Laurens Glass Works, Inc., J..C. Feagley—Armstrong Cork, Company, J. S. Heuisler—Mar¥tand Glass Corpora- - tion, G. A. Mengle—Brockway Glass Company, Ine:, P. O'C. White—White Cap See: . t Absent: |. . P F. B. Pollock, Chaivianss”Thaicher Glass Manufacturing ~~ €o.,\ Inc.| W. V.. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Giese Corpora- : tion. ' Others — Bush Barn CMI, R. L. Cheney—GC I, S.-B. De- . Merell—Anghor Hocking Glass Corporation,..k. W. Fisher —Ball Brothers Company, ‘Inc., Fred E. Fuller—General Counsel, W. J. Green—Thateher Glass. Manufacturing Co., — Inc., V. L. Hall—GCMI, FE. B. Hess—Broakway Glass Conr pany, Inc., S. V. Tuttas—Crown Cork, rN Seal Company, - * Inc., F. H. Wright—G@CMI. ea. « ‘ ° . ° o E . aT Seana ’ een aren 2093 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to wide at 1:30 P. M. by Acting ‘Chairman Foster who presided in Mr. Pollock’s absence. Mr. _Cheney served as secretary.” ‘ oi, also presented " other pliases of the proposed campaign. to the Committee for consideration. | fol. 449]. Each layout was discussed in detail as were The recommended media list called for eight four-color insertions in the following six consunier publications: Me- » Call's, Ladies’ Home; Journal, Good Housekeeping, Family Cire de, ‘Woman’s Day and Reader’ s Digest. The total ree- . ommended, budge Bets for adveftising and promotion for 1958 amounted to $1,6 . . Following departure of agency representatives, the rec- ommended program and budget. (copy of whieh i is, attached to these minutes) were further discussed. . In answer to questions it was stated that elintination of Reader's Digest from the proposed schedule would reduce . the budget by $836,040: (space ‘and production), leaving a total budget of $1,380,313. Itgwas further reported that t suf would fall within the amount of income that coul Kos realized in 1958 by cortinuing the present,rate of dyes ap- ° plicable to Advertising and Promotion ( f., 16/100 of 1% of dollar sales out of total dues of 3 30/ 100 of 1%).. . Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, it was 6 Resolved, That the Market Research al Promotion “Committee “approves “the “proposed” Advertising “and ~ Promotion Program for 1958 ‘with the exclusion of » Readeg’s “ee pe from.the schedule, ffrtrecommends to © the Board o Trustees the adoption of the 1958 budget ’ totaling $1 330,313, and it was Resolved further, That the. possibility of adding Read- er’s pies to the consumer advertising schedule be further discussed at re meetings: of this ¢om-. mittee, ; — > . -_ 2097 - 4..Title Change. Upon a motign duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, it was Regplved, eA Market Research and Sessiition - Committee recommend to the Board of Trustees that _BusiBarnum’s title be changed.from Director of Pub- . lic Information to Director of Advertising and Public - " Anfogpation. : : 5. Next Meeting. It was decided to hold the next icting of the sdeatalitee ‘at The Cavalier, Virginia. Beach, Virginia, on Monday . afternoon, September 30, 1957, at 1:30 P. M: 6. Adjournment. ; There being no “further business, Chairman Pollock de- | clared the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, R. L: Cheney, Secretary. ui o [fol. 450] Government's Exurrr 100 - af y Proposed Budget for 1958 Market Research and Promotion Division . Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc. \ edie ee ns , ’ August 97,1957 © re ? & ’ ; Sis rao 2099 os ° ffol. 451] - —_ : ey Advertising and Promotion ss reeomfiended by. Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc, , ; ‘ Amount ° ’ 1957 (over) : ' Revised 1958 “or under ~~ & - * Budget Budget 1957 © Advertising : . ws ' National Magazines oo. ‘Space...... peas) dake Satseed. st $ 724,100 $1,170, ($446>765)_ | Trade Papers (Inc. Glass Packer)... . 77,800 57,485 20,315 Publications......... a arcuee 30,000 | ee Pe * Production (allmedia)......°...... 113,940.) 120,000 ( 6,060) Total Media. tycttar eee $ 945,840 $1,378,353 ($432,513) Promotion, Publicity & Mérchandisi® : Publicity, Consumer & Trade. ... $ 13,900 $ 10,885 $ 3:015 aoational Publicity: .............: cp ccc cee. 9,315 ( 9,315) erchandising the Advertising... . 42,775 47,300 ( © 4,525) ae 16,500 37,975 ( 21,475) Merchandising Research... .__.. v 68 .000 19,525 44,47 . Total... 2 -$ 141,175 $ 125,000 $ 16.175 Ss cect. “eS - Guyane ©. ME —evaccce. Site: 5 ce $1,122,015 $1,538,353 ($416,338) . com e ‘ e ° |fol. 452] ‘B : Total Advertising & Promotion [ Amount 1957, ‘ . (dver) Bont 4 — or under : et u >t 1957 Advertising and Promotion i ii. t dKenyon & Eckhardt, Inc.) $1,122,015 $1,538,353. ($416,338) Publicity, General.............. | 79,000 80,000 ( 1.000) Milk Bottle Promotional cee “ie Fain he vies titoee Dk. ‘48,000 = ED ne tendon Tetdk...... ... $1,249,015 $1,666,353 ($417,338) ad : .- 9 Cw | , e) om : Ss - & . ‘ . eo “ ; : : , S _* — ffol. 453] Bi ee © f - Advertising & Promotion 4 . Income . . Dues Rate — 16/100 of 1% Increase Year - ; , Bs vidact M. by Chair- man Mengle. Mr. Cheney served as_ secretary. In, the absence of.a quorum, the ehairman stated that any actions of this meeting would be subject to ratification’ at the next ' meeting. , 2. Minutes of Pravions Méeting. Upon motion duly made, seconded and” ansaimously carried, the minutes ‘of the previous meeting on December 4, 1957, were approved as issued by the secretary. 3. Approval of Ektachromes.. : a See ‘Ektachromes of the applesauce sibweiitoninahs scheduled for the. October issues‘ of consumer magazines, and ekta- chromes of the jam- -peanut butter advertisement. sthed- ‘uled for November issues, were submitted to the Committee for consideration. Following discussion, it was suggested that the applesauce’ ad ‘be re-taken, sharpening :the back- _ ground focus: A jam and peanut butter ektachrome was — / ? approved. - ? — Aa Y , ? - [fol. 461]: 4. Rate Increases... aa ae lan The’ Committee was advised of the following increases’ of in magazine rates: @ +e family Circle L 05% —effective in July Ladies’ Home Journal— 8%—effective in August y Supermarket News. — 9% —effective in July. =~ Progressive Grocer a cards in J uly The above rate increases for the femainder of 1958 total $29,600. - _ Mr. Cheney explained that these-rate in¢reases could be \covered by unexpended 1957 funds—as were prev ious rate — increases amoanting to $26,300: . wee , Accordingly, upon motion made, .s - aaiaal and unanis -mously earried, it was voted to continue the advertising \ -“ inedia schedule as approved for 1958 in view of the fact: ' | that i increases could be handled from existent funds. 8. Report on GCMI-Giant § Study. ° Following distribution of numbered. copies of. “The GCMI- Giant’ Study™ (on a one-to-a-company basis), Mr. et pg outlined promotional plans for this extensive proj: ‘Included are: Presentations to retailer and. packer ous trade advertisements, a booklet’ for widetaryad distribution. ; 6. Glass Festival—1958, . lans for extending the saceledtel in-store promotion. ' t ted in' 1957 were presented for Committee considera- _tion. It was agreed that. larger stores and more of them would be the aim in,1958. Specific art for inclusion in the te . . . : . ° ‘ ‘promotional kit was discussed. Upon motion made, sec- ‘ onded, and unanimously carried, it was agreed to proceed as outlined. . a ie ie A ees 7. Los Angeles Soft Drink Program—1958. _* Mr.,Cheney, just returned from West Coast. meetings, reported on the 1958 soft drink campaign. The Committee ° requested him to verify a point of nomenclature ans! pro- | ceed accordingly. | eer YA, Baby Food Folder. Upon motion made, seconded, and unanimously earrred, Mr. Cheney was instructed to proceed on the production of . y a baby food ‘folder or flyer similar to the ones done in-thies past three years.. This is to be offered :to. all baby, food ‘ . companies for possible incorporation in their, direct maii¢ program. ome [fol, 462] 8. Report on New No-Deposit Betr Bottle De- . Ai signs. : . — ‘Earl Wagner, GCMI development :éngineer, ° joined the ‘meeting and ‘sybsequently reported on a joint meeting of the Tecffhical Subcommittee ori Container Design and Specifications and the Crown Finish Subcommittee’ of the- - Committee on Standards for Finishes held at GCMEF head- quarters on Apgi) 8 and 9. Discussion followed. a . . 8A, Anniversary of Beer Return. __ , is Upon motion made, seconded, and unanimously carried,’ Mr. Cheney was instructed to include the following line in’ | GCMI advertisements scheduled for thirty-nine labor papers: - i ioc ce eee ees md “The glass contaiffér manufacturers salute the U. S. ‘brewing industry on the 25th anniversary of the return of beer and ale to the American scene.” z 9, Security Analysts. “© 0 | eo ity analysts outlined by Mr. Cheney. Present plans ca\l for meetings in Boston and New York on successive: day}th: id-May. Freshly printed copies. of “Glass Containers— . ed The Committee looked with favor upon meetings of (i) | 2 , ~- ’ . . Saivwe 2 grt? a 2109 WR en 1957” will be presented at these meetings. | It is possible _ , that similar sessions in Philadelphia-and Chicago will be” - arranged following industry , meeting . at White Sulphur Springs. . ‘10. Motivation Research. © As previously suggested by a member of the Market Re- * - search and Promo oo Committee, the Institute for Motiva- tional Research, Inc.—of which Dr. Ernest Dichter: is » president—was approached on whether the Institute’s techniques “might yield: a solution to the glass container industry's beer. problem and might point to a pessible cdurse of action. tu Subsequently, . Albert Dhepard, executive vice- president *° of the research organization, spent the afternoon at GCMI headquarters,: and Mr. Cheney reported Mr. Shepard’s | remarks to the Committee. Following discusston both ‘on the industry’s beer. problém and.on motivational esearch, , a motion was nmiade, seconded, and unanimously carried to engage the Dichter; organization to make a study of the beer industry for aca i said study to cost approximately $20,000 > e, ll. New Business. : +. A. “Upon ‘motion made, scent: and unanimously car- ~ ried,*it was agreed that results of the Sammis survey s should be made available to individual GiGMI member com- panies for promotional use—subject to the specitic ap- proval of Mr. Cheney. Xt [fol, 463}. B. Acting upon the suggestion oft Couimtiittes _ member, ‘a ‘motion was made, seconded, and unanimously _earried to explore the possibility of presenting details of GCMI’s advertising and promotional program to the mem- ‘bership of thé National Preservers Association ‘at their annual meeting in Chicago in mid-February of 1959. If an audience of a hundred could be guaranteed, and provided no precedent would be set, Mr. Cheney was instructed to proceed as outlined. 12. Next Meeting. The date of the next meeting was set for 2 o’clock Tues-. day afternoon, May 20,. 1958, at \The Greenbrier, White Sulphor Springs, West Virginia, 6 eG a ES ns a ss m. 2. eet 60 ge A See te Sa R AOU ELE BN Ad De a | we a . a ° & 2111 13. Adjournment. a There being no further business, Chairman: Mengle - clared the meeting adjourned. . Respectfully submitted, R. L. Cheney; Secretary. a c ~ [fol. 464]. Govenxitet's Exurert 104°: Minutes of Meeting | Market Research and Promotion Committee ' White Sulphur Springs, W ont Virginia ° rahe May 20, 1958. * Present: G. A. Mengle, Chisirman—Brockwéy Glass Company, Inc., .C. G. Bensinger--Owens-Illinois Glass Company, E. D. _ Kasterby—Laurens Glass Works, Inc., J. C. Feagley—Ann- strong Cork Company, J. W. Fisher—Ball Brothérs Com- ~ pany, Ine., J. M. Foster—Foster-Forbes Glass Company, W. J. Green—Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, Ine., S. V. Tuttas—Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., P. Orc. whit hite Cap Company, A. W. W —— Glass, Inc. ' Absent: . ae 8 : W. V. Fisher—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, J. S. Heuisler-——Maryland Glass Corporation. Others Present: : E. F. Ball—Ball Brothers Company, Ine., Bush iene ‘—=GCMI, R. A. Blunt—Buck Glass Company, Ine., R. L. Cheney—GCMI, J. F. Connelly—Crown Cork & Seal Com- - pany, Inc.,S. B. DeMerell—Anchor Hocking Glass Corpora- tion, Fred E. Fuller—General Counsel, W. M. Furlow —Knox Glass, Inc., R. E. Graham—Owens-lIllinois Glass Company, V. L. Hall—GCM1, P. I. Heuisler, Jr—Maryiand Glass Corporation, J. G. King—Hazel-Atlas Glass Division, Continental Car®Company, Inc., F. H. Wright—GCMI1. 7 2112 1. Call to Order. The meeting was ¢alled to order at 2:00 p. m. by Chair- man Mengle. Mr. Cheney served as secretary. ‘2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting. | "vu pon motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously car- ried, the minutes of the-previous meeting on April 10, 1958, were approved as issued by the secretary. [fol. 465] 3. Approval of Proof. Proof of the final three ads in the 1958 consumer series ( Septermber—Milk ; October—Applesauce ; and November— Jam and Peanut Butter) were submitted and approved by the Committee with the exception of a suggestion re the bedy copy of the milk advertisement. The point=was re- ferred to the trustees for a policy decision. 4. Report on GCMI-Giant Study. Mr. Cheney reported on “The GCMI-Giant Study,” and . photostatie copies of a proposed GCMI booklet on the sub- ject were distributed for Committee discussion. Following general discussion, Mr. Cheney’s recommendation to refer this mattet to the Task Committee was agreed upon. Mr. Cheney requested that the photostatic copies be given to the appropriate personnel in each organization with the request that it be returned to Mr. Cheney with written . comment. It was also agreed that photostatie’ copies be sent to the ‘Task Committee for study—with the view to getting their comment on suggested -procedure. It was decided that the -matter would not be presented to the membership. at this meeting until these comments have been received from the Committee members. 5. Motivation Researeli on iin Packaging. Mr. Cheney explained that the Beer Battlé S¥bcommit- tee concurred with the suggestion of exploring first the area which we appear to know the least about, namely, the area: of beer distribution—as opposed to brewing, retailing, or consumption. Following discussion, it was agreed to proceed _ with the proposed study. ° 6. Security Analysts. Mr. Cheney reported briefly’on current security analysts presentations. 7. Plans for 1959 Presveb. . Mr. Clieney stated that meetings with Kenyon & Eck: - hardt to -evelop the 1959 program woffld start June’ 30, _ with présentation to the Committee in September, follow- ing Advertising Advisory Committee and Task Comentter . Sessions. | g, National Preservers Association Meeting. Mr. Cheney stated briefly that, after exploration, he did ° not feel it would be wise to proceed as heretofore discussed. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously ¢arried, to rescind the action made at the previous meeting on April - 10, 1958. [fol. 466] 9. New. Wesineas. “ee ° Mr. Cheney introduced the subject of the forthcoming U. S. Steel promotional program in behalf of canned soft drinks. Several member companies, he said, ‘had been asked by bottlers for GCMI plans. Jiuet - Because the 3:30 p. m. adjournment time had arrived, it was decided to hold a breakfast meeting at 8:00 a. m. on Thursday morning, May 22, to explore ‘this subject further. 10. Adjournment. “ There being no further business, Chairman Mengle de- clared the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p. m. Respectfully. submitted, R. L. Cheney, Secretary. °o 2114 sr ‘ [fol. 467] : Government's Exuusrr 105° : - ‘Minutes of. Meeting Market Research and Promotion Committee White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia May 22, 1958 Sey... Aes Bt RTT, . GS A. Mengle, Chakediadseeckwen Glass ieee. e., C.G . Bensinger—Owens-Illinois Glass Company, E. D. Easterby—Laurens Glass Works, Inc., J. C. Feagley—Arm- - strong Cork Company, J. W. Fisher—Ball Brothers Com- pany, Inc., J. M. Foster—Foster-Forbes Glass Company, | ef Heuisler, Jr—Maryland Glass Corporation, J. G. . King—Hazel-Atlas Glass Division, Continental Can Com- “ pany, Ine., S. V. Tuttas—Crown Cork & Seal Company, Ine. Absent: eR Nee! rate rs “W. V. Fisher—Anchor iaanfom Glass Corporation, W..J. Green—Thatcher Glass Manuf in Company, Inc., FE. dt. Terner—Metro Glass sn . A. W. Wishart— nox Glass, Ine. : Others Present: FE. F. ‘Ball—Ball Brothers iii Inc., Bush Barnum —GCMI, R. A. Blunt—Buck Glass Company, Inc., R. L, Cheney—GCMI, S. B. DeMerell—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, W. M., Furlow—Knox Glass; Inc., °R. EB. Gra- ham—Owens-lllinois Glass Company, S. L... Rairdon— Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Lawrence Wilkjnson—’ Hazel-Atlas Glass Dryiaten, Continental Can Compafiy, — " Ine. " 1. Call to Order. This breakfast meeting was called to order by Chairman _ Mengle at 8:20'a.m. Mr. Cheney served as secretary. 2. Canned Soft Drink Promotion. The forthcoming advertising and promotion program of U. S, Steel as published in the public press was outlined © % o4 - - QS. by Mr. Cheney. who then reported on details eof GCMI efforts in behalf of bottled soft drinks. aie ‘The, subject was extensively discussed, and upon motion duly madé, seconded, and unanimohtsly carried, the follow- ‘ing action taken: (a). Mr. Chene¥ was instructed to inform the members of the many-GCMI activities promoting glass-bottled soft drinks, for reference to interested bottlers: (fol. 468] (b) The radio spot program in the Los Angeles area is to be stepped up during its June to September scheduled period, within the ability af the budget to accommodate this. ° +(e) The needs of the situation are to be reviewed as e the summer progresses so that the Committee ean determine the advisability, of exténding the program _ for an additional period. _¢ 3. Re-scheduling of “Ancient Art—Modern Magic.” _ Following a suggestion, it was agreed generally that the new ten-minute film should be re-shown at. the concluding session on Friday prior to Mr. Hoadley’s address. | 4. Milk Ad. ‘ A report was made onthe board of trustees ruling to delete the word “leak-proof” from the milk ad and a poliey of confining adtertising copy to affirmative statements about the favorable characteristics of glass containers was reiterated, : 5. Review of Houston Situation. Following presentation’ of the Story by Mr. Cheney, the “Committee, upon motion: duly made, seconded and unani- mously carried, voted to leave to the discretion of the Gen- eral Counsel Whether or not an appeal should be ‘made t0_- the office of the Attorney General of Texas, prote sting " recent discriminatory action against | the sale.of milk in C) glass bottles in Houston stores. . *2118 ; - West Coast companies. had raised a $20,000 fund in 1956; that Kenyon & Eckhardt had handied the program and ts tod tod eh dhs oe ots Ss ss on ee ee 2122. members of the West Coast Subcommittee aT the, - opinion that they had done an excellent job. | — ee. Sammis then pifesented results of his Los eles survey. ° yt After discussion, in response to siatileis fr the West Coast Subcommittee members, and Mr. Cheney’s rec- ommendation, upon motion duly made, seconded-and unani- " mously carried, it was : Besolved, “That $25,000 be eieead fora continuing Los Angeles area promotion in 1957, subject to volun-- tary subscriptions: from the California members: suffi- cient to complete a $40,000 to $45,000 budget for this’ operation as finally determined by the Director of ~ Market Research and Promotion. -5. Advertising. | Mr. Chandi hen presented to the Committee slides— ‘ - - some in photos raphic form, others in layout form-—of the 1957 consumer advertisements as follows: [fol. 477] February—Beets March—Pickles . -. April—Vaecines ~ Peres hbk : oft : May—Milk » aN 1s ' -June—-First Soft Drink > > ue _ July—First Soft-Drink and Beer . ‘August—-Second. Seft Drink - September—Baby Foods October—J tices November—Cosmetics Discussion of the ads followed each presentation. In addition, a layout of a detergent advertisement was _shown the committee. It was agreed that this would not be ’ ~ Aineluded i in the 1957 series. 6. Future DiSseussions. kod It was sugge sted that baby foods and one-way soft drink ‘bottles both needed further diseussion. It was decided to request the Task "Commiti-e to study these subjects at an. " early meeting and report back to this committee. "2123 | Reet ee. 7. Next Meeting. @ = a ee a 5 The next meeting of the Market Research and Promotion Committee is to be held in conjunction with the January meeting of the Board of Trustees, exact date to be deter- mined later. — > ‘ 8. Adjournment. \ | Because of a scheduled neeting of the Board oP Trustees at four o'clock, the Market Research and Promotion mect- ingy was adjourned at that hour. : ; Respectfully aac cena R..L. Cheney, Secretary. ° Ce ——--- -—- s (fol. 478] —_-GovERNMENT’S Exmprt 109.- Holm- - quest—Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, Ene., J: Hf. Majesky—Continental Can ‘Conipany, ine. “* Hazel- Atlas: Glass Division. . > \ , ~ aries v8 ~ 3 V. H. Ellis—The Lamb Glass Coneiay, © +. FF. Rieman- o - * . Ball Brothers Company, Ine,, R. U-. ae: Jr—_Laurens : Gle ss Works, Inc. Others Present: fer dice Fel ¥. Bush Barnum—GCMI, R. L. Cheney—GCMI, K. M. Hay . —Ball Brothers Company, Inc., F. H. Wright—GC M1, ° ° : : , | ‘ ad roy ’ 2194 ; ek, mo» Minntes of Previous Meeting. . fra Mr. Cheney outlined the minutes ’of the previous Task | Committee meeting on October 24, 1956. Upon motion duly ~ made, seconded and-passed, they were approved. : 2. Los Angeles 1957 Sof esolution passed by the MR& P vetnber 12, 1956, and reported on current activities. Highlights of recent surveys in.the Los Angeles area by Ford Sammis were presented. . Drink Program, . 3. No-Deposit Bottle Promotion in National Advertising. Mr. Cheney outlined the pros of incorporating one-way advertising in national ads as follows: 1) it would help Los Angeles, 2) the potential market is vast. Cons: 1) agency is opposed because of scant distribution—one-half of 1% nationally, 2) leading customers are not in one-ways, 3) resultant confusion of copy might result in.a bodst for cans, . 4) the glass message would be diluted. A tally vote was taken and agreement was general that no-deposit bottles should not be promoted in national ad- vertisements. It was subsequently agreed that the subject should be kept alive; that, while we were hot at a proper [fol. 479] point to advertise’ one-wavs nationally yet, the situation should ¢ontinue to be watched. & 4. Review of the Baby Food-Problem. -Mr. Cheney explained that the parent committee wanted recommendations and. suggestions from the Task ‘Commit: tee on how GCMI might extend its efforts in behalf of glass- } packed baby foods. F ollowing discussion a tally \ vote indicated that the Task ~ Committee” favored comtinuing past and -present efforts without extension. 5. Review of the Magazine Ads. | | 7 ‘The 1957 ads were then reviewed. In various stages of production, each ad was commented on in turn. , Receptions. in the main, \ was favorable. ; .% : ; 6. KAB Insignia. Gs en “The committee unanimously voted against including the KAB insignia in national GCMI advertising. 7. Merchandising Advertising. | Mr. Cheney, said there were, two aoorch namely, member trade paper advertising and member field staffs, where the overall glass story might be more effectively told. Diseus- sion followed. . 8. Merchandising Research Program. Mr. Cheney outlined -the fortheorping merchandising re- ‘search program in six stores—each-of which does a 31% million dollar volume—in.the Giant Food chain in and ~ argund Washington, D- C. “a 9. Virginia Beer Bottle Program. ; Mr. Cheney-reviewed the Virginia beer bottle program. 10. Adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting was ad- journed at 2:00. * Respectfully submitted, R. L. Cheney, Secretary. ——_—_———_ [fol: 480] GoveERNMENT’s Exuisit 110 ° Minutes of Meeting * ; Market-Research and Promotion Task Committee GCMI1 Conference Room "New York, New York September 11, 1957 Present: : S. B. DeMerell—Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, J. H. Funkey—Carr-Lowrey Glass Company, K-M. Hay— Ball Brothers Company, Inc., P. 1. Heuisler, Jr.—Maryland Glass Corporation, P. S. Holmquest—Thatcher Glass [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0028%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.