Kent cigarette brand marketing in the Republic of Korea: the role of a pioneering image, flavour capsules and leader price promotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kent is a cigarette brand that was first introduced in 1952, being named after Herbert A Kent, who was president of the cigarette’s producer, the Lorillard Tobacco Company.1–3 Currently, Kent is produced by British American Tobacco (BAT) internationally (ie, for all markets beyond the USA), and the cigarette brand is regarded as one of BAT’s five major ‘Global Drive Brands’ (along with Dunhill, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Rothmans).4 In 2010, Guy Meldrum, BAT Korea’s marketing executive director, stated that ‘Kent is the second-largest premium brand globally—outside of the U.S. and China’.5 According to BAT, Kent is a pioneering brand and ‘symbolises progress through technology in the cigarette category and stands out as the most innovative and forward-looking brand in the industry’.6 South Korea is identified as a key market for BAT in the Asia-Pacific region as well as a market that is fundamental to the company’s global growth strategy.4 7 Coinciding with Kim Eui-soung being named the chief executive officer of BAT Korea, Kent was relaunched in South Korea during July 2019 (the brand had been discontinued in 2016). Mr Kim, who is the first non-foreigner to assume this title, previously held trade marketing positions at BAT Korea and he is best known for overseeing the launch of Kent Convertibles during 2010.8–10 Kent Convertibles featured a mentholated capsule that could be crushed and activated by consumers, with the product innovation strategically considered to reinforce the brand’s pioneering image (figure 1).10 While flavour capsule cigarettes were first launched in Japan during 2007, Kent Convertibles represented the earliest capsule cigarette to be offered in South Korea.11 Marketing communication for the brand, including packaging, features the IEC 5009 power button symbol (ie, the power symbol often seen to turn devices, such as laptops, …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".