The JM^LTERTHOMPSON NEWS BULLETIN

JULY 1922 COPYRIGHT 1922 J. WALTER THOMPSON COMPANY JULY 1922 NUMBER 88

What cigarette are you smoking, and why? BY JOHN B. WATSON New York Office SK any consistent devotee of a particular brand of A cigarette whether he would just as soon smoke some other brand, and he will say "No!" indignantly. Ask him if any one could switch labels on his pet brand and deceive him, and he will still tell you "No." Ask him if he could pick out his chosen cigarette blind­ folded, and if he has never tried it his confidence still will not waver. In order to find out just how accurately people can tell what cigarette they are smoking when they cannot read the name of the brand, we recently made a test upon twenty thoroughly seasoned cigarette smokers. The group consisted of six women and fourteen men. TEST I (Blindfolded) Each individual was shown seven packages of cigarettes: Lucky Strike, Egyptian Deity, Piedmont, Camel, Herbert Tareyton, Chesterfield, and Fatima. All were more or less familiar with each of these brands. Each individual was asked what cigarette he regularly smoked. Since there was only one high-grade Turkish cigarette, it was expected that at least the Deity would be correctly named on each test. An additional factor making for ease of judgment with the Deity is the fact of its large size. [I] The test was made in a well-aired room. An electric fan was set up in front of the smoker, and after each cigarette had been smoked and named the fan was turned on to clear out the smoke. Immediately before offering each cigarette a swallow of black coffee was given to the subject. The subjects were blindfolded. The cigarettes were either handed to the subject or else placed in his mouth. He was told to smoke the cigarette, to take it from his mouth and handle it, taste it, and smell the smoke at the burning end. In other words, he was allowed to make his judgment on any sensory basis whatever except that of the sight of the printed name. The results, at least to the subjects tested, were quite astonishing! They are shown in Table I. The table shows the judgment each individual made and the actual cigarette offered him. For example, when Hoogland said he was smoking a Camel he was smoking a Lucky Strike; a Deity when a Deity was offered; a Lucky Strike when smoking a Piedmont, etc. The figures at the bottom of each column show the number of times each cigarette was judged correctly. It will be seen that Deities were correctly reported 13 times out of a possible 20, which is rather surprising— everyone had predicted in advance that they could tell a Deity from any cigarette made of American tobacco. The cigarette receiving the next highest number of correct judgments was Camel. Lucky Strikes, Pied­ monts, Chesterfields, and Fatimas are on a par with each other, but are judged correctly only about one- J half as often as are Deities and Camels. In this par­ ticular test Tareyton is unique in that only one correct | judgment on it was registered. Where the number of subjects is so small such groupings cannot be depended upon. The surprising thing about the whole test is that so| few correct judgments were made. The average5 number for the men was 2.4, and for the women 1.5. When one considers that there is a probability that one [2] ••• •• r JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST ONE

CICARITTB ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SUBJECTS Correct Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Came Tareyton Chesterfield Fatima Judgments

Judgment of Subjects

HOOGLAND Camel Deity Lucky Strike Fatima Tareyton Piedmont Fatima 3 MAULE Fatima Chesterfield Camel Piedmont Piedmont Tareyton Fatima 1 BAILLIE Tareyton Fatima Deity Camel Chesterfield Tareyton Piedmont 1 DUNNE Camei Deity Fatima Camel Fatima Tareyton Lucky Strike 2 SYMINGTON Chesterfield Fatima Piedmont Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Lucky Strike 3 RESOR Chesterfield Fatima Camel Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Lucky Strike 2 CAMPBELL Tareyton Lucky Strike Camel Deity Fatima Lucky Strike 1 WATSON Chesterfield Deity Camel Lucky Strike Piedmont Tareyton Camel 1 DE VREES Lucky Strike Fatima Deity Tareyton Lucky Strike Chesterfield Camel 2 JACKSON Fatima Deity Tareyton Piedmont Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel 1 WOOD Lucky Strike Deity Tareyton Deity Camel Piedmont Fatima 3 MALONE Camel Deity Piedmont Camel Chesterfield Lucky Strike Fatima 4 STANSBURY Camel Chesterfield Fatima Piedmont Fatima Lucky Strike Camel 0 HUTCHISON Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Lucky Strike Camel Fatima Deity 3 ESTEY Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Camel Chesterfield Piedmont Tareyton 4 MILLER Tareyton Deity Lucky Strike Camel Lucky Strike Piedmont Fatima 3 KOCH Deity Deity Chesterfield Camel Piedmont Chesterfield Fatima 4 FLEMING Fatima Deity Deity Lucky Strike Piedmont Deity Chesterfield 1 LEFFINGWELL Camel Deitv Camel Fatima Piedmont Lucky Strike Lucky Strike 1 DEERSON Lucky Strike Deity Tareyton Camel Fatima Fatima Lucky Strike 3

Number Average of Number of Times Cigarette was Judged Correctly Number Subjects Correct

20 5 13 4 10 1 4 6 2.1

TABLE 1 judgment in seven will be right by chance, the conclu­ sion is evident that under the conditions of this test the ordinary smoker without considerable training cannot correctly discriminate among cigarettes belong­ ing in the same general class. Even the cigarette regularly smoked by the subject was correctly named only 13 times out of 36 chances (See page 10). TEST II (After training—blindfolded) In view of the fact that in the previous test the sub­ jects were asked to smoke blindfolded and name brands with which, in some cases, they had had only slight experience, it was decided to make the same test after the subjects had had equal training on several brands. In order to make the test somewhat easier and to obtain a fair amount of practice in a short time we divided the group used in the first test: Group One was trained on Camel, Lucky Strike, Chesterfield, Fatima; Group Two, on Camel, Piedmond, Deity, and Tareyton. Camel was introduced into each group because we wished to see whether or not the high number of correct judgments it received in Test I was accidental. A box of cigarettes was made up for each subject. Each box contained 30 each of the four brands he had to smoke for a week. The following instructions were sent to each subject: In the enclosed package are packed at random 120 cigarettes. You are requested to use them as follows: (1) Smoke or partially smoke 20 cigarettes each day for six days; (2) Pick the cigarette at random; (3) Blow off the tobacco adhering to the cigarette, and tap each end so as to completely free each| cigarette of particles of tobacco belonging toj some other brand; (4) Before lighting cigarette name the brand over toj yourself, for example—"This is a Fatima"—etc! [4] (5) Smoke no other cigarettes during the course of this test. On the seventh day a test was made similar in all respects to the test already described (blindfolded, coffee after each trial, etc.).

JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST TWO GROUP ONE

CIGARETTE ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SUBJECTS Correct Judgments Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima

Judgment of Subjects

HOOGLAND Camel Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel 1 CAMPBELL Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel Chesterfield 1 WATSON Fatima Camel Chesterfield Fatima 2 DE VREES Lucky Strike Fatima Camel Lucky Strike 0 WOOD Camel Lucky Strike Fatima Fatima 3 STANSBURY Lucky Strike Chesterfield Camel Fatima 1 HUTCHISON Camel Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield 1 ESTEY Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima 4 LEFFINGWELL Chesterfield Fatima Lucky Strike Fatima 1

Number Average of Number of Times Cigarette was Judged Correctly Number Subjects Correct

9 4 3 2 5 1.5

TABLE 2

The number of subjects in each group is too small to give absolutely reliable results. They certainly show that even after a short, but intense, training, the ability to name the cigarette actually smoked is not very sharp. In Group One only two individuals returned a higher percentage of correct answers than is expected from chance. In Group Two ability to make a correct response apparently has increased, but only apparently. [Si In this group the judgments on Deities offered no real problem. The probability of a correct judgment by chance is thus increased to one in three, whereas in Group One it is one in four. Test II as a whole would seem to show that Camel falls back and Tareyton rises into the Fatima, Chester­ field, Lucky Strike, etc., class.

JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST TWO GROUP TWO

CIOAHBTTB ACTUALLY SMOIBD Number SUBJECTS Correct Cimel Piedmont Deity Tareyton Judgmenti

Judgment of Subjects

DUNNE Piedmont Tareyton Diety Chesterfield 1 SYMINGTON Camel Piedmont Deity Camel 3 JACKSON Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton 4 BAILLIE Piedmont Camel Deity Tareyton 2 MALONE Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton 4 MILLER Camel Camel Deity Piedmont 2 MAULE Piedmont Tareyton Deity Piedmont 1 KOCH Camel Piedmont Deity Piedmont 3 DEERSON Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton 4

Numbtr Average of Number of Times Cigarette was Judged Correctly Number Subjects Correct

9 6 5 9 4 2.6

TABLE 2 (continued)

TEST III (With cigarette holder—blindfolded) During the preceding tests seven of the subjects gave a higher percentage of correct responses than can be accounted for on the basis of chance. They made at [6] least three correct judgments out of a possible four. It seemed desirable to make a further rough test with taste and touch as well as sight eliminated. As is well known, the various brands of cigarettes differ in size, in compactness, in taste, etc. Seven of the best sub­ jects in the preceding test were asked to smoke twenty- four hours later the four cigarettes on which they had

JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST THREE GROUP ONE

CICARETTB ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SUUJICTS Correct Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima Judgments

Judgment of Subjects

WOOD . Fatima Lucky Strike Chesterfield Camel 2 ESTEY Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima 4

JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST THREE GROUP Two

CIOARBTTB ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SuiJICTl Correct Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton Judgments

Judgment of Subjects

SYMINGTON Piedmont Piedmont Camel Camel 1 JACKSON Camel Piedmont Tareyton Deity 2 MALONE Deity Camel Deity Tareyton 2 KOCH Piedmont Piedmont Camel Camel 1 DEERSON • Tareyton Piedmont Deity Camel 2

TABLE 3 [7l been trained. They were blindfolded. Each cigarette was placed in a fresh holder. The holders had quill mouthpieces with glazed pasteboard body. Between each trial a drink of coffee was taken. Table 3 shows the results. If we compare Table 3 with Table 2 we note that the use of the holder somewhat decreased the percentage of correct judgments of six out of seven of the subjects. One of the subjects was not affected—thus Estey still maintained his record of four correct answers.

TEST IV (Rolling their own from cigarette tobacco) During the preceding tests many individuals insisted that they could not tell when their cigarette was lighted; that they could judge better if they could see the smoke. Nearly all thought that the bandage made the problem more difficult to pass judgments. In order to allow them to smoke with eyes open, we attempted first to paste cigarette papers over the label, but since the labels are printed in different places on the different brands we found this impracticable. We finally resorted to the method of opening the cigarettes and putting the contents into small glass dishes. The tobacco did not vary enough for the individuals to recognize the brand by looking at the tobacco. Each jar was labelled with a number, and not even the experimenter knew the tobacco being used in the test. The actual results were thus not known until all tests had been made. Instead of giving coffee before each test we gave water. Each subject was allowed to roll his own cigarette and to light it. Tests for the most part were made on those who achieved a high degree of accuracy in detecting brands in Test II. Table 4 shows the results of this test. [8] JUDGMENTS ON CIGARETTES OFFERED ON TEST FOUR GROUP ONE

CIGARETTE ACTUALLY SMOKED Number SUBJECTS Correct Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Fatima Judgments

Judgment of Subjects

HOOGLAND Lucky Strike Fatima Chesterfield Camel 1 WOOD Fatima Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel 0 ESTEY Camel Fatima Fatima Chesterfield 1

GROUP Two

CICARKTTE ACTUALLY SMOKET Number SUBJECT9 Correct Camel Piedmont Deity Tareyton Judgments

Judgment of Subjects

SYMINGTON Piedmont Camel Deity Camel 1 JACKSON Piedmont Deity Camel Tareyton 1 MALONE Tareyton Camel Deity Piedmont 1 MILLER Camel Deity Deity Tareyton 3 DEERSON Tareyton Piedmont Deity Camel 2

TABLE 4 It is evident that correct judgments under these conditions become impossible. It is well to point out that cigarettes rolled in this way differ in many particulars from cigarettes in their normal state. As a final point of general interest it may be stated that few individuals correctly named their favorite brand in the various tests. In the table on page io we see that in all tests the favorite was offered 36 times and was correctly named only 13 times. [9] JUDGMENTS ON FAVORITE CIGARETTES

Number of Timet Number of Timet SUBJICT Favorite Offered Correctly Named HOOGLAND 3 1 MAULE 1 0 BAILLIE 1 0 DUNNE 1 0 RESOR 1 0 WATSON 2 1 JACKSON 1 0 WOOD 4 1 MALONE 4 2 STANSBURY 2 1 HUTCHISON 2 0 ESTEY 4 2 MILLER 1 1 KOCH 3 2 LEFFINGWELL 2 0 DEERSON 4 2

TOTAL 36 13

Are we to conclude from these tests that there is no basis for a smoker's insistence upon a given brand? Evidently there is no sure basis for an immediate judg­ ment on cigarettes in the same class grounded upon differences in the sight of the smoke, smell, taste, and touch. Smoking a given brand of cigarettes probably slowly sets up a genuine organic demand for that brand. The stomach (respiratory passages, lining of oesophagus, etc.) gets "conditioned." Each brand sets up an or­ ganic habit peculiar or specific to itself. There are enough slight chemical differences even in brands of the same class to "set" the stomach and respiratory passages in this way. Hence the slogan "Your nose knows" is not true; it would be much nearer the truth to say "Your stomach knows."

TEST V (Time required to break a brand habit) In another test we attempted to find out just how long it takes to break the habit of smoking a favorite qgarette and to set up a habit for a new brand. Infor- [io] mation upon this subject is of direct practical interest both to manufacturers and distributors. Seven individuals, all devotees of a brand, were asked to smoke another brand for a period of one month. The cigarettes to be smoked were supplied free to the smokers for this period, and no restrictions were placed around them as to the number of cigarettes they might smoke. The following table shows in the first three columns the initials of the subjects used, the brand ordinarily smoked, and the new brand assigned for the period of one month.

INITIAL Brand Ordinarily New Brand to be Cigarette Selected Smoked Smoked for One Month after Test

D Fatima Chesterfield Still "shopping" S Fatima Camel Ma Camel Tareyton Camel, but price determined M Fatima Lucky Strike Still "shopping" E Chesterfield Tareyton Tareyton, but "shopping" K Deity Fatima W Fatima Deity Still "shopping"

The subjects, with only an occasional break, faith­ fully smoked the specified new brand for the month. Each individual handed in a written report of his experience during the month. Of most interest to us is what happened in the fifth week, when all restrictions were off and the subjects were allowed to smoke what­ ever brand they chose. The last column in the above table shows the final selection or lack of selection, as the case may be. Sub­ ject K. changed from Deity to Fatima. Subject Ma. stated that the Tareytons he smoked for the month would have been thereafter a favorite brand had it not been for the difference in price. All of the other men tested were left quite undecided as to what brand they were finally going to settle upon. Many of them complained bitterly of the experimenter s baseness in undermining their confidence in all cigarettes. [n] The following reports are characteristic of five men in the group: Report of M.— "After taking the various smoking tests, I con­ centrated on Lucky Strikes for exactly one month, as per your request. Between April 8 and May 8, I smoked 35 packs of Lucky Strikes, breaking training only twice for a total of three cigarettes. "Before any of the smoking^ tests my favorite cigarette had been Fatima. "I did not learn to like Lucky Strikes, but, if anything, smoked more than my usual number of cigarettes per day. At no time did a Lucky Strike give me real pleasure but, of course, I did get a certain amount of satisfaction—I was not tempted to swear off smoking entirely. "In the week since breaking training I have tried a package or more of Lucky Strike, Fatima, Camel, Deity, Condax, Melachrino and one or two other cigarettes. None of these has given me any more satisfaction than did Lucky Strikes. "In other words, I am completely up in the air as far as having found real satisfaction in any one cigarette for the past six weeks." Report of D.— "I am afraid that my taste for cigarettes has been practically ruined. I have only been smoking for a few years, and after shopping around hit upon Fatimas as the brand that seemed to be the most likable and enjoyable. "At your request I have smoked Chesterfields for a period of a month beginning April 10, and at the end of this period I must say that they have not registered with me. "Since giving up these I have tried my old friend Fatima, but they do not seem to give the same satis­ faction as formerly. "I think I will have to start all over again shopping around to find a brand that will appeal to me. I [12] think it quite likely, however, that since Fatima was the result of my previous shopping around, if I will give that brand a little longer trial this time my taste for it may come around. "At the present moment, however, I must say I do not know that I have a preference for any par­ ticular brand. I do not think it will be Chesterfield, because despite what they say about it these cigar­ ettes do not seem to satisfy me. I even found myself smoking more of these than I usually did of Fatimas, simply because I found it necessary to smoke a little more often in order to appease my appetite for a smoke. I won't attempt any explanation as to just why this was so, other than to say 'they did not fill the bill.' "I have adhered very conscientiously to your request and have only smoked other than Chester­ fields when the latter were not available, which naturally was very seldom. As it is now, being unable to get very much satisfaction from either Chesterfield or Fatima, when I finally do secure a brand that will meet with my taste, the matter of price might enter into it—-that is, since Fatimas cost six cents or seven cents more, I might be inclined to consider Chester­ field because of this difference in price. On the whole, though, I think if I really find a cigarette that I like the question of a few cents in price will not be a factor in preventing me from buying that particular brand." In six out of the seven cases the subjects complained that the first week was an extremely difficult one: some of them were smoking fifty per cent more of the new brand than they had ordinarily smoked of their favorite. The second week found a weakening in the hold of the favorite and a decrease in the number of the cigarettes of the new brand smoked. The third and fourth weeks brought resignation and complete cessation from the longing for the old favorite, and for some of the subjects even a resolve to quit [13] smoking altogether when the month was up. Thus we see that while the month was long enough to completely break down the habit for a favorite it was not long enough to establish the habit for a new brand. Even now, at the end of the second month, four out of the seven subjects are still "shopping"—still trying to find a cigarette which they can settle down upon without being tempted to try anything new.

TEST VI APPENDIX (With eyes open—name of cigarette concealed by paper screen) In our earlier tests numerous criticisms were advanced because we forced our subjects to smoke and name the cigarettes blindfolded. To meet these objections we determined to repeat the test allowing the subjects to smoke with eyes open. We finally hit upon a method for doing this free from scientific objections. A piece of paper taken from a pad 4K" x IYL" was pierced in the center (a lead pencil was used), a cigarette was slipped through the hole until it projected one-half inch. The subject was seated, as before, in front of a fan. The cigarette with the paper screen was handed to the subject. He grasped it behind the paper between the first and second fingers. The experimenter then lighted the cigarette. He told the subject to smoke naturally—to draw the smoke in, then remove the cigarette and expel the smoke, etc., so that the paper screen would not deflect the smoke into the nose and eyes after it was blown out. Eighteen of the subjects used in the previous experi­ ments were tested. They of course had had consider­ able experience by this time with most of the brands. In addition to this group, seven new subjects were tested. The new subjects were all smokers of experience and were familiar with the seven brands of cigarettes. The results are shown in the table on the next page. [14] JUDGMENT ON CIGARET 1 1 ES OFFE1RE D ON TE ST SIX

CIGARETTE ACTUALLY S MOKED SUBJECTS Number UaiD BlFOIB Correct Lucky Strike Deity Piedmont Camel Tareyton Chesterfield Fatima Judgments

Judgment of Subjects

HOOGLAND Camel Lucky Strike Chesterfield Tareyton Tareyton Fatima Chesterfield 1 MAULE Fatima Camel Tareyton Piedmont Lucky Strike Chesterfield Lucky Strike 1 BAILLIE Chesterfield Fatima Camel Chesterfield Tareyton Chesterfield Fatima 3 DUNNE Piedmont Fatima Tareyton Camel Chesterfield Fatima Camel 1 SYMINGTON Lucky Strike Chesterfield Piedmont Camel Camel Camel Tareyton 3 RESOR Camel Deity Piedmont Fatima Chesterfield Deity Tareyton 2 CAMPBELL Lucky Strike Camei Chesterfield Lucky Strike Piedmont Chesterfield Camel 2 WATSON Piedmont Deity Chesterfield Lucky Strike Tareyton Chesterfield Camel 3 DE VREES Lucky Strike Fatima Chesterfield Piedmont Camel Fatima Tareyton 1 JACKSON Fatima Lucky Strike Camel Piedmont Tareyton Chesterfield Lucky Strike 2 MALONE Tareyton Deity Chesterfield Lucky Strike Tareyton Piedmont Camel 2 en STANSBURY Camel Piedmont Fatima Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel Chesterfield 0 HUTCHISON Lucky Strike Deity Camel Piedmont Fatima Camel Lucky Strike 2 ESTEY Lucky Strike Fatima Piedmont Camel Tareyton Lucky Strike Chesterfield 4 MILLER Chesterfield Deity Fatima Camel Lucky Strike Piedmont Deity 2 KOCH Piedmont Deity Chesterfield Lucky Strike Camel Fatima Piedmont 1 LEFFINGWELL Camel Deity Fatima Lucky Strike Lucky Strike Tareyton Lucky Strike 1 DEERSON Camel Deity Piedmont Fatima Tareyton Lucky Strike Chesterfield 3

NEW SUBJECTS WALKER Deity Chesterfield Fatima Piedmont Fatima Tareyton Camel 0 O'SHEA Tareyton Deity Fatima Lucky Strike Camel Piedmont Fatima 2 GREER Fatima Fatima Camel Piedmont Chesterfield Tareyton Lucky Strike 0 THAYER Fatima Deity Fatima Tareyton Tareyton Chesterfield Chesterfield 3 OLZENDAM Tareyton Lucky Strike Piedmont Fatima Tareyton Deity Camel 2 WEBB Deity Piedmont Piedmont Fatima Tareyton Piedmont Fatima 3 POLLOCK Camel Deity Chesterfield Chesterfield Fatima Piedmont Tareyton 1 Number Average of dumber of Time s Cigarette was fudged Correctly Number Subjects Correct

25 s 11 6 4 10 6 3 1.8

TABLE 5 i6] It will be seen by comparing Table 5 with the one on Page 3 that the subjects made a poorer showing, so far as correctly naming the cigarettes actually smoked, with eyes open than with eyes closed, which is under­ standable when one considers that the closing of the eyes shuts out distracting stimuli. A final objection was urged by the various subjects. They insisted that if they had been given more time between trials, e.g., if they could have smoked only one cigarette per hour, they could have done better. If this were true then the first and second cigarettes smoked on any given day ought to be named more accurately than the sixth and seventh. The table on page 16, based on the records of the subjects used in Tests I and VI, shows that no such difference exists.

HE following new accounts have been added to the T J. Walter Thompson Company's list of clients: Vanity Fair Silk Mills, Reading, Pa., makers of Vanity Fair Silk Underwear and Silk Hosiery; Federated Engineers Development Corporation and its subsidiaries including the Fedco Sales Company, Jersey City, N. J., patented devices, products, processes, etc.; Phenix Cheese Company, New York City, makers of Philadelphia Cream Cheese and Phenix Club Cheeses; McCawley & Company, Baltimore, Md., manufac­ turers of Slipova Clothes for children; Maskakee Salts, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., natural mineral water; and Noxon Chemical Products Company, Inc., Newark, N. J., Noxon Compounded Polishes.

HE association with the AutoStrop Safety Razor TCompany has been terminated as of June 1st. The J. Walter Thompson Company has had this account since 1918. [17] 7nt dtMrmllf tar** «/ TsY.'gt* OarfV* lilt I Ail •> * IftfrlfiTIf (*nwf o/ An' /"'!(•*

The £raz'ft is tireless but the focfr weakens Science now explains the true nature of fatigue

Recent tests, to find how much work the human brain is really capable of, have yielded some sur­ prising results. So far as can be told, the brain itself is prac­ * a nipt tically tireless. Mental work alone—any amount •fi to think <'f dnjlAi'itj fori rftip of it — has little effect on quick, clear thmking. The trouble is that the body gets tired so —others are so hard and lifeless that you might soon. It develops actual fatigue-poisons, which as well wear leather. clog the tissues and black the nerve-pathway O'Sullivan's Safety Cushion Heels give you that carries the brain's message. perfect protection. They combine just the right Hour by hour these poisons accumulate. And toughness for long, hard wear with the greatest little by little the output of work lessens — the amount of springiness. "work-curve" begins to fall. This is why the problem of fatigue is a prob­ lem which concerns every human being. Whether we work with hand or brain* fatigue is the enemy of us all. We can't change the conditions under which we live. We can't slow up the lightning pace of 20th Century civilization. But we can avoid exposing body and brain to needless shock and The price of O'Sullivan's to you is generally strain. the same as the price of ordinary heels, in spite Get the Tight protection} of the fact that O'Sullivan's cost the dealer more. Your repairman could make a bigger immediate One of the chief causes of fatigue is the strain profit on any one of half a dozen substitutes — of standing— the jar of walking on hard floors but when he puts on O'Sullivan's, he knows and pavemrnts. you'll bring trade to him again. Of course, hard leather heels give no relief. Ask for O'Sullivan's Safety Cushion when you Ordinary rubber heels are little better. Some leave your shoes—see that they are attached. are soft, crumbly rubber that wears down quickly The O'Sullivan Heel Company.

Nineteen years ago the first 0'Sullivan campaign was launched featuring the dangers of fatigue. This central selling idea, unswervingly adhered to but freshened by the constant introduction of "news" elements, has changed the foot-wear habits of the American people. [18] When sampling increased sales 30 times CLIENT who manufacturers candy tells us the Astory of a dealer who was sent fifty pounds of peppermint patties by mistake. As his normal sales for patties were only five pounds a week it was natural that the dealer wished to return them. Acting, how­ ever, on the suggestion of the manufacturer, he dressed his window in an attractive manner, featuring the peppermints. Signs in the window read—"Peppermint Patties, 49c lb. Step inside and get a tasting sample." On his show case near the door he had a small plate on a white doily with patties freshly cut in quarters with a silver knife. Everyone who came in the store was asked to try a piece and in almost every instance cus­ tomers bought from one-half to two pounds. The dis­ play was put in on a Thursday night; a telephone call came Saturday for 100 additional pounds. This second lot was all gone by Monday night. Thus the dealer sold in less than one week 150 pounds of peppermint patties to customers, some of whom had no intention of purchasing any before they came into the shop. As a matter of fact this was a small neighborhood store with little transient trade. The dealer is now using this sampling method of sales on other lines of candy with even larger gross sales and at the present rate of progress his net profit on special sales for 1922 will be over $2,000.

HE Northam Warren Corporation's full page Tadvertisement in the January Ladies' Home Journal pulled more than 8,000 inquiries each enclosing fifteen cents. This is especially remarkable in view of the fact that with only two or three exceptions the Cutex Midget Set offer has been made in every issue of this magazine for the past five years. [19] Recent distinguished visitors to the New York Office

OME of the recent visitors to the New York S Office were Lord Leverhulme, President and Di­ rector-General of Lever Brothers Company and mem­ bers of his party—the Messrs. Hart, Barnish, Walton, Tainsh and Hurry, officials of the Company; Mr. Kumanoshin Yonezawa, Director of the Mannensha, Ltd., the largest advertising agency in Japan and Mr. Shizuka Nakagawa of the Planning and Design Depart­ ment of the same organization who are touring the United States and Europe to study advertising condi­ tions and agency practices; M. Maurice Labouret, Administrateur Directeur de la Librarie Hachette, Paris; M. Edward LeRouvillois of the Societe Europeene de Publicite; Mr. Take Sawa of Koyoto, Japan, member of the Japanese Parliament; Mr. J. N. A. Ilott of J. Ilott, Ltd., one of New Zealand's largest advertising agencies; and Sehor and Senora N. Sans of Barcelona, Spain.

OPULATION and Its Distribution" has received P another bit of commendation. This latest is in the form of a letter from The Literary Digest which reads as follows: "For publication in a new circulation statement, we are compiling State figures on the number of wholesale and retail dealers in a large number of businesses. "We feel that the figures in your book, "Population and Its Distribution," are the most accurate published and we should like to use some of them—giving you, of course, proper credit. "May we have your permission? Very truly yours,- Freling Foster, Manager, Commercial Research De­ partment." [20] Clients of the J. Walter Thompson Company

Product Client

APPRAISALS American Appraisal Company Milwaukee, Wisconsin PAINTS, CRAYONS AND ALLIED The American Crayon Company PRODUCTS FOR EDUCATIONAL Sandusky, Ohio AND TOY USE

FINE PAPERS American Writing Paper Company Ilolyoke, Massachusetts YUBAN COFFEE Arbuckle Brothers New York City- AUNT JEMIMA PANCAKE FLOUR, Aunt Jemima Mills Company BUCKWHEAT FLOUR, SELF Saint Joseph, Missouri RAISING FLOUR

WOMEN'S SUITS AND COATS A. Beller & Company New York City SHELTON LOOM PRODUCTS Sidney Blumenthal & Company New York City BRENLIN WINDOW SHADES The Charles W. Breneman Company Cincinnati, Ohio PATTERNS: BUTTERICK WITH Butterick Publishing Company DELTOR, STANDARD DESIGNER New York City WITH BELROBE

CARTER'S KNIT UNDERWEAR The William Carter Company Needham Heights, Massachusetts "CAPPI" PERFUME Cheramy, Inc. New York City RAILROAD Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, Chicago, Illinois CLOSE'S CANDIES The George Close Company Cambridge, Massachusetts CORTICELLI SILK FABRICS, Corticelli Silk Company SILK HOSIERY, YARNS Florence, Massachusetts

ROMANCE CHOCOLATES Cox Confectionery Company East Boston, Massachusetts FARM & FIRESIDE Crowell Publishing Company Springfield, Ohio DAVEY TREE SURGERY Davey Tree Expert Company Kent, Ohio DIAMOND CRYSTAL TABLE SALT Diamond Crystal Salt Company Saint Clair, Michigan

[21] Product Client LEATHER WORK GLOVES Joseph N. Eisendrath Company Chicago, Illinois DANERSK FURNITURE Erskine-Danforth Corporation New York City PATENTED DEVICES, PRODUCTS, Federated Engineers Development PROCESSES, ETC. Corporation and its subsidiaries including the Fedco Sales Company Jersey City, New Jersey COMPTOMETER Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois FLEISCHMANN'S YEAST The Fleischmann Company New York City SHIPPING CASES, DISPLAY CON­ Robert Gair Company TAINERS, FOLDING CARTONS, New York City WINDOW DISPLAYS, LABELS

FOREIGN TOURS Gates Tours New York City ROYAL ELECTRIC CLEANERS The P. A. Geier Company Cleveland, Ohio GOLDWYN MOTION PICTURES Goldwyn Pictures Corporation New York City PREPARED PIE FILLINGS AND Good Luck Food Company, Inc. PUDDINGS Rochester, New York

GRUEN GUILD WATCHES Gruen Watchmakers Guild Cincinnati, Ohio HAUSERMANN-SYSTEM SHELVING, The E. F. Hausermann Company SKYLIGHTS, PARTITIONS Cleveland, Ohio

CORDAGE The Hooven & Allison Company Xenia, Ohio HORLICK'S MALTED MILK Horlick's Malted Milk Company Racine, Wisconsin BANKING Irving National Bank New York City WOODBURY'S FACIAL SOAP Andrew Jergens Company Cincinnati, Ohio KLEARFLAX LINEN RUGS Klearflax Linen Rug Company Duluth, Minnesota For Lamont, Corliss and Company New York City O'SULLIVAN'S RUBBER HEELS (1) O'Sullivan Rubber Company New York City PETER'S CHOCOLATE (2) Peter, Cailler, Kohler Swiss Chocolate Company New York City POND'S COLD CREAM, VANISH­ (3) Pond's Extract Company ING CREAM New York City

Lux Lever Brothers Company RINSO Cambridge, Massachusetts [22] Product Client LIBBY'S FOOD PRODUCTS Libby, McNeill & Libby (EVAPORATED MILK, MEATS Chicago, Illinois FRUITS, CONDIMENTS, SALAD, DRESSING, ETC.)

LOG CABIN SYRUP Log Cabin Products Company Saint Paul, Minnesota NATURAL MINERAL WATER Maskakee Salts, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania WHITE ROSE BREAD Massachusetts Baking Company Springfield, Massachusetts SLIPOVA CLOTHES FOR CHILDREN McCawley & Company Baltimore, Maryland RED SEAL HAIR NETS Morris, Mann & Reilly WOMEN'S NOVELTIES Chicago, Illinois NOXON COMPOUNDED POLISHES Noxon Chemical Products Com­ pany, Inc. Newark, New Jersey ODO-RO-NO, DEPILATORY, The Odorono Company AFTER CREAM Cincinnati, Ohio BLUE BUCKLE WORK GARMENTS Old Dominion Garment Company (OVERALLS, WORK SHIRTS, Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia WORK PANTS)

PEACE DALE YARNS Peace Dale Mills (MAIL ORDER) New York City BRER RABBIT MOLASSES AND Penick & Ford, Ltd. SYRUP New York City and PENICK SYRUP New Orleans, Louisiana

PHILADELPHIA CREAM CHEESE Phenix Cheese Company PHENIX CLUB CHEESES New York City

PICTORIAL REVIEW Pictorial Review New York City FUR FABRIC Plush Association New York City PRINTZESS WOMEN'S AND MISSES'S The Printz-Biederman Company COATS AND SUITS AND CHILD­ Cleveland, Ohio REN'S COATS

QUAKER MILK MACARONI Quaker Oats Company Chicago, Illinois GUNS, METALLIC AMMUNITION, Savage Arms Corporation AUTOMOTIVE PARTS New York City

SCHOLL FOOT SPECIALTIES Scholl Manufacturing Company Chicago, Illinois CREAM BREAD Shults Bread Company Brooklyn, New York [23] Product Client

STANLEY VACUUM BOTTLES Stanley Insulating Company New York City SWIFT'S PREMIUM HAM, PRE­ Swift & Company MIUM BACON, OLEOMARGARINE, Chicago, Illinois WOOL SOAP, CLASSIC SOAP, FERTILIZER, INSTITUTIONAL AD­ VERTISING

TURNWAL FABRICS Turner and Walls New York City LIGHT AND HEAVY RUBBER FOOT­ United States Rubber Company WEAR New York City KEDS RAYNSTERS NAUGAHYDE "U. S." JAR RUBBERS

BARRELED SUNLIGHT (THE RICE U. S. Gutta Percha Paint Company PROCESS WHITE PAINT) Providence, Rhode Island

VANITY FAIR SILK UNDERWEAR, Vanity Fair Silk Mills SILK HOSIERY Reading, Pennsylvania

WADSWORTH WATCH CASES Wadsworth Watch Case Company Cincinnati, Ohio CUTEX MANICURE SPECIALTIES Northam Warren Corporation New York City STATIONERY Western Tablet & Stationery Com­ pany, Saint Joseph, Missouri

N 1865 the first Shults bakery was opened in Mangin I Street, New York City, by John H. Shults. At that time sales of 200 loaves a day were considered excellent. Now the output is half a million loaves a day. Then one carload of flour lasted a whole year. Now it takes six carloads of flour a day to keep the bakeries running. 18,500 grocers are supplied with Shults bread twice daily.

[24] J. WALTER THOMPSON COMPANY . ADVERTISING

244 Madison Avenue New York

Lytton Building Chicago

80 Boylston Street Boston

First National Bank Building Cincinnati

Hanna Building Cleveland

Kingsway House London