2019 April Course

April 9 - 11, 2019

LOCATION: The Greenbrier
White Sulphur Springs, WV

COURSE FEE: $1,975

Registration fee includes:
  • All course materials
  • Daily lunch and food/beverage break refreshments
  • A group dinner on Tuesday & Wednesday evenings
  • A copy of our latest books:

    - Readings in Advertising Claims Substantiation
    - Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science
    - Thurstonian Models: Categorical Decision Making in the Presence of Noise

A 20% discount will be applied to each additional registration from the same company, made at the same time. The Institute for Perception also offers reduced or waived course fees to non-profit entities, students, judges, government employees, and others. Please contact Susan Longest at mail@ifpress.com before registering for more information.

Approximately 12 credits will be sought for registrants in jurisdictions with CLE requirements. This program also qualifies for Certified Food Scientist contact hours (CH). CFS Certificants may claim 15 CH for their attendance.

This course has been developed for Attorneys specializing in advertising law, market research managers, product developers, in-house counsel, sensory and consumer scientists, and packaging/product testing specialists. The instructors will be:

The topics covered follow. For more details, please see the course brochure and do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. To register, please call (804) 675-2980 or use our on-line registration form. Enrollment is limited.


Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles

Comparative advertising improves sales. How do you support your advertising claims and how do you address false claims or challenges made by your competitors? Claims support is a critical business focus for many companies in categories with aggressive competitors.

The purpose of this course is to present principles involved in testing product performance and surveys to access advertising messages. This knowledge base is necessary in order to provide solid evidentiary support needed in the event of a claims dispute.

The course speakers have decades of experience as instructors, scientific experts, jurors, and litigators in addressing claims with significant survey and product testing components. National Advertising Division® (NAD®) and litigated cases will be used to examine and reinforce the information discussed.

Tuesday, April 9 (8am - 4pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Advertising Claims Support

  • Introduction and scope of the course
  • Claims support in product/brand development
  • Admissibility of expert testimony
  • Surveys in false advertising and trademark cases
  • Efficacy, perception, and materiality

9:10 – 10:00 | Claims and False Advertising Internal Counsel Perspective

  • Three ways an ad can be false
  • A typical false advertising lawsuit
  • Puffery, falsity, and injury: The Procter & Gamble Co. vs. Kimberly-Clark (2008), Schick vs. The Gillette Co. (2005), The Procter & Gamble Co. vs. Ultreo, S.D.N.Y. (2008)
  • To sue, challenge, or negotiate - an internal counsel’s perspective

10:10 – 11:00 | Test Method, Design, Location, and Participants

  • Test options: Monadic, sequential, direct comparisons
  • Test design issues: Within-subject, matched samples, position and sequential effects, replication
  • Choosing a testing location and test subjects
  • 1) NAD Case #3506 and NARB Panel #101
    (1999) Visa USA, Inc. (Visa Credit Card-Preferred Card Advertising)
  • 2) NAD Case #5425
    (2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Arm & Hammer® Sensitive Skin Plus Scent)
  • 3) NAD Case #6041
    (2016) Unilever United States, Inc. (Suave Essentials Body Wash)

11:10 – Noon | ASTM Sensory Claims Guide

  • Choosing a target population, selection of markets
  • Product issues: sampling, shelf age, handling
  • Comparative vs sequential monadic designs
  • How to handle no difference/preference
  • Claims: Superiority, unsurpassed, equivalence, and their paradoxes

1:00 – 3:00 | NAD Mock Hearings; Overview of the NAD

  • NAD Mock Hearings: 3D TV and Yogurt
  • 4) NAD Case #5416
    (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)
  • 5) NAD Case #5715
    (2014) General Mills Inc. (Yoplait Blended Greek Yogurt)
  • Advertising self-regulation and the NAD process
  • Preparing for an NAD hearing

3:10 – 4:00 | Sensory and Hedonic Methods

  • Methods: Discrimination, descriptive, hedonic
  • Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales
  • “Better” and “Greater”, hedonic, sensory, and technical claims
  • Attribute interdependencies
  • 6) NAD Case #5609
    (2013) Starbucks Corp. (Verismo Single-Serve Coffee System)
  • 7) NAD Case #5782
    (2014) MOM Brands Company (Malt-O-Meal Brand Cereals)
  • 8) NAD Case #5866
    (2015) Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Huggies Natural Care Wipes)
  • 9) NAD Case #5874
    (2015) and NARB Panel #207 (2016) Chattam, Inc. (Nasacort)
  • 10) NAD Case #5984
    (2016) French’s Food Company (French’s Tomato Ketchup)

Wednesday, April 10 (8am - 4pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Consumer Relevance

  • Setting action standards for consumer-perceived differences
  • Linking expert and consumer data
  • Clinical vs. statistical significance
  • Litigated Case:
    SC Johnson vs. Clorox – Goldfish in Bags, 241 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 2001)
  • 11) NAD Case #5819
    (2015) Unilever US (Degree MotionSense and Degree Clinical Protection Antiperspirants)
  • 12) NAD Case #5974
    (2010) Comcast Communications, Inc. (Xfinity Internet, Television & Telephone Services)
  • 13) NAD Case #6025
    (2010) Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (PeroxiClear Contact Lens Peroxide Solution)

9:10 – 10:00 | Perception Surveys

  • Purpose of conducting surveys: Events and behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, subjective experiences
  • Design: Splitting open and closed-ended questions
  • How respondents answer questions: Optimizing and satisficing
  • Filters to avoid acquiescence and no opinion responses
  • Survey questions: Biased, open-ended vs. closed-ended
  • What is a control and when do you need one?
  • Steps to improve survey questions
  • All claims imply a benefit to some segment: Implications

10:10 – 11:00 | Requirements for a Sound Methodology

  • The AAPOR report (American Association for Public Opinion Research) on non-probability sampling
  • Psychometric properties of the survey items
  • Reliability and validity: Ecological, external, internal, face, construct
  • Bias: Code, position
  • Task instructions – importance and impact

11:10 – Noon | Analysis - Interpretation and Communication

  • Hypothesis testing
  • Common statistical analyses
  • Determining statistical significance and confidence bounds
  • Statistical inference in claims support
  • Communicating claim requirements to the business side
  • 14) NAD Case #5569
    (2013) InterHealth Nutraceuticals (Zychrome Dietary Supplement)
  • 15) NAD Case #5695
    (2014) Sergeant’s Pet Care Products (Sentry® Fiproguard)
  • 16) NAD Case #5755
    (2014) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Olay Sensitive Body Wash)
  • Litigated Case:
    Avon Products vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

1:00 – 3:00 | NAD Mock Hearing: Perception (Consumer Takeaway) Surveys

  • NAD Mock Hearing: Weed and Feed
  • 17) NAD Case #6033
    (2016) Bayer CropScience US (Bayer Advanced 3-in-1 Weed and Feed for Southern Lawns)
  • Consumer takeaway surveys: NAD perspective, critique of cases
  • 18) NAD Case #5849
    (2015) T-Mobile USA (More Data Capacity)
  • 19) NAD Case #5926
    (2016) Comcast Cable Communications (Xfinity Cable TV)
  • 20) NAD Case #6009
    (2016) Epson America, Inc. (Epson EcoTank Supertank Printers)

3:10 – 4:00 | Test Power

  • The meaning of power
  • Planning experiments and reducing cost
  • Sample sizes for claims support tests
  • Managing Risks: Advertiser claim, competitor challenge
  • 21) NAD Case #3605
    (1999) Church & Dwight, Co. (Brillo Steel Wool Soap Pads)
  • 22) NAD Case #4248
    (2004) McNeil, PPC, Inc. (Tylenol Arthritis Pain)

Thursday, April 11 (8am - 3pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | What to do with No Difference/No Preference Responses

  • No preference option analysis
  • Power comparisons: Dropping, equal and proportional distribution
  • Statistical models and psychological models
  • ASTM recommendation
  • 23) NAD Case #4270
    (2004) Frito-Lay, Inc. (Lay’s Stax® Original Potato Crisps)
  • 24) NAD Case #5453
    (2012) Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice)
  • 25) NAD Case #6037
    (2016) Mizkan America, Inc. (RAGU Homestyle Traditional Sauce)

9:10 – 10:00 | Testing for Equivalence and Unsurpassed Claims

  • How the equivalence hypothesis differs from difference testing
  • ASTM requirements for an unsurpassed claim
  • The paradox of finding support for superiority, unsurpassed, and equivalence; the need for a minimum standard for superiority
  • FDA method for qualifying generic drugs: The TOST
  • Improved methods over TOST for testing equivalence
  • 26) NAD Case #5822
    (2015) Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC (Huggies® Little Snugglers Diapers)
  • 27) NAD Case #5829 and NARB Panel #202
    (2015) Bayer HealthCare, LLC (Claritin and Claritin-D)

10:10 – 11:00 | Ratio, Multiplicative, and Count-Based Claims

  • The difference between ratio and multiplicative claims; Examples
  • Why ratio claims are often exaggerated
  • Count-based claims (e.g.,“9 out of 10 women found our product reduces wrinkles”)
  • 28) NAD Case #5107
    (2009) Ciba Vision Corp. (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus)
  • 29) NAD Case #5484
    (2012) Reynolds Consumer Products (Hefty® Slider Bags)
  • 30) NAD Case #5934
    (2016) Rust-Oleum Corp. (Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint)

11:10 – Noon | “Up To” Claims

  • Definition and support for an “up to” claim
  • FTC opinion on windows marketers
  • Analysis of an “up to” claim scenario
  • Issues in applying the FTC rule
  • 31) NAD Case #5707
    (2014) Mars Petcare US (Pedigree® Dentastix® Chews)
  • 32) NAD Case #5876
    (2015) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Duracell Coppertop & Duracell Quantum Alkaline Batteries)

1:00 – 3:00 | Applying Course Principles and Concepts

  • Group Exercise: Develop support strategy for an advertising claim to include: engagement of all stakeholders, wording of the claim, design and execution of a national product test, product procurement, analysis, and report
  • Course summary and conclusion