The Cloister at Sea Island
Sea Island, GA
March 5-6, 2012
Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles
$1,950
(March 5-6)
25% discount for each additional registrant from same organization.
For more information regarding these courses, please contact us.
This course is recommended for general management, attorneys specializing in advertising law, in-house counsel, market researchers, product developers and packaging/ product testing specialists. You will learn about the different types of advertising claims and what is required to support or refute a claim. Approximately 12 CLE credits. The instructors will be:
- Dr. Daniel Ennis - The Institute for Perception
- Dr. Benoît Rousseau - The Institute for Perception
- Dr. John Ennis - The Institute for Perception
- David Mallen, Esq. - NAD, Council of Better Business Bureaus
- Kathryn Fararra, Esq. - NAD, Council of Better Business Bureaus
- Annie Ugurlayan, Esq. - NAD, Council of Better Business Bureaus
- Don Lofty - S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
- Chris Cole, Esq. - Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips
- Lawrence Weinstein, Esq. - Proskauer Rose, LLP
Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles
The is a two-day course. 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
Monday, March 5 (8am - 4pm)
8-9am - Introduction & 5 Key Questions...
- Are there industry standards or approved test protocols regarding product tests?
- Is the testing methodology sound?
- Did the study test the actual products at issue?
- Can a connection be drawn between the test results and the statements made about product efficacy?
- Are the parameters of the test consumer-relevant?
9:10-10am - ASTM Guidelines for Test Protocols
- Review of the ASTM Claims Guide including: Choosing a target population, product selection, sampling and handling, selection of markets
- Types of claims: Superiority (ratings, counts, ratios), unsurpassed, equivalence (parity), non comparative
10:10-11am - Data & Methods
- Types of data: Counts, ordinal (ranks), category scales, interval scales, ratio scales
- Types of methods: Threshold, discrimination, descriptive, hedonic
- Differences between sensory intensity and liking/preference claims
11:10am-noon - ASTM Guidelines for Test Protocols
- Case 1 - Sensory Intensity: Miller® Lite vs Bud Light® “more taste” claims and sensory intensity.
- Case 2 - Preference: Kraft Foods, Inc. (Tombstone® Pizza). NAD Case 4915 (2008).
1-2pm - Requirements for a Sound Methodology
- Types of validity: Ecologic, external, internal, construct
- Types of bias: Response, code, design, difference from a group, choice of model
- Reliability: Imprecision and variance
- Consumer relevance
- Case 3 - Consumer Relevance: Unilever US (Dove® Beauty Bar). NAD Case 5197 (2010)
2:10-3pm - Choosing the Right Method, Venue & Participants
- Product test options: Monadic, sequential monadic, direct comparisons
- Test design issues: Within-subject, matched samples, position and sequential effects, replication
- Choosing a venue: Internal, central location, home use
- Defining test subjects: Expert descriptive panelists, discrimination panelists, consumers
- Case 4 - Venue: The Procter & Gamble Company (Swiffer® Dust & Shine Furniture Spray) NAD Case 4960 (2009).
3:10-4pm - Analysis - Interpretation & Communication
- The essence of hypothesis testing
- Common statistical analyses: Analysis of variance, t-tests, non-parametric tests, scaling difference and ratings data
- How to determine statistical significance and confidence bounds
Tuesday, March 6 (8am - 4pm)
8-9am - Test Power & Consumer Relevance
- The impact of power and sample sizes for claims support tests
- Managing risk in testing: Advertiser risks, competitor risks
- Setting action standards for consumer-perceived differences
9:10-10am - Testing for Equivalence
- How the equivalence hypothesis differs from difference testing
- Why the FDA method for qualifying generic drugs is fl awed and lessons for advertising claims
- Improved methods for choice and ratings data in claims support
10:10-11am - Equivalence - Learning from Cases
- Equivalence case examples: Dropped-call rates, sweeteners and dust pick-up
- Case 5 - Equivalence: Pactiv Corporation (Hefty® Odor Block Trash Bags). NAD Case 5105 (2009).
11:10-noon - Ratio, Multiplicative, "Up-to" & Count-Based Claims
- The difference between ratio and multiplicative claims
- Why ratio claims are often exaggerated
- How to support an “Up-to” claim
- Count-based claims, e.g.,“90% of women found that our product reduces wrinkles.”
1-2pm - Case Examples of Ratio & "Up-to" Claims
- Case 6 – Ratio Claim: Dominos Pizza Inc. (Oven Baked Sandwiches). NAD Case 5023 (2009).
- Case 7 - “Up-to” Claim: Royal Purple, Ltd. (Royal Purple Motor Oil). NAD Case 4983 (2009).
2:10-3pm - What to Do with No Difference/Preference Responses
- Power Comparisons: Dropping, equal distribution, proportional distribution
- Statistical models and psychological models
- Case 8 - No Preference Counts: Frito-Lay (Lay’s® Stax®). NAD Case 4270 (2004).
3:10-4pm - Summary, Review & Questions
- Final thoughts, comments and course conclusion