These courses will now be taught via live streaming ONLY.






May 20 - 22  |  $1,975

Entire Program: $2,750

*A 20% discount will be applied to each additional registration
when registered at the same time, from the same company. The Institute for Perception offers reduced or waived course fees to non-profit entities, students, judges, government employees, and others. For more information, please contact us

These courses have been developed for sensory and consumer scientists, product developers, market research managers, package/product testing specialists, and attorneys specializing in advertising law.

May 19  |  $895


Please note the new dates listed below.




  • Printed manuals of slides and exercises

  • NAD Case Book (for those attending the Advertising Claims course)

  • 3-month free software trial of IFPrograms® Professional (Difference Testing Course only)

  • A copy of our latest books: Readings in Advertising Claims Substantiation, Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science, and Thurstonian Models: Categorical Decision Making in the Presence of Noise

  • Access to four (4) webinars from our library of 28 topics and/or you may attend a live webinar presentation of the three remaining webinars planned for 2020

The instructors for this course will be:

The Institute for Perception

The Institute for Perception

The Institute for Perception

Crowell & Moring

Tennessee Attorney General's Office

Unilever USA

National Advertising Division

Loeb & Loeb

National Advertising Division

National Advertising Division

Difference Testing
Tuesday, May 19

Difference Testing  |  9am - 5pm


  • Ingredient change dilemma: Duo-trio, triangle, and 2-AFC data lead to different conclusions

  • Resolving Gridgeman’s paradox

  • Difference testing theory: m-AFC, triangle, duo-trio, same-different, degree of difference, and tetrad

  • A sensory difference measure, d', from discrimination tests and how to inter-relate methods

  • Theory and use of replicated testing to reduce testing cost

  • The 5 cornerstones of product testing: α, power, sample size, size of the difference, and protocol

  • Establishing optimal sample sizes for sensory discrimination testing programs using Thurstonian principles

  • The tetrad test: Why it requires only 1/3 the sample size of the triangle test

Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles
Wednesday, May 20

Advertising Claims Support  |  9am - 10am


  • 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

Claims and False Advertising; Internal Counsel Perspective  |  10:10am - 11am


  • 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

Regulatory and ASTM Sensory Claims Guide  |  11:10am - Noon


  • Regulatory actions and cases

  • 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

Test Method, Design, Location, and Participants  |  12:10pm - 1pm


  • Test options: Monadic, sequential, direct comparisons

  • Test design issues: Within-subject, matched samples,
    position and sequential effects, replication

  • Choosing a testing location and test quotas

    • 1) NAD Case #5425 (2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
      (Arm & Hammer® Sensitive Skin Plus Scent)

    • 2) NAD Case #6041 (2016) Unilever United States, Inc. (Suave Essentials Body Wash)

NAD Mock Hearings; Overview of the NAD  |  2:00pm - 4pm


  • NAD Mock Hearings: 3D TV and Blueberry Yogurt

  • Advertising self-regulation and the NAD process

  • Preparing for an NAD hearing

    • 3) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)

    • 4) NAD Case #5715 (2014) General Mills Inc. (Yoplait Blended Greek Yogurt)

Sensory and Hedonic Methods |  4:10pm - 5pm


  • Methods: Difference, descriptive, hedonic

  • Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales

  • “Better” and “Greater”, hedonic, sensory, and technical claims

  • Attribute interdependencies

    • 5) NAD Case #5609 (2013) Starbucks Corp. (Verismo Single-Serve Coffee System)

    • 6) NAD Case #5866 (2015) Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Huggies Natural Care Wipes)

    • 7) NAD Case #5874 (2015) and NARB Panel #207 (2016) Chattam, Inc. (Nasacort)

    • 8) NAD Case #5984 (2016) French’s Food Company (French’s Tomato Ketchup)

Thursday, May 21

Consumer Relevance |  9am - 10am


  • 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)

    • 9) NAD Case #5819 (2015) Unilever US (Degree MotionSense and Degree Clinical Protection Antiperspirants)

    • 10) NAD Case #5974(2010) Comcast Communications, Inc. (Xfinity Internet, Television & Telephone Services)

    • 11) NAD Case #6025 (2010) Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (PeroxiClear Contact Lens Peroxide Solution)

    • 12) NAD Case #6131 (2017) Too Faced Cosmetics, LLC. (Better Than Sex Mascara)

Survey Principles |  10:10am - 11am


  • Purpose of conducting surveys: Events and behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, subjective experiences

  • How respondents answer questions: Optimizing and satisficing

  • Filters to avoid acquiescence and no opinion responses

  • Survey questions: Biased, open-ended vs. closed-ended

  • Steps to improve survey questions

Consumer Perception Surveys |  11:10am - Noon


  • A survey must include: Sample, design, questionnaire, analysis

  • Reliability and validity: Ecological, external, internal, face, construct

  • Bias: Code, position

  • Task instructions – importance and impact

  • Data collection methods

  • Target universe and size, controls, biased questions, improvements in design and analysis

  • Design Issues: Monadic vs sequential monadic, separating open-ended questions from close-ended

  • The stimulus is the label or ad, not the product itself

  • Why open-ended questions are not a good basis for quantification

  • Common design flaws

How NAD Has Ruled on Perception Surveys |  12:10pm - 1pm


  • Consumer takeaway surveys: NAD perspective, critique of cases

    • 13) NAD Case #5849 (2015) T-Mobile USA (More Data Capacity)

    • 14) NAD Case #5926 (2016) Comcast Cable Communications (Xfinity Cable TV)

    • 15) NAD Case #6009 (2016) Epson America, Inc. (Epson EcoTank Supertank Printers)

NAD Mock Hearing: Perception (Consumer Takeaway) Surveys |  2pm - 3pm


  • NAD Mock Hearing: Weed and Feed

    • 16) NAD Case #6033 (2016) Bayer CropScience US (Bayer Advanced 3-in-1 Weed and Feed for Southern Lawns)

Analysis - Interpretation and Communication |  3:10pm - 4pm


  • Hypothesis testing

  • Common statistical analyses

  • Determining statistical significance and confidence bounds

  • Statistical inference in claims support

  • Communicating claim requirements to the business side

    • 17) NAD Case #5569 (2013) InterHealth Nutraceuticals (Zychrome Dietary Supplement)

    • 18) NAD Case #5695 (2014) Sergeant’s Pet Care Products (Sentry® Fiproguard)

    • 19) 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)

Test Power |  4:10pm - 5pm


  • The meaning of power

  • Planning experiments and reducing cost

  • Sample sizes for claims support tests

  • Managing Risks: Advertiser claim, competitor challenge

    • 20) NAD Case #3605 (1999) Church & Dwight, Co. (Brillo Steel Wool Soap Pads)

    • 21) NAD Case #4248 (2004) McNeil, PPC, Inc. (Tylenol Arthritis Pain)

Friday, May 22

Handling No Difference/No Preference Responses |  9am - 10am


  • No preference option analysis

  • Power comparisons: Dropping, equal and proportional distribution

  • ASTM recommendation

    • 22) NAD Case #4270 (2004) Frito-Lay, Inc. (Lay’s Stax® Original Potato Crisps)

    • 23) NAD Case #5453 (2012) Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice)

    • 24) NAD Case #6037 (2016) Mizkan America, Inc. (RAGU Homestyle Traditional Sauce)

Testing for Equivalence and Unsurpassed Claims |  10:10am - 11am


  • 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

    • 25) NAD Case #5822 (2015) Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC (Huggies® Little Snugglers Diapers)

    • 26) NAD Case #5829 and NARB Panel #202 (2015) Bayer HealthCare, LLC (Claritin and Claritin-D)

Ratio, Multiplicative, and Count-Based Claims |  11:10am - Noon


  • 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”)

    • 27) NAD Case #5107 (2009) Ciba Vision Corp. (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus)

    • 28) NAD Case #5484 (2012) Reynolds Consumer Products (Hefty® Slider Bags)

    • 29) NAD Case #5934 (2016) Rust-Oleum Corp. (Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint)

“Up To” Claims and Conclusion |  12pm - 1pm


  • 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

    • 30) NAD Case #5707(2014) Mars Petcare US (Pedigree® Dentastix® Chews)

    • 31) NAD Case #5876 (2015) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Duracell Coppertop & Duracell Quantum Alkaline Batteries)


Please enter your information below to register for this course. Those registering 2 or more attendees from the same company are eligible for a 20% discount on the 2nd registration. Please contact Sue Longest before registering if you are eligible for a discounted rate. 


Follow us for updates on the latest IFP news!

  • Grey LinkedIn Icon

Phone  |  (804) 675-2980

Email   |

Copyright © 2020 The Institute for Perception. All rights reserved. Please review our privacy policy prior to accessing our website.