site
stats
 

MAY 2022 PROGRAM

IFP_Ad-Claims-CRS-Logo.png
WILLIAMSBURG2022-600dpi.jpg

May 24 - 26, 2022

 

Presented at The Williamsburg Lodge

Williamsburg, VA

 

 

 

 

 

and also live streamed via Zoom

In-person attendance | $1,975*

Virtual attendance | $1,575*

* A 10% discount to each additional registration when registered at the same time, from the same company, and reduced or waived course fees to non-profit entities, students, judges, government employees, and others. Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits will be sought upon request. This program qualifies for Certified Food Scientist contact hours (CH). CFS Certificants may claim 16 CH for their attendance. For more information, please contact us

This course has been developed for sensory and consumer scientists, product developers, market research managers, package/product testing specialists, and attorneys specializing in advertising law.

Live%20Streaming%20Logo%20BLUE_edited.png
CFS.jpg

REGISTRATION

FEE

INCLUDES:

  • Printed slide manual and NAD Case studies

  • A printed copy of our book, Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science and PDF downloads of the following 2 books: Readings in Advertising Claims Substantiation, and Thurstonian Models: Categorical Decision Making in the Presence of Noise

  • Food and beverage refreshments each day, plus lunch and dinner on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The instructors for this course will be:

Daniel-Ennis.png

The Institute for Perception

Benoit-Rousseau.png

The Institute for Perception

Will Russ.png

The Institute for Perception

Lauren Aronson.png

Crowell & Moring

PIX-Wang.ZhengRGB copy.png

National Advertising Division

Larry-WeinsteinRGB copy.png

Lawrence Weinstein Dispute Resolution Services

PIX-Kovalerchik.CarrieRGB copy.png

Unilever USA

David-Mallen-biopix (1).png

Loeb & Loeb

PIX-Santos.JenniferRGB copy.png

National Advertising Division

LSutton Headshot.png

National Advertising Division

Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles
Tuesday, May 24

Advertising Claims Support  |  9am - 10am

Topics

  • 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

Topics

  • 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

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

Topics

  • The arbitration process

  • Review of the ASTM Claims Guide

    • Evolution of the Guide content

    • Choosing a target population, product selection, sampling and handling, selection of markets

    • Claims: Superiority, unsurpassed, equivalence, non-comparative

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

Topics

  • 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 #5425 (2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Arm & Hammer® Sensitive Skin Plus Scent)
    2) NAD Case #5782 (2014) The MOM brands Company (Malt-O-Meal Cereals)
    3) NAD Case #6041 (2016) Unilever United States, Inc. (Suave Essentials Body Wash)

NAD Mock Hearings; Overview of the NAD  |  2:10pm - 4pm

Topics

  • NAD Mock Hearing #1: MillerCoors - Miller Lite vs Bud Light

  • NAD Mock Hearing #2: General Mills - Yoplait vs Chobani

  • Advertising self-regulation and the NAD process

  • Preparing for an NAD hearing
    4) NAD Case #5129 (2009) MillerCoors, LLC (Miller Lite Beer)
    5) NAD Case #5715 (2014) General Mills Inc. (Yoplait Blended Greek Yogurt)

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

Topics

  • Methods: Difference, descriptive, hedonic

  • Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales

  • “Better” and “Greater”, hedonic, sensory, and technical claims ♦ Attribute interdependencies
    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)

Wednesday, May 25

Consumer Relevance  |  9am - 10am

Topics

  • Setting action standards for consumer-perceived differences

  • Linking expert and consumer data

  • Clinical vs. statistical significance Litigated Case: (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc vs. Clorox Co. (cat litter)
    9) NAD Case #5974 (2010) Comcast Communications, Inc. (Xfinity Internet, Television & Telephone Services)
    10) NAD Case #6025 (2010) Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (PeroxiClear Contact Lens Peroxide Solution)
    11) NAD Case #6131 (2017) Too Faced Cosmetics, LLC. (Better Than Sex Mascara)

Survey Principles  |  10:10am - 11am

Topics

  • Answering questions

  • 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

Topics

  • 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 (within subject), 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  |  12:10am - 1pm

Topics

  • Consumer takeaway surveys: NAD perspective, critique of cases
    12) NAD Case #5849 (2015) T-Mobile USA (More Data Capacity)
    13) NAD Case #5926 (2016) Comcast Cable Communications (Xfinity Cable TV)
    14) NAD Case #6009 (2016) Epson America, Inc. (Epson EcoTank Supertank Printers)

Consumer Takeaway Survey Research  |  2:10am - 3pm

Topics

  • Independent research on the Bayer Advanced fertilizer case
    15) 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

Topics

  • Hypothesis testing

  • Determining statistical significance and confidence bounds

  • Communicating claim requirements to the business side
    16) NAD Case #5569 (2013) InterHealth Nutraceuticals (Zychrome Dietary Supplement)
    17) NAD Case #5755 (2014) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Olay Sensitive Body Wash)
    18) NAD Case #6236 (2018) Abbott Nutrition (Similac Human Milk Fortifier) Litigated Case: (S.D.N.Y. 1994) Avon Products vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Skin-So-Soft)

Test Power  |  4:10pm - 5pm

Topics

  • The meaning of power

  • Planning experiments and reducing cost

  • Sample sizes for claims support tests

  • Managing Risks: Advertiser claim, competitor challenge
    19) NAD Case #6065 (2017) Shell Oil Co. (Shell V-Power NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline)
    20) NAD Case #6164 (2018) The Proctor & Gamble Co. (Finish® Quantum® Max Automatic Dishwasher Detergent)

Thursday, May 26

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

Topics

  • No preference option analysis

  • Power comparisons: Dropping, equal and proportional distribution

  • Statistical models and psychological models

  • ASTM recommendation
    21) NAD Case #5453 (2012) Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice) 22) NAD Case #6037 (2016) Mizkan America, Inc. (RAGU Homestyle Traditional Sauce)

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

Topics

  • 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
    23) NAD Case #5609 (2013) Starbucks Corp. (Verismo Single-Serve Coffee System)
    24) NAD Case #5822 (2015) Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC (Huggies® Little Snugglers Diapers)
    25) NAD Case #5829 and NARB Panel #202 (2015) Bayer HealthCare, LLC (Claritin and Claritin-D)

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

Topics

  • The difference between ratio and multiplicative claims

  • Examples of multiplicative claims ♦ Count-based claims (e.g.,“9 out of 10 women found our product reduces wrinkles”)
    26) NAD Case #5107 (2009) Ciba Vision Corp. (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus)
    27) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)
    28) NAD Case #5484 (2012) Reynolds Consumer Products (Hefty® Slider Bags)
    29) NAD Case #5779 (2014) S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Scrubbing Bubbles Heavy Duty Cleaner with fantastik & Scrubbing Bubbles Bleach 5-in-1 All Purpose Cleaner with fantastik)
    30) NAD Case #5934 (2016) Rust-Oleum Corp. (Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2X Spray Paint)

“Up To” Claims and Conclusion  |  12:10am - 1pm

Topics

  • Definition and support for an “up to” claim

  • FTC opinion on windows marketers claim

  • “Up to” energy savings claim at the NAD
    31) NAD Case #5876 (2015) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Duracell Coppertop & Duracell Quantum Alkaline Batteries)

 

Register

Please enter your information below to register for this course. Those registering 2 or more attendees from the same company are eligible for a 10% discount on the 2nd registration. Please contact us before registering if you are eligible for a discounted rate. 

arrow&v