IN THIS ISSUE

Technical Report

Consumer-Centric Product Mapping: LSA vs. EPM

It is important to understand the underlying model leading to analysis outcomes. (pages 3-4)

President’s Message ....................................... 1

WEBINAR: March 15th .................................. 2 Understanding the Consumer: Preference Mapping vs. LSA

APRIL 17 - 19 Course: Advertising Claims Support ........................5, 6, 7

MAY 8 - 10 Event: Current Topics in Sensory and Consumer Science: SYMPOSIA followed by Four Master Classes ................................ 2

Who can mine the mind of the consumer? ( pgs. 3 & 4 )

Spring 2018 ● Issue 21(1)

N E W S & E V E N T S

Mission Statement:To develop, apply, and

communicate advanced research tools for human perceptual

measurement.

PAGE #

News & Events ........................ 1,2

March Webinar ............................ 2

Technical Report ..................... 3,4

2018 Spring Courses .......... 2,5 ,6

Instructors Bios ........................... 7

President's MessageSpring 2018 Issue 21(1)

www.ifpress.com mail@ifpress.com 804-675-2980 7629 Hull Street Road ● Richmond, VA 23235

To Contact Us...PAGE 1

Client Services: Provide full-service product and concept testing for product development, market research and legal objectivesEducation: Conduct internal training, external courses, and online webinars on product testing, sensory science, and advertising claims supportIFPrograms™: License proprietary software to provide access to new modeling tools

Research: Conduct and publish basic research on human perception in the areas ofmethodology, measurement and modeling

WH AT WE D O :

TECHNICAL REPORTS:

2018

21(1) Consumer-Centric Product Mapping: LSA vs. EPM

2017

20(4) Replicated Preference Testing to Diagnose Consumer Segmentation

20(3) Large TURF Problems: Finding Custom Solutions

20(2) Claiming Superiority and Equivalence Simultaneously

20(1) Preference without a Difference

2016

19(4) Selecting Products for a Category Appraisal with Constraints

19(3) A Process Perspective to Understand Hedonics

19(2) eTURF 2.0: From Astronomical Numbers of Portfolios to a Single Optimum

19(1) Issues in “Up to” Advertising Claims

2015

18(4) Predicting Preference from Liking

18(3) Comparing Perceptual Noise in Rating Scales

To download previously published technical reports and papers from our website, become

a colleague at www.ifpress.com

Detailed information and registration for all courses and webinars is available at www.ifpress.com

C O U R S E C A L E N D A R :

APRIL 17 - 19, 2018 ................The Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, WV Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles

MAY 8 -10, 2018 ......... The Williamsburg Lodge, Colonial Williamsburg, VA Current Topics in Sensory and Consumer Science: May 8, Four SYMPOSIA May 9 - 10, Four Master Classes

WEBINAR CALENDAR:

MARCH 15, 2018 ................................................. 2:00 PM EDT, 75 minutes Understanding the Consumer: Preference Mapping vs. LSA

JUNE 14, 2018 ..................................................... 2:00 PM EDT, 75 minutes Multiple Ideal Points

Symposia and Master Classes This coming May, we will present four Symposia and four Master Classes on topics of current interest in our field. In addition to our own staff, nine invited speakers will present on statistical issues in claims support, consumer relevance of sensory measurements, multivariate mapping, and data science. This will be a really dynamic event and I hope that you can come out to Williamsburg, Virginia to attend. More details are given on our website and on page 2 of this newsletter.

In April, we will present our annual advertising claims course at the Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, WV. Details are given at the end of the newsletter.

Our technical report in this issue contrasts two multivariate mapping methods, EPM and LSA.

Best regards, Daniel M. Ennis President, The Institute for Perception

Our latest books are available to order from our website

ORattend any of our spring programs and

they are included!

► ORDER ONLINE at www.ifpress.com/books

PAGE 2

N E W S & E V E N T S

WEBINAR: March 15th at 2:00 EDTUnderstanding the Consumer: Preference Mapping vs. LSA

Taught by: Dr. Benoît RousseauIn this webinar, we will review the features and assumptions of preference mapping and LSA’s underlying models and describe when the techniques will, and will not, yield similar conclusions. We will use simulated as well as actual project examples to illustrate the similarities and differences in the methods’ outcomes. This information will be valuable to analysts who need to ensure that the conclusions they reach are representative and relevant to the consumer needs they attempt to address.Attendance only ($269) Recording only ($289) Attendance & Recording ($359)► REGISTER ONLINE at www.ifpress.com/webinars

Webinar Library

Sensory Difference Tests

Replicated Preference Testing to Diagnose Consumer Segmentation

Preference without a Significant Sensory Difference? A Solution

An Introduction to Thurstonian Modeling - PART 1 and PART 2

Advances in Tetrad Testing

Developing Consumer Relevant Action Standards for Sensory Difference Testing

Precision of Measurement in Sensory Difference Testing

Discrimination Testing with Batch-to-Batch Variability

Advertising Claims Support

Claiming Equivalence, Unsurpassed, and Superiority Simultaneously

Supporting Count-Based Sensory Advertising Claims

Issues in Supporting “Up-to” Claims

Drivers of Liking® and Landscape Segmentation Analysis®

Understanding the Consumer: Preference Mapping vs. LSA

Mapping Techniques to Link Consumer and Expert Data

Combinatorial Tools

Hiding in Plain Sight: Finding New Opportunities using Graph Theory

Introduction to Graph Theoretic Tools

eTURF 2.0: A Cutting Edge TURF Solution for Datasets of All Sizes

Large TURF Problems: Finding Custom Solutions

Design Issues in Product Tests and Surveys

The Science of Answering Questions

Developments in Applicability and CATA Scoring

Innovation

Invention and Innovation

► ORDER RECORDINGS AT www.ifpress.com/webinars

Catch-up on a specific topic or build a webinar library of your own and save when you order four recordings at a time. Each recording comes with a printable PDF for easy reference.

held at the Williamsburg Lodge in Williamsburg, VATUESDAY - WEDNESDAY - THURSDAY

MAY 8 -10, 2018

3 D A Y E V E N T

Claims Consumer Mapping & Data Support Relevance Unfolding Science

��� M����� C������

CURRENT TOPICS IN SENSORY AND CONSUMER SCIENCE

This program begins with a full day of Symposia on current topics in sensory and consumer science. Then, two days of in-depth Master

Classes will follow to discuss selected issues from the Symposia.SYMPOSIA TOPICS:

● Statistical Issues in Claims Support● Consumer Relevance of Sensory Measurements

● Developments in Multivariate Mapping and Unfolding● Data Science for Consumer Scientists: Staying in the Loop

The symposia are chaired by Dr. Daniel Ennis, Dr. Benoît Rousseau, and Dr. John Ennis and will include diverse presentations from the following invited speakers (listed in alphabetical order):● Andy Basehoar - Senior Statistician, Family Care, Kimberly-Clark● John Castura - Vice President of Research & Innovation, Compusense● Dr. MaryAnne Drake - Professor, North Carolina State University ● Dr. Danielle van Hout - Science Leader, R&D, Unilever● Anthony (Manny) Manuele - Vice President, Molson Coors Global Brewing, Quality, Innovation, and Technical Governance ● Frank Rossi - Director of R&D, PepsiCo / Frito Lay● Dr. Zachary Schendel - Director of UX Research, Netflix● Annie Ugurlayan - Assistant Director, Communications, NAD● Dr. Thierry Worch - Statistician, QI Statistics

Entire Program (SYMPOSIA, May 8 and Master Classes, May 9-10) ........$1,975*SYMPOSIA only ......$495 Four Master Classes .....$395 each

*Save $100 when you register to attend the SYMPOSIA and all 4 Master ClassesFee includes: Presentation manuals, a copy of our latest books, 3-month trial of IFPrograms™ software

(Professional version), complimentary IFP webinar, daily refreshments and lunch, and 2 group dinners.

► See BROCHURE and DETAILS ONLINE at www.ifpress.com/short-courses

Consumer-Centric Product Mapping: LSA vs. EPMBenoît Rousseau and Daniel M. Ennis

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T

PAGE 3

Background: Why do consumers of products or services like them and/or purchase them? This is a classic, complex question with numerous methods to address it and with answers that depend on the specific application. In previous publications we have emphasized the central role of pro-viding a consumer-perceived benefit1 and measuring that benefit. From the viewpoint of analytic methods, we have also discussed the value of approaching this problem from a process-driven consumer perspective2 as opposed to a product or service perspective. Analytic methods to find variables that, for example, drive liking can be broadly classified into two groups. The first group begins with pro-duct or service descriptive information and incorporates liking or other hedonic information post hoc2. The second group includes methods that begin with liking a priori and add descriptive information to attempt to explain the liking analysis2,3. An example of the former is External Preference Mapping (EPM) and an example of the latter is Landscape Segmentation Analysis® (LSA), a form of unfolding. In this technical report we discuss a particular weakness of EPM and contrast it with an analysis based on LSA.

Scenario: You work for a large manufacturer of fruit-flavored soft drinks. You conduct a category appraisal of citrus-flavored beverages to study the performance of some new category entrants and make recommendations on product improvement opportunities. You select a set of 12 products4 that include your main brand, two of your main competitors and 9 other products selected to span the sensory space (labeled P1 through P12). You generate the products’ sensory profiles using your trained internal descriptive panel. You also obtain hedonic information from 250 regular users of the category on a 9-point hedonic scale.

EPM is used to link the two data sets and uncover the category’s drivers of liking. To that end, you first conduct a principal components analysis (PCA) to generate a space into which the 250 consumers will be regressed based on their liking ratings of the 12 products. The first two factors account for 53% of the variance contained in the descriptive analysis data. Figure 1 illustrates the first two components of the sensory space from the PCA.

When attempting to regress the 250 consumers individually onto the sensory space, you realize that many of them cannot be regressed successfully using any of the typical four regression models - vectorial, circular, elliptical, or quadratic. In your case, the poor fitters constitute 45% of your respondent population. This type of result is regularly observed by practitioners who use EPM.

You investigate the consumer liking data by conducting a cluster analysis to help explain your results. There seems to be two consumer groups of similar sizes driven by their liking patterns. The main difference between the two groups is that Group 1 likes P1 and rejects P4 while Group 2 shows the opposite trend: Positive to P4 but rejecting P1.

It is pretty clear from your PCA map in Figure 1, that P1 and P4 are located very close to each other. This means that

when considering the sensory attributes that explain the most variance in the descriptive data, as summarized in the first PCA plane, P1 and P4 are similar. Consequently, many consumers cannot be regressed successfully into the space since their liking patterns are not compatible with the PCA product structure. The PCA result requires that consumers should like P1 and P4 similarly since the first two principal components as assumed to be the drivers of liking. It is apparent that you need to study the assumptions behind the EPM model to see if you can resolve this apparent discrepancy.

Two Spaces: Preference mapping techniques can be catego-rized based on the information they use to create the prod-uct space. EPM uses the sensory descriptive information to create the sensory space and then regresses the consum-ers using their liking ratings. Therefore, the assumption is that the most obvious variables, those found in the first two components of the space, are the attributes driving consumer liking. In typical EPM analyses, it is assumed that sensory characteristics present in higher dimensions are not as im-portant to consumer hedonics. It is possible, through trial and error, to explore other combinations of principal com-ponents and accept the poorer explanation of the descriptive data that they provide when a major principal component is eliminated. This method is usually not very satisfactory.

Issue 21Issue 21Issue 21(((111)))201820182018

Figure 1. PCA Components 1 and 2. Product structure and sensory directions.

Using Unfolding on the Lemon-Flavored Soft Drinks Data: You use LSA to analyze the category appraisal data. The map you obtain is shown in Figure 3. The resulting product space is quite different from that found with PCA on the descriptive data. The most important difference is that P1 and P4 are no longer located next to each other, but are found at the center of two clusters of consumers as outlined by the lighter colored areas. The main driver of liking separating the two clusters is green citrus, an attribute best explaining the fourth component of the PCA. On that fourth dimension P1 and P4 are well separated. However, EPM did not capture this main attribute because consumers were fit on the first two dimensions. EPM assumes that only the most obvious differences are drivers of liking. By using an unfolding model, such as LSA, the product space is built around the characteristics relevant to the consumers’ hedonic reactions.

Conclusion: Many preference mapping techniques are available to link consumer and descriptive information. These techniques all are built on specific assumptions and it is important for the practitioner to understand their underlying models. Typically, EPM assumes that the vari-ables explaining the most variance in the descriptive analysis data are the most important and thus must drive liking. If this is not the case, a large proportion of consumers will not fit on the map. An unfolding technique such as LSA does not make this assumption and thus provides a consumer-centric solution irrespective of the underlying sensory-based product structure. Using a technique that does not offer this flexibility can result in misleading findings and conclusions.

References1. Ennis, D.M. (2012). Invention and innovation. In J. Beckley, D. Paredes & K. Lopetcharat (Eds.), Product innovation toolbox: A field guide to consumer understanding and research (pp. 32-44). Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell.2. Ennis, D. M. and Ennis, J. M. (2013). Mapping hedonic data: A process perspective. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(4), 324-3343. Rousseau, B., Ennis, D. M., and Rossi, F. (2012). Internal preference mapping and the issue of satiety. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 67-74.4. Rousseau, B., Ennis, D. M. and Ennis, J. M. (2017). Selecting products for a category appraisal with constraints. In D. M. Ennis, J. M. Ennis, and B. Rousseau (Eds.), Tools and applications of sen- sory and consumer science (pp. 96-97). Richmond, VA: The Institute for Perception.

201820182018Issue 21Issue 21Issue 21(((111)))

T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T

PAGE 4

Figure 2. Two modeling approaches - EPM and LSA.

Figure 3. Landscape Segmentation Analysis® of lemon-flavored soft drink data.

In the evolution of mapping methods to explain liking, or other measures of hedonicity, it is understandable that researchers who approach the problem from a descriptive analysis viewpoint would adopt a method such as EPM. However, a researcher who approaches the problem from the consumer-centric direction will see the problem differently. In this case, the product space is only based on the liking information from the consumer and then the sensory descriptive information is used to explain the drivers of liking space. LSA is a method based on this principle and takes into account the psychological process used by the consumer to generate a liking score. Figure 2 summarizes the difference between the EPM and LSA approaches.

An advantage of LSA is that, unlike EPM, it does not assume in advance which attributes drive consumer liking. Using a process model, it creates a sensory space that best represents the consumer liking information and then regresses the descriptive data to explain the map. This approach allows the identification of potentially relevant sensory characteristics that may (or may not) be present in higher dimensions of a PCA.

Register for courses online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses PAGE 5

2 0 1 8 A P R I L C O U R S E

Comparative advertising can improve sales, but 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. There is a scientific and legal foundation necessary to support advertising claims.

The purpose of this course is to raise awareness of issues in test-ing product performance and evaluating advertising 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.

Scientific Team: Dr. Daniel M. Ennis, Dr. Benoît Rousseau, Dr. John M. Ennis

Legal Team:NAD: Kat Dunnigan, Anu Gokhale, Hal Hodes

Litigators: Lauren Aronson, Chris Cole, Alex Kaplan, David MallenIn-House Counsel: Kathryn Farrara

Course Registration______________________April 17 – 19, 2018 (3 days)........ $1,975*______________________*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. Please contact us for more information.

Note: 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.

Register online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses where payment can be made by credit card. If you qualify for a fee discount, or would like information about payment by invoice, please contact Susan Longest at mail@ifpress.com or call 804-675-2980 before registering.

Fee includes food/beverage break refreshments, lunches, group dinners,

course manual, and 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

TUESDAY (APRIL 17, 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 perspective10:10 – 11:00 |ASTM Sensory Claims Guide♦ Review of the ASTM Claims Guide: Choosing a target population, product selection, sampling and handling, selection of markets♦ Claims: Superiority, unsurpassed, equivalence, non-comparative11:10 – Noon|Sensory and Hedonic Methods♦ Methods: Discrimination, descriptive, hedonic♦ Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales1) NAD Case #5609 (2013) Starbucks Corp. (Verismo Single-Serve Coffee System)2) NAD Case #5715 (2014) General Mills Inc. (Yoplait Blended Greek Yogurt)3) NAD Case #5782 (2014) MOM Brands Company (Malt-O-Meal Brand Cereals)4) NAD Case #5984 (2016) French’s Food Company (French’s Tomato Ketchup)

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 3:00 |NAD Mock Hearing; Overview of the NAD♦ NAD mock hearing♦ Motivating Case: 3D TV5) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)♦ Advertising self-regulation and the NAD process♦ Preparing for an NAD hearing

3:10 – 4:00 |“Better” and “Greater”; |Attribute Interdependence♦ “Better” and “Greater” hedonic, sensory and technical claims♦ Attribute interdependencies6) NAD Case #5866 (2015) Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Huggies Natural Care Wipes)7) NAD Case #5874 (2015) and NARB Panel #207 (2016) Chattam, Inc. (Nasacort)

LODGING: Lodging is not included in the course fee and participants must make their own hotel reserva-tions. A block of rooms is being held at The Greenbrier at a special rate of $205 (plus resort fees & taxes). To make a reservation, please call 1-877-661-0839 and mention you are attending the Institute for Per-ception course (note: the special rate is not available through online

reservations.) To learn more about The Greenbrier, visit their website at www.greenbrier.com.TRANSPORTATION: The Greenbrier Valley Airport (LWB) in Lewisburg is only a 15 min. shuttle ride from the hotel. Direct flights to LWB are available on United Airlines from Chicago O’Hare (ORD) and Washington Dulles (IAD). Other airports include Roanoke, VA (ROA, 1hr. 15 min.), Charles-ton, WV (CRW, 2 hrs.), and Charlottesville, VA (CHO, 2 hrs. 15 min.).CANCELLATION POLICY: Registrants who have not cancelled two work-ing days prior to the course will be charged the entire fee. Substitutions are allowed for any reason.

PAGE 6

2 0 1 8 A P R I L C O U R S E

WEDNESDAY (APRIL 18, 8am - 4pm)8:00 – 9:00 |Requirements for a Sound Methodology♦ Probability and non-probability sampling♦ The AAPOR report (American Association for Public Opinion Research)♦ Psychometric properties of the survey items♦ Reliability and validity: Ecological, external, internal, face, construct♦ Bias: Code, position♦ Task instructions – importance and impact9:10 – 10:00 |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) 8) NAD Case #5819 (2015) Unilever US (Degree MotionSense and Degree Clinical Protection Antiperspirants) 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)

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 defining test subjects11) NAD Case #3506 and NARB Panel #101(1999) Visa USA, Inc. (Visa Credit Card-Preferred Card Advertising) 12) NAD Case #5425 (2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Arm & Hammer® Sensitive Skin Plus Scent)13) NAD Case #6041 (2016) Unilever United States, Inc. (Suave Essentials Body Wash)

11:10 – Noon | Survey Science♦ 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♦ Predicting primacy and recency effects♦ Motivations to optimize♦ Steps to improve survey questions

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 | Consumer Takeaway Surveys♦ Consumer takeaway surveys: NAD perspective14) NAD Case #5849 (2015) T-Mobile USA (More Data Capacity)15) NAD Case #5926 (2016) Comcast Cable Communications (Xfinity Cable TV) 16) NAD Case #6009 (2016) Epson America, Inc. (Epson EcoTank Supertank Printers) ♦ Critique of cases2:10 – 3:00 |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 side17) 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)

WEDNESDAY continued...

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 challenge20) NAD Case #3605 (1999) Church & Dwight, Co. (Brillo Steel Wool Soap Pads)21) NAD Case #4248 (2004) McNeil, PPC, Inc. (Tylenol Arthritis Pain)

THURSDAY (APRIL 19, 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 recommendation22) 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)

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 equivalence25) 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)

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”)27) NAD Case #5107 (2009) Ciba Vision Corp. (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus)28) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)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 rule31) 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)

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 3:00 |Applying Course Principles and Concepts♦ Group Exercise 1: 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♦ Group Exercise 2: Design a consumer takeaway survey of a fertilizer package statement33) NAD Case #6033 (2016) Bayer CropScience US (Bayer Advanced 3-in-1 Weed and Feed for Southern Lawns)♦ Course summary and conclusion

I N S T R U C T O R B I O S

Register online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses or call 804-675-2980. Limited enrollment, register early.

Legal Team

Scientific TeamDr. Daniel M. Ennis - President, The Institute for Perception. Danny has more than 35 years of experience working on product testing theory and applications for consumer products. He has doctorates in food science and mathematical & statistical psychology and is a Professional Statistician accredited by the American Statistical Association. He has published extensively on mathematical models for human decision-making and was the first to show that humans possess a transducer in the chemical senses. In 2001, he solved the degeneracy problem in multidimensional unfolding. Danny is a recipient of the Sensory and Consumer Sciences Achievement Award from IFT and also the ASTM David R. Peryam Award in recognition of “outstanding contributions to the field of basic and applied sensory science.” Danny consults globally and has served as an expert witness in a wide variety of advertising cases.

Dr. Benoît Rousseau - Senior Vice President, The Institute for Perception. Benoît received his food engineering degree from AgroParisTech in Paris, France and holds a PhD in sensory science and psychophysics from the University of Cali-fornia, Davis. He has more than 20 years of experience in managing projects in the field of sensory and consumer science, actively working with clients in the US, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. His theoretical and experimental research has led to numerous journal articles as well as several book chapters. Benoît is well known for his advanced presentation skills, where his use of sophisticated visual tools greatly contribute to the success of The Institute for Perception com-munications, short courses, and webinars. Dr. Rousseau has recently been appointed as a visiting professor at Chuo University in Japan.

Dr. John M. Ennis - Vice President of Research Operations, The Institute for Perception. John received his PhD in mathematics and also conducted post-doctoral research in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the winner of the Food Quality and Preference Award for “Contributions by a Young Researcher.” John has published in statistics, mathematics, psychology, and sensory science. He has a strong interest in the widespread adop-tion of best practices throughout sensory science, serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Sensory Studies andFood Quality and Preference, and is Chair of the ASTM subcommittee E18.04 - “Fundamentals of Sensory.”

National Advertising Division (NAD)Kathleen (Kat) Dunnigan - Senior Staff Attorney, the NAD. Kat has worked for the Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Division, the Center for Appellate Litigation, and Center for HIV Law and Policy. She has also litigated employment discrimination, civil rights claims, and many employment cases before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Hal Hodes - Senior Staff Attorney, the NAD. Prior to joining the NAD, Hal worked in private practice where he represented hospitals and other health care practitioners in malpractice litigation. Hal has also served as an attorney at the New York City Human Resources Administration representing social services programs.

Anuradha (Anu) Gokhale - Staff Attorney, the NAD. Prior to joining the NAD, Anu was a litigator of intel-lectual property and complex commercial matters at King & Spalding LLP in NYC. She has also served as a visiting lawyer with South Africa’s largest public inter-est organization, Legal Resources Centre, where she handled refugee and environmental advocacy matters.

In-House CounselKathryn Farrara - Senior Marketing Counsel, Uni-lever USA. Kathryn has handled a variety of brands in the personal care, food, and beverage categories. In addition to counseling brands, she handles overarching issues related to Digital & Social Media and Privacy at Unilever. Prior to joining Unilever, she was a Senior Attorney at the NAD.

Litigators (in alphabetical order)

Lauren Aronson - Counsel, Crowell & Mor-ing in Washington, DC. Lauren advises clients regarding the development, substantiation, ap-proval, and defense of advertising claims. She was formerly a counsel in the Advertising, Marketing & Media division at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Christopher A. Cole - Partner, Crowell & Mor-ing in Washington, DC. Chris practices complex commercial litigation and advises the develop-ment, substantiation, and approval of advertising and labeling claims. He has represented leading consumer products and services companies and appeared many times before the NAD.

Alexander Kaplan - Partner, Proskauer Rose in NYC. Alex represents and advises a range of consumer product, food and beverage, pharma-ceutical, and medical device companies before the NAD and federal courts. He also frequently counsels clients concerning advertising and mar-keting claim substantiation and review.

David G. Mallen - Partner, Loeb & Loeb in NYC. David’s focus is in the areas of advertising and consumer protection law. He co-chairs the firm’s Advertising Disputes practice and represents clients in disputes and investigations before the FTC and state agencies. As former NAD Deputy Director, he has worked with advertisers to both defend and challenge claims.