Winter 2015 ● Issue 18(4)

IN THIS ISSUE

Technical Report

Predicting Preference from Liking Thurstonian modelling can predict

preference splits from ratings. (pages 3-4)

President's Message ....................................1

2015 Student Award .....................................1

MASTER CLASS, March 7 - 9 ...............2

WEBINAR - Part 2: Thurstonian Modeling ...2

APRIL Advertising Claims 12 - 14 Support Course ................5, 6, 7

Meet the Instructors and Invited Speakers ...................................7

Happy, happier, and happiest... (pgs. 3 & 4 )

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

Master Class ..........................2

Webinar - Part 2 .....................2

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

Ad Claims Course .............. 5,6

Instructor Bios ........................7

President's MessageWinter 2015 Issue 18(4)

TECHNICAL REPORTS:

2015

18(4) Predicting Preference from Liking

18(3) Comparing Perceptual Noise in Rating Scales

18(2) Count-Based Comparison Claims

18(1) Identifying and Removing Sources of Bias in Product Tests and Surveys

2014

17(4) Answering Questions in Surveys

17(3) Unfolding

17(2) Confidence Intervals and Consumer Relevance

17(1) Rotations in Product Tests and Surveys

2013

16(4) How to Find Optimal Combinations of Brand Components

16(3) How to Diagnose the Need for 3D Unfolding

16(2) Transitioning from Proportion of Discriminators to Thurstonian

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

a colleague at www.ifpress.com

www.ifpress.com mail@ifpress.com

804-675-2980 804-675-2983

7629 Hull Street Road Richmond, VA 23235To 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 :

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

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN for these upcoming courses:

MARCH 7 - 9, 2016 ........................................The Cloister - Sea Island, GA MASTER CLASS in Sensory and Consumer Science

APRIL 12 - 14, 2016 ................................................The Greenbrier in WV Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles

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

Master Class and Advertising Claims SupportIn March 2016, we will be holding a Master Class in Sensory and Consumer Science at The Cloister, Sea Island, Ga. This is an advanced course for attendees with experience and technical background in the field. It is an ideal course for those who have attended our previous courses or others who have a keen interest in methodology and applications. If you need background reading material prior to attending, I am happy to provide it to you so that you get the most out of the program.

In April 2016, we will present our annual course on Advertising Claims Support. This has been a heavily attended program over the past four years. In addition to our own staff, we will teach this course with nine attorneys with experience in litiga-tion in the US and Canada, NAD claims adjudication and Government consumer protection.

Our technical report in this issue concerns the problem of linking liking data to consumer preference. This issue sometimes arises in setting hedonic specifications.

I look forward to seeing you at one of our programs in 2016.

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

WEBINAR CALENDAR:

DECEMBER 17, 2015 - PART 2 An Introduction to Thurstonian Modeling

Recordings of all previously presented webinars can be ordered at www.ifpress.com

Now Accepting Applications for the 2015 Institute for Perception Student Award

All entries must be postmarked or emailed by Saturday, January 16, 2016

For complete details, visit: http://ifpress.com/student-award/

WEBINAR: December 17 at 2:00 EST An Introduction to Thurstonian Modeling

The Institute for Perception courses and webinars have been qualified for Certified Food Scientist (CFS) recertification contact hours (CH). See details online to find what CFS Certificants may claim.

► REGISTER ONLINE www.ifpress.com/webinarsFee per webinar: Attendance only ($269), Recording only ($289),

Webinar attendance and recording ($359)

Taught by: Dr. John Ennis Following a brief review of the Thurstonian modeling basic ideas, we will explore fur-ther how this framework can help build a relevant and reliable sensory discrimina-tion program.

PAGE 2

Drs. Daniel Ennis, Benoît Rousseau, and John Ennis are pleased to present a Master Class in sensory and consumer science for participants who have at least 5 years of experience in the field and possess a good understanding of existing methodologies.

In this 3-day advanced course, we will begin with a set of principles that we will use to interrelate a diversity of techniques used to understand how people perceive items such as products, concepts and brands.

In the second section, we will discuss unfolding – what it is and why the problem it solves has always been of high interest.

The final section will focus on Graph Theoretic Analysis (GTA). Whenever combinations of discrete items need to be discovered, GTA may be extremely useful. We will explain how to find solutions for combinatorial problems using cliques and bundles, and a technique called backtracking.___________________________

March 7 – 9, 2016 (3 days) .......... $1,950*___________________________* A 20% discount will be applied to each additional registration from the same company made at the same time* Academic discount available on request

Fee includes:► All course materials and a copy of our latest book, Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science► Daily continental breakfast, lunch, and break refreshments► A group dinner on Monday and Tuesday evenings► Three-month free trial of IFPrograms™ software► Complimentary attendance at a quarterly IFP webinar

REGISTER ONLINE AT: www.ifpress.com/short-courses

LOCATION: A discounted room rate has been arranged for course attendees at The Cloister, Sea Island, Ga. (See details online)

Day 1: ThursTonian scaling

Business impacT: How to use the Thurstonian frame-work to optimize your sensory program and reduce costs

● Introduction to Thurstonian scaling for all categorical decision methodologies● Decision rules for m-AFC, triangle, duo-trio, tetrads, same-different and degree of difference, A-not-A, ranking and ratings● Sources of noise: Stimulus, neural, and peri-receptor and how to model them● Psychometric functions for difference testing methods and how to derive and fit them● Relative power and precision of different methods

Day 2: unfolding

Business impacT: How to model a category appraisal study to find the drivers of liking landscape and develop computer-aided product design

● What is unfolding? Degeneracies and what causes them● Deterministic and probabilistic approaches to unfolding● Unfolding to individual ideals and product points – Landscape Segmentation Analysis® (LSA)● Drivers of Liking® theory● Portfolio optimization and liking predictions

Day 3: graph Theory

Business impacT: Designing products and brand imagery with maximal appeal

● The relationship between Graph Theoretic Analysis (GTA), eTURF, and LSA - selecting the best combinatorial tool● eTURF: Creating more efficient Total Unduplicated Reach and Frequency analysis● Graph theory basics and how to find cliques and bundles of items● Quickly finding the best combinations of images, features, and benefits from astronomical numbers of possibilities using backtracking

Each day will end with a small-group project to apply concepts and share ideas among participants.

Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science

A Collection of 52 Technical Report Scenarios Based on Real-life Problems

This book is a must-have tool for professionals in product testing, consumer research, and advertising claims support. It contains our most significant and useful technical reports from the last 16 years. Readers will easily relate to the problems and solutions in each 2-page scenario.

Drs. Daniel Ennis, Benoît Rousseau, and John Ennis use their com-bined expertise to guide readers through problems in areas such as:

Drivers of Liking® Designing Tests & Surveys Ratings & Rankings Difference Tests Advertising Claims Support Combinatorial Tools Optimizing Product Portfolios Probabilistic Multidimensional Scaling Landscape Segmentation Analysis®

► ORDER ONLINE AT www.ifpress.com/books

product testing, consumer research, and advertisingclaims support. It contains our most significant and

useful technical reports from the last 16 years. Readers will easily

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

PAGE 3

Background: Average liking ratings of test products or paired preference proportions are often used to guide product development in consumer product companies. When liking ratings are used, the performance of the products are often tested using an analysis of variance and mean comparisons to select one or more products for further consideration. While a statistically significant difference may provide in-sight on product superiority, quantification of the effect size itself is also often of interest. Paired preference results are particularly intuitive to quantify such an effect size. Some companies use a preference action standard that corresponds to a meaningful measure of superiority, for instance a 55/45 or 60/40 preference split. Preference tests are valuable to compare test results to these thresholds.

A greater number of variables come into play when considering a liking threshold to set an action standard. For instance, the exact structure of a rating instrument, such as a 9-point hedonic scale or a 7-point numerical liking scale, will produce different measures of hedonic difference. A difference of 0.5 on a 9-point word category scale will be different from the same difference on a 7-point numer-ical scale and may even be different from a 9-point end-anchored scale. Paired preferences are not subject to these types of effects. However, it is not always possible or cost-effective to use paired preferences. In these situations, a sequential monadic presentation may be used and average liking ratings calculated. Converting these ratings into expected preference proportions would provide effect size information that can be referred to a preference action standard. This report will provide an approach to making that conversion based on Thurstonian models of different types of hedonic data.

Scenario: You work for a global beverage product organization with responsibility for energy drinks available in two main markets: the US and Brazil. Due to specific development paths and differences in local regulations on usable ingredients, your main brand’s formulation differs between the markets resulting in a high number of ingredients and suppliers that are market-specific. In an effort to stand-ardize your products, your management directs you to investigate the possibility of a single formulation in the two markets. The new formulation should at least be on par with your current brand and main competitor (Competitor A) and be preferred to another smaller player present in both markets (Competitor B). Your team develops two proto- types that can be produced and sold locally (Prototype 1 and Prototype 2). The investigation will therefore involve a total of five products. Due to the high number of possible pairs, you forego a multiple preference test approach and ask your colleagues in both markets to use a sequential monadic design and liking ratings.

Three hundred consumers are used in each location and the results are shown in Table 1. The liking means are provided along with an indication of whether there was a significant difference between product pairs after adjusting for multiple comparisons.

Based on these results, you recommend Prototype 2 since it fulfills the target requirements in both countries: Signifi-cantly better than Competitor B and not significantly differ-ent from Competitor A and your current product. Prototype 1, on the other hand, is found to be significantly inferior to Competitor A and to the current formulation in Brazil and is thus not a viable alternative.

Action Standard: In your project, while significant differences were found, how do they relate to the action standard? Your company has historically considered a 60/40 preference split as the action standard for a meaningful preference. You would like to quantify the results in terms of preference splits so that a final decision can be made whether to choose Prototype 2 or to conduct further research with new alternatives. You only have liking ratings at your disposal and the US and Brazil investigations involved different types of scales.

Linking Liking and Preferential Choice: Thurstonian models for scaling sensory intensities are broadly avail-able for difference and rating methods. When using ratings, the model takes into account the differential use of scale categories by identifying the psychological locations of the scale boundaries and estimating the size of the sensory difference in terms of values1,2. The same approach can be used with hedonic rating data by assuming the exist- ence of an hedonic continuum like one would assume a sen-sory continuum. This approach provides a way to predict preference from liking data. The process is illustrated in Figure 1. The liking scores for two or more products are first

Predicting Preference from LikingBenoît Rousseau and Daniel M. Ennis

Issue 18Issue 18Issue 18(((444)))201520152015

Product Pair Differences

Prototype 1 USA1-9 Point Scale

Brazil0-10 Point Scale

Current 0.05(7.17, 7.22)

0.78(7.31, 8.09)

Competitor A 0.19(7.17, 7.36)

0.58(7.31, 7.89)

Competitor B + 0.80(7.17, 6.37)

+ 0.43(7.31, 6.88)

Prototype 2 USA1-9 Point Scale

Brazil0-10 Point Scale

Current + 0.29(7.51, 7.22)

0.10(7.99, 8.09)

Competitor A + 0.15(7.51, 7.36)

0.10(7.99, 7.89)

Competitor B + 1.14(7.51, 6.37)

+ 1.11(7.99, 6.88)

Table 1. Mean differences from prototypes (with rating means in parentheses). Significant differences are shown in red.

201520152015Issue 18Issue 18Issue 18(((444)))

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

PAGE 4

With this new information, you can now confirm that Prototype 2 is indeed a suitable candidate to replace the current formulation. The superiority of Prototype 2 to Competitor B corresponds to a preference split greater than 60/40, while the non-significant differences with the current formulation and Competitor A correspond to preference splits below the action standard. As for Prototype 1 in Brazil, even though it had a significantly greater liking rating than that of Competitor B (Table 1), the predicted preference split (55/45) is lower than the company’s historic action standard.

Conclusion: While liking ratings can be used to determine whether products differ in terms of liking to consumers, significant differences are not always enough to reach a decision on whether to go ahead with a product modifi-cation. If a preference action standard exists, the use of Thurstonian modeling provides a method to predict pre-ference splits from ratings collected using a monadic or sequential monadic approach.

References (available at www.ifpress.com):1. Kim, K., Ennis, D. M., and O'Mahony, M. (1998). A new approach to category scales of intensity II: Use of values. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13(3), 251-267.2. Ennis, D. M. and Rousseau, B. (2015). A Thurstonian model for the degree of difference protocol. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 159-162.3. Ennis, D.M., and Rousseau, B. (2004). Motivations for product consumption: Application of a probabilistic model to adolescent smoking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19(2), 107-117. 4. 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. 5. Ennis, D. M. and Ennis, J. M. (2013). Mapping hedonic data: A process perspective. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(4), 324-334.

tallied and used with the appropriate Thurstonian model for rating data to estimate all values. The next step is to use the idea that a preferential choice can be modelled as an hedonic 2-Alternative Forced Choice decision between two products. Consequently, the value between two products obtained from the rating data can be linked to the choice proportion in a hypothetical paired preference test. A of 0.54 estimated using the liking ratings corresponds to a pro-portion correct of 65% and thus a 65/35 preference split.

The value of this approach is that it permits the conversion of liking ratings data into more easily quantifiable preference splits. This theory can be used irrespective of the type of hedonic category rating instruments that are used to generate the liking data (numerical, word, pictorial, or others). An alternative to the idea of an hedonic continuum is to assume that each consumer has an ideal point. Then liking and preference data are modelled and related based on this concept. This idea is the basis for a method called unfolding, of which Landscape Segmentation Analysis (LSA) is an example3,4,5. This method is particularly valuable when there is evidence for segmentation.

Predicting Preferential Choice: You reanalyze your data to calculate the underlying values between all relevant pairs of products and use them to deduce the corresponding predicted preference splits. The results are summarized in Table 2.

and Preference Splits

Prototype 1 USA Brazil

Current 0.02 (49/51) 0.31 (41/59)

Competitor A 0.09 (47/53) 0.24 (43/57)

Competitor B + 0.40 (61/39) + 0.18 (55/45)

Prototype 2 USA Brazil

Current + 0.14 (54/46) 0.04 (49/51)

Competitor A + 0.07 (52/48) + 0.03 (51/49)

Competitor B + 0.56 (65/35) + 0.45 (62/38)

Figure 1. Analytical process to predict preference from liking ratings using Thurstonian modeling.

Table 2. values and predicted preference splits for each product pair (splits above 60/40 shown in purple).

How do you compete effectively in an increasingly challenging environment? 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.

The purpose of this course is to raise awareness of the issues involved in surveys and product tests to provide the type of evi-dentiary support needed in the event of a claims dispute.

TUESDAY (APRIL 12, 8am - 4pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Introduction♦ Introduction and scope of the course ♦ History of surveys in Lanham Act cases♦ Hearsay objections♦ Federal Rules of Evidence – Rule 703♦ Daubert effects♦ Admissibility of expert testimony (reliability and relevance)

9:10 – 10:00 | Claims♦ A typical false advertising lawsuit♦ Puffery, falsity, and injury with examples: P&G vs. Kimberly-Clark (2008), Shick vs. Gillette (2005), P&G vs. Ultreo, SDNY (2008)♦ “To sue or not to sue”

10:10 – Noon | A Motivating Case; NAD - Inside and Out♦ Motivating Case: 3D TV1) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)♦ Advertising self-regulation and the NAD process♦ The NAD: View from the outside♦ yNAD Mock Hearing x

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 | ASTM Claims Guide; Methods and Data♦ Review of the ASTM Claims Guide: Choosing a target population, product selection, sampling and handling, selection of markets♦ Claims: Superiority, unsurpassed, equivalence, non-comparative♦ Methods: Threshold, discrimination, descriptive, hedonic♦ Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales

2:10 – 3:00 | Sensory Intensity and Preference; | Attribute Interdependence♦ Sensory intensity and how it arises♦ Liking and preference and how they differ from intensity♦ Attribute interdependencies2) NAD Case #4306 (2005) The Clorox Co. (Clorox® Toilet Wand™ System) 3) NAD Case #4385 (2005) Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (ReNu with MoistureLoc) 4) NAD Case #4364 (2005) Playtex Products, Inc. (Playtex Beyond Tampons)

3:10 – 4:00 | Requirements for a Sound Methodology♦ Types of data♦ Psychometric properties of the survey items♦ Validity: Ecological, external, internal, face, construct♦ Bias: Code, position♦ Reliability♦ Method instructions – importance and impact

WEDNESDAY (APRIL 13, 8am - 4pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Consumer Relevance♦ Drivers of liking♦ Setting action standards for consumer-perceived differences♦ Linking expert and consumer data♦ Clinical vs. statistical significance♦ Consumer relevance in litigation► Litigated Case: SC Johnson vs. Clorox – Goldfish in Bags, 241 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 2001) 5) NAD Case #5197 (2010) Unilever US (Dove® Beauty Bar)6) NAD Case #5443 and NARB #178 (2012) Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief Toothpaste)

9:10 - 10:00 | Consumer Takeaway Surveys♦ What is a survey?♦ 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 questions7) NAD Case #4305 (2005) The Gillette Co. (Venus Divine® Shaving System for Women)8) NAD Case #4981 (2009) Campbell Soup Co. (Campbell’s Select Harvest Soups)

10:10 - 11:00 | Identifying and Removing Sources of Bias♦ Sampling♦ Participation and non-response♦ Uncontrolled individual differences♦ Code and order♦ Leading questions and interviewer effects

11:10 – Noon | The Right Method, Design, Location, and Participants♦ Defining a proper universe♦ Types of sampling: Probability and non-probability, convenience, random, stratified, quota, cluster♦ 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 subjects 9) NAD Case #5049 (2009) The Procter & Gamble Co. (Clairol Balsam Lasting Color) 10) NAD Case #5425 (2012) Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Arm & Hammer® Sensitive Skin Plus Scent) 11) NAD Case #4614 (2007) Ross Products Division of Abbott Labs. (Similac Isomil Advance Infant Formula) 12) NARB Panel #101 (NAD Case #3506) (1999) American Express vs. Visa

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

The course speakers have decades of experience as instructors, scien-tific experts, jurors, and litigators in addressing claims with significant survey and product testing components. National Advertising Divi-sion® (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: (in alpha order) Anita Banicevic, Kat Dunnigan, Christopher A. Cole,

Hal Hodes, Alex Kaplan, Cynthia E. Kinser, Michael Schaper, Annie M. Ugurlayan, Lawrence I. Weinstein

Approximately 18 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 18 CH for their attendance.

2 0 1 6 A P R I L C O U R S E

PAGE 5

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

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, takeaway, design and execution of a national product test, product procurement, analysis, and report♦ Course summary and conclusion

1:00 – 2:00 | Analysis - Interpretation and Communication♦ The essence of hypothesis testing♦ Common statistical analyses: Binomial, t-test, analysis of variance, chi-square test, non-parametric tests, scaling difference and ratings♦ Determining statistical significance and confidence bounds♦ The value of statistical inference in claims support13) NAD Case #4906 (2008) Bayer vs. Summit VetPharm, (Vectra 3D and Vectra)14) NAD Case #5090 and NARB Panel #157 (2009) Bayer vs. Summit VetPharm, (Vectra 3D and Vectra) ► Litigated Cases: SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. vs. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharms. Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2001); ALPO Petfoods, Inc. vs. Ralston Purina Co. (D.D.C. 1989), aff’d (D.C. Cir. 1990); Avon Products vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1994); McNeil-PPC, Inc. vs. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (2d Cir. 1991); McNeil-PPC, Inc. vs. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (2d Cir. 1991); FTC vs. QT, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2006)

2:10 – 3:00 | Test Power♦ The meaning of power♦ Planning experiments and reducing cost♦ Sample sizes for claims support tests♦ Managing Risks: Advertiser claim, competitor challenge15) NAD Case #3605 (1999) Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Brillo Steel Wool Soap Pads)16) NAD Case #4248 (2004) McNeil, PPC, Inc. (Tylenol Arthritis Pain)

3:10 – 4:00 | Testing for Equivalence♦ How the equivalence hypothesis differs from difference testing♦ FDA method for qualifying generic drugs – lessons for ad claims♦ Improved methods for testing equivalence17) NAD Case #5490 (2012) Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate Optic White Toothpaste)

THURSDAY (APRIL 14, 8am - 3pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Ratio, Multiplicative, and Count-Based Claims♦ The difference between ratio and multiplicative claims♦ Why ratio claims are often exaggerated♦ Count-based claims (e.g.,“9 out of 10 women found our product reduces wrinkles”)18) NAD Case #5416 (2012) LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Cinema 3D TV & 3D Glasses)19) NAD Case #4219 (2004) The Clorox Company (S.O.S.® Steel Wool Soap Pads)20) NAD Case #5107 (2009) Ciba Vision Corp. (Dailies Aqua Comfort Plus)21) NAD Case #5617 (2013) Reckitt Benckiser (Air Wick® Freshmatic ®

Ultra Automatic Spray)

9:10 – 10:00 | “Up To” Claims♦ Definition and support for an “up to” claim♦ FTC opinion with litigated case example♦ Statistical models and psychological models22) NAD Case #5263 (2010) Reebok International, LTD (EasyTone Women’s Footwear)

10:10 – 11:00 | What to Do with No Difference/No Preference Responses♦ No preference option analysis♦ Power comparisons: Dropping, equal and proportional distribution♦ Statistical models and psychological models23) 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)

11:10 – Noon | Venues Within and Outside the USA♦ False advertising litigation in Canada – differences from USA♦ Canadian advertising substantiation requirements♦ Advertising dispute resolution outside the USA and Canada♦ When a case spans multiple venues♦ Class action lawsuits► Litigated Case: Rogers Communications/Chatr vs. Commissioner of Competition (2013) 25) NAD Case #5249 and NARB Panel #172 (2010) Merial LTD (Frontline® Plus)

ADVERTISING CLAIMS SUPPORT COURSE___________________________ April 12 – 14, 2016 (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.

Fee includes all course materials, continental breakfasts, break refreshments, lunches, and group dinners.

Course Registration

HOW TO REGISTER

Register online at www.ifpress.com/short-courses where payment can be made by credit card. If you prefer to be invoiced, please call 804-675-2980 for more information.

LOCATION: This course will be held at The Greenbrier® in White Sulphur Springs, WV. Renowned for its standard of hospitality and service, this hotel is an ideal location for executive meetings and consistently receives a AAA 5-Diamond rating.

LODGING: Lodging is not included in the course fee and participants must make their own hotel reservations. A block of rooms is being held at The Greenbrier at a special rate of $195 (plus resort fees & taxes). To make a reservation, please call 1-877-661-0839 and mention you are attending the Institute for Perception 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: Nearby airports include the Greenbrier Valley Airport (LWB, 15 min.), Roanoke, VA (ROA, 1 hr. 15 min.), Beckley, WV (BKW, 1 hr.), and Charleston, WV (CRW, 2 hrs.).

CANCELLATION POLICY: Registrants who have not cancelled two working days prior to the course will be charged the entire fee. Substitutions are allowed for any reason.

PAGE 6

2 0 1 6 A P R I L C O U R S E

PAGE 7

R E G I S T R A T I O N & I N S T R U C T O R B I O S

PAGE 7

USA Litigators (in alpha order)

Christopher A. Cole - Partner, Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. Chris practices complex com-mercial litigation and advises the development, substantiation, and approval of advertising and labeling claims. He has represented several leading consumer products and services companies and has appeared many times before the NAD.

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

Cynthia E. Kinser (Mills) - Deputy and Attorney, Consumer Advocate and Protection Division of the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office. Cynthia works to protect consumers and businesses from unfair and deceptive trade practices, enforces state and federal antitrust laws, and enforces the Unau-thorized Practice of Law statutes.

Michael Schaper - Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City. Mike is a litigation partner who focuses on various types of complex civil litigation, including in numerous areas of intellectual property law, as well as antitrust litigation and other antitrust counseling.

Lawrence I. Weinstein - Partner, Proskauer Rose in New York City. Larry is co-head of the firm’s renowned False Advertising and Trademark Group. His practice covers a broad spectrum of intellectual property law, false advertising, trademark, trade secret, and copyright matters, as well as sports, art and other complex commercial cases.

Dr. 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. 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. 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 also 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. 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 2013 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 adoption of best practices throughout sensory science, serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Sensory Studies and Food Quality and Preference, and is chair of the ASTM subcommittee E18.04 - “Fundamentals of Sensory.”

Scientific Team

National Advertising Division (NAD)

Kathleen (Kat) Dunnigan - Senior Staff Attor-ney, 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 discrimi-nation, civil rights claims, and many employment cases before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Hal Hodes - 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.

Annie M. Ugurlayan - Senior Attorney, the NAD. Annie has handled over 150 cases, with a particular focus on cosmetics and food cases. She is a pub-lished author, Chair of the Consumer Affairs Com-mittee of the New York City Bar Association, and a member of the Board of Directors of the New York Women’s Bar Association Foundation.

Canadian Litigator

Anita Banicevic - Partner, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg in Toronto, Canada. Anita has repre-sented clients in contested misleading advertising proceedings and investigations initiated by Canada’s Competition Bureau, and advises domestic and international clients on Canadian competition and advertising and marketing law.

Legal Team

www.ifpress.com mail@ifpress.com

804-675-2980 804-675-2983

7629 Hull Street Road Richmond, VA 23235