Spring 2015 ● Issue 18(1)

IN THIS ISSUE

Technical ReportIdentifying and Removing Sources of

Bias in Product Tests and SurveysWhat is bias and how does it affect

product test and survey results? (pages 3-4)

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

WEBINAR: Hiding in Plain Sight ..............2

NEW 2014 Webinar Package .....................2

Two Courses in April 2015: .......5, 6, 7

Meet the Instructors and Invited Speakers for the April Courses ...................................7

Bias in paired comparisons... (pgs. 3 & 4 )

Mission Statement:To develop, apply, and

communicate advanced research tools for human perceptual

measurement.

N E W S & E V E N T S

PAGE #

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

Book Update ...........................2

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

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

April 2015 Courses ............ 5,6

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

President's MessageSpring 2015 Issue 18(1)

TECHNICAL REPORTS:

2015

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

16(1) When Are Two Products Close Enough to be Equivalent?

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

What’s New in April...Our Advertising Claims Support course has become an annual event in April at The Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, WV. And this year, directly following this course (held April 13 - 15), we will also present a new, related course on Designing Effective Surveys on April 16 - 17. We have gathered an experienced group of speakers for both courses and look forward to the information sharing and networking that is sure to benefit all of us. This event, now in it’s fourth year, has been heavily attended, so I recommend registering early if you would like to attend. Significant discounts for multiple attendees from the same organization are available. (Please contact us for details at 804-675-2980.)

In the spirit of these upcoming courses, the technical report in this issue concerns bias in product tests and surveys. We hope you find it valuable and that you will join us in April for more insights on this and related topics.

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

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 :

APRIL 13 - 17, 2015 ......................... The Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, WV Advertising Claims Support: Case Histories and Principles Designing Effective Surveys: The Science of Answering Questions

MAY 14 - 19, 2015 .................................................. Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan Internal Sensory Testing: Tetrad Test, Power, and Consumer Relevance Drivers of Liking: Principles and Applications

SAVE-THE-DATE for these upcoming Sensory & Consumer Science Courses:APRIL 29 - 30, 2015 - held in Guadalajara, MexicoNOVEMBER 2 - 6, 2015 - held at The Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, WV

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

R E C E N T LY P U B L I S H E D PA P E R S :

Ennis, D. M. and Rousseau, B. (2015). A Thurstonian model for the degree of difference protocol. Food Quality and Preference. 41, 159-162.

Ennis, J. M. and Christensen, R. (2015). A Thurstonian comparison of the tetrad and degree of difference tests. Food Quality and Preference. 40, 263–269.

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

WEBINAR CALENDAR:

MARCH 19, 2015 Hiding in Plain Sight: Finding New Opportunities using Graph Theory

JUNE 18, 2015 and SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 An Introduction to Thurstonian Modeling - PARTS 1 & 2

PAGE 2

NEW PRINTING NOW AVAILABLE!

Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer ScienceA Collection of 52 Technical Report Scenarios Based on Real-life Problems

Now in its fourth printing, this book is a must-have tool for professionals in product testing, consumer research, and advertising claims support.

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

Drivers of Liking® Combinatorial Tools Ratings & Rankings Optimizing Product Portfolios

Claims Support Difference Tests Designing Tests & Surveys Probabilistic Multidimensional Scaling Landscape Segmentation Analysis®

176 pgs., $95 (plus shipping and VA sales tax, where applicable)

► ORDER ONLINE AT www.ifpress.com/books

N E W S & E V E N T S

See detai led description of courses on pages 5, 6, and 7 of this newsletter ► ► ►

2.5 D A Y C O U R S E

APRIL 13-15, 2015

1.5 D A Y C O U R S E

APRIL 16-17, 2015

“In this age of science we must build legal foundations that are sound in science as well as in law.”

– Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

WHO SHOULD ATTENDThese professional courses are recommended for attorneys specializ-ing in advertising law, market research managers, product developers, in-house counsels, sensory and consumer scientists, and packaging/product testing specialists. Accreditation will be sought in jurisdictions which have continuing education (CLE) requirements.

Webinar SeriesTIME & DATE: THURSDAY March 19 at 2:00 PM EDT

The number of possible combinations of product features, benefits, and branding components is often staggeringly large – so large in fact that high quality combina-tions can lay undiscovered simply because of the sheer number of possible products. In this webinar, we show how to combine newly developed tools from the mathemati-cal field of graph theory with internet-based experiments that are relatively inexpensive and simple to conduct in order to find exciting new product possibilities that have been hiding in plain sight for years.

The webinar is approximately 75 minutes in length, including a 60-minute talk and a 15-minute Q&A session.

Hiding in Plain Sight: Finding New Opportunities

using Graph TheoryTaught by: Dr. John Ennis

Attendance only ($269), Recording only ($289),Webinar attendance and recording ($359)► REGISTER ONLINE www.ifpress.com/webinars

2 COURSES TO BE HELD:

MAY 14 - 19, 2015in Tokyo, Japan

MAY 14 - 16 INTERNAL SENSORY TESTING: Tetrad Test, Power, and Consumer Relevance

MAY 18 - 19 DRIVERS OF LIKING® : Principles and Applications

Instructor: Dr. Benoît Rousseau - The Institute for PerceptionInvited Speaker: Dr. Chinatsu Kasamatsu - Ajinomoto Co.

Courses will be taught with simultaneous English-Japanese translation.► SEE DETAILS AND REGISTRATION ONLINE AT www.ifpress.com/short-courses

ORDER ONLINE ATwww.ifpress.com

possibilities that have been hiding in plain sight for years. 2014WEBINAR

SERIES PACKAGE

$578 for allfour recordings

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

PAGE 3

Background: In product tests and surveys, bias occurs when a measure from a sample systematically differs from the population measure of interest. To put this into statistical terms, a statistic is biased if it systematically deviates from a population parameter, irrespective of the sample size. The existence of bias determines whether one needs a control product or item in a product test or survey.

There are numerous sources of bias that have been identified. These include sampling bias, where a sample of participants or the items to be tested do not represent either the target population or the real test items. Bias also may occur when participation or non-response in a survey is not random, so that the opinions expressed do not represent the target population. Leading questions, interviewer effects, and uncontrolled individual differences can all contribute to bias. Position bias and code bias are two sources that will be discussed in this report. These two sources are relatively easy to control but code bias, in particular, is often ignored in practice. In the case of code bias, the codes themselves may contribute to the responses selected. An extreme example that we have observed involved data from a Chinese research supplier. The Chinese ideogram for the number 4 is close in appearance to that for “death” and therefore the number “4” is often avoided in practical situations such as a floor number in buildings and hotels. When one of the products in their study was coded as “444”, it was not surprising that it received a poor hedonic rating. There are many other less dramatic sources of code bias that, if not controlled, may lead to inaccurate parameter estimates.

Scenario: You are a product development manager working for a food processing company and often submit samples for testing to the sensory and consumer evaluation group. Some of your submissions involve relatively minor blend and flavor modifications which are conducted when lower cost ingredients become available or to qualify a new supplier of a standard ingredient. It surprises you to find that in many instances the submitted samples are found to be significantly different. Sometimes even the same pair retested may give opposite results. When this occurs, there is often a delay in making a decision about a planned change, and sometimes it may lead to new testing. You want to know if these counter-intuitive results are just due to random variation or to an identifiable source of bias.

Evidence for Code Bias: Figure 1 shows the results of two real product tests on beverages conducted in the USA. In both studies there is little or no evidence that either product is preferred because in Study 1 the choice proportions were 44%:44%:11% (Prefer A, Prefer B, No Preference) and in Study 2 they were 45%:45%:10%. In this research, which anticipated the possibility of code bias, both high and low three-digit random code numbers were used for the same product. These particular tests were conducted in eight cit-ies. In four of the cities one product was coded 457 and in the other four cities it was coded 892. Product B was coded the reverse so that both products appeared under both codes.The same design was used in Study 2. Figure 2 shows that when the results are presented by code number, irrespective of product, the higher codes are chosen more often in both

studies, and they averaged 54%:46% over both studies in favor of the higher code. This result is significant at the 95% level.

Identifying and Removing Sources of Bias in Product Tests and Surveys

Daniel M. Ennis and Benoît Rousseau

Issue 18Issue 18Issue 18(((111)))201520152015

Figure 2. Preference counts for A/B and C/D product code numbers. The higher code numbers received the higher counts in both studies and these results are statistically significant at the 95% level.Figure 2. Preference counts for A/B and

C/D product code numbers. The higher code numbers received the higher counts in both studies and these results are statis-tically significant at the 95% level.

Figure 1. Results of two preference tests on beverages. As shown, both studies were conducted in eight cities and, to control code bias, each product was tested under a high code and a low code. The results are preference counts for A/B or C/D over both codes. There is no demon-strable preference for either product in each pair.

201520152015Issue 18Issue 18Issue 18(((111)))

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

PAGE 4

large and small code numbers, other biases can occur due to area codes, emergency numbers, airplane codes (747, 757), sequential runs up or down (234, 654), and numbers repeated in a three-digit triad (222). A set of three-digit numbers that are free from these effects can be downloaded at The Institute for Perception’s website, www.ifpress.com. From this set, codes for product tests can be selected. It may be expected that the effect of code bias would decrease as the product differences or preferences are detectable and the evaluators then have an item-specific basis for their choices.

Conclusion: Code and position bias can occur in any product test or survey context, but in particular when direct comparisons are made between items that are very similar. In these situations we recommend the use of high and low codes for each item but the adoption of this practice in all comparative testing is the best strategy to ensure control over code bias. If multiple pairs of codes are used within a session, we recommend that the difference between the high and low codes for a given pair should be similar to the difference in codes for a different pair. Position bias is easily controlled using balanced rotations3.References1. Ennis, D. M. and Collins, J. (1980). The distinction between discrimi- nation and splitting in paired testing. Philip Morris Technical Report, 80:233.2. Ennis, D. M. and Ennis, J. M. (2012). Accounting for no difference/ preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Quality and Preference, 23(1), 13-17. 3. Ennis, D. M., Rousseau, B., and Ennis, J. M. (2014). Tools and Applications of Sensory and Consumer Science. (pp. 118-119). Richmond, VA: The Institute for Perception.

Evidence for Position Bias: Figure 3 shows the results for the two product tests discussed in the previous section averaged over high and low codes for each position in which the products appeared. It is clear from Figure 3 that the well-known preference for the first item tested was demonstrated in the two studies. A simple solution to overcome position bias is to balance the order of testing by product, a practice commonly adhered to by product testing suppliers.

Blend and Flavor Modifications: An investigation into possible sources of bias in your product test submissions revealed that the typical practice used by the sensory and consumer evaluation group is to assign single three-digit randomly chosen codes to each product tested. This procedure may have led to the unexpected results you obtained, especially in comparisons where the differences between products are small. The testing participants may then resort to any strategy that would justify expressing a preference. You recommend to the product testing group that multiple product codes be used either across different sessions or within the same session so that each product is presented under high and low codes. There was no evidence for position bias as the testing group routinely rotates the samples in a balanced fashion.

Recommended Coding Practice: In previous research1,2 we showed that large numbers of consumers, often as high as 80%, express preferences for putatively non-existent differences when identical products are tested. Under these circumstances code bias may emerge strongly. When small changes in products are of interest, it is most important to control code bias. In addition to code bias created by

Figure 3. Preference counts for the A/B and C/D products. The product tested first received the higher counts in both studies.

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.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.Instructors: Dr. Daniel M. Ennis, Dr. Benoît Rousseau, Dr. John M. Ennis, Anita Banicevic, Christopher A. Cole, Hal Hodes, Don Lofty, David G. Mallen, Michael Schaper, Annie M. Ugurlayan, and Lawrence I. Weinstein* Approximately 12 credits for CLE: Accreditation will be sought for registrants in jurisdictions with CLE requirements.

MONDAY (APRIL 13, 8am - 4pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Introduction♦ Introduction and scope ♦ Survey research and history of surveys in litigation♦ Admissibility of expert testimony

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 – 11:00 | A Motivating Case; NAD - Inside and Out♦ Motivating Case: 3D TV 1) 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

11:10 – Noon | ASTM Claims Guide; Methods and Data♦ Review of the ASTM Claims Guide: Choosing a target popula- tion, product selection, sampling and handling, selection of markets♦ Claims: Superiority, unsurpassed, equivalence, non-comparative♦ Methods: Threshold, discrimination, descriptive, hedonic♦ Data: Counts, ranking, rating scales

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 | Sensory Intensity and Preference; | Attribute Interdependence♦ Sensory intensity and how it arises♦ Liking and preference and how they differ from intensity♦ Attribute interdependencies

2) 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)

2:10 – 3:00 | Requirements for a Sound Methodology♦ Validity: Ecological, external, internal, face, construct♦ Bias: Code, position♦ Reliability♦ Task instructions – importance and impact

3:10 – 4:00 | 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)

TUESDAY (APRIL 14, 8am - 4pm)

8:00 - 9:00 | Consumer Takeaway Surveys♦ How respondents answer questions: Models of survey response, optimizing and satisficing, order effects♦ Filters to avoid acquiescence and no opinion responses♦ Survey questions: Biased, open-ended vs. closed-ended♦ Steps to improve survey questions 7) 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)

9:10 – 10:00 | The Right 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 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

10:10 – 11:00 | 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 support 13) 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)

11:10 – Noon | Test Power♦ The meaning of power♦ Planning experiments and reducing cost♦ Sample sizes for claims support tests♦ Managing Risks: Advertiser claim, competitor challenge 15) NAD Case #3605 (1999) Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Brillo Steel Wool Soap Pads) 16) NAD Case #4248 (2004) McNeil, PPC, Inc. (Tylenol Arthritis Pain)

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 | Testing for Equivalence♦ How the equivalence hypothesis differs from difference testing♦ The FDA method for qualifying generic drugs – lessons for ad claims♦ Improved methods for testing equivalence 17) NAD Case #5490 (2012) Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate Optic White Toothpaste)

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

10:10 – 11:00 | Surveys in Litigation and Before the NAD♦ History of surveys in Lanham Act cases♦ Hearsay objections♦ Federal Rules of Evidence – Rule 703♦ Daubert effects♦ Admissibility of expert testimony (reliability and relevance) ♦ Survey critiques ♦ NAD and litigated case examples

11:10 – Noon | How People Answer Questions♦ Rules of ordinary conversation♦ Context, sequence, and order of question effects♦ Telescoping and memory♦ Open-ended vs. closed-ended questions

Noon – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 | Optimizing and Satisficing♦ A model for answering a question♦ Predicting primacy and recency effects♦ Causes of acquiescence♦ Motivations to optimize♦ “Don’t know” and “no preference” questions

2:10 – 3:00 | Survey Design♦ Developing the concepts to be measured♦ Operationalizing the concepts into survey items♦ Cognitive interviewing and pretesting♦ Data acquisition: Internet, phone, mail, mall intercepts♦ When is a control needed?♦ Selecting a proper control● NAD Case #4305 (2005) The Gillette Co. (Venus Divine® Shaving System for Women)

3:10 – 4:00 | Sampling♦ Defining a proper universe♦ Types of sampling: Probability and non-probability, convenience, random, stratified, quota, cluster

FRIDAY (APRIL 17, 8am - Noon)

8:00 - 9:00 | Identifying and Removing Sources of Bias♦ Sampling♦ Participation and non-response♦ Uncontrolled individual differences♦ Code and order♦ Leading questions♦ Interviewer effects

9:10 – 10:00 | Analysis of Data and Statistical Issues♦ Types of data♦ Psychometric properties of the survey items♦ Types of validity♦ Precision♦ Weighting♦ Predictive models: Linear, logistic♦ Confidence intervals

10:10 – Noon | Workshop: Designing a Survey♦ Small group exercise to design a survey♦ Survey design critique and group discussion♦ Course summary and conclusion

2:10 – 3:00 | Ratio, Multiplicative, and Count-Based Claims♦ The difference between ratio and multiplicative claims♦ Why ratio claims are often exaggerated♦ Count-based claims 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)

3:10 – 4:00 | “Up To” Claims♦ Definition and support of an “up to” claim♦ FTC opinion with litigated case example♦ Statistical models and psychological models 22) NAD Case #5263 (2010) Reebok International, LTD (EasyTone Women’s Footwear)

WEDNESDAY (APRIL 15, 8am - Noon)

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 23) 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)

9:10 – 10:00 | 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)

10:10 – Noon | 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

This course offers an in-depth look at how people answer questions in surveys. We will take you through the process of operationalizing survey concepts, how to improve survey item comprehension, valid-ity, and reliability. A process model for answering a question will be shown to distinguish optimizing behavior from satisficing behavior.Instructors: Dr. Daniel M. Ennis, Dr. Benoît Rousseau, Dr. John M. Ennis, David H. Bernstein, Kathleen (Kat) Dunnigan, and Nancy J. Felsten* Approximately 8 credits for CLE: Accreditation will be sought for registrants in jurisdictions with CLE requirements.

THURSDAY (APRIL 16, 8am - 4pm)

8:00 – 9:00 | Introduction to Survey Design♦ Introduction and purpose of the course ♦ Exercise: Design a short questionnaire to survey consumer takeaway

9:10 – 10:00 | Surveys: Definition and Purpose♦ What is a survey?♦ Purpose of conducting surveys♦ Events and behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, subjective experiences

(e.g.,“9 out of 10 women found our product reduces wrinkles”)

PAGE 6

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

ADVERTISING CLAIMS SUPPORT COURSE April 13 - 15, 2015 (2.5 days)..............................$1,975*

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE SURVEYS COURSE April 16 - 17, 2015 (1.5 days)..............................$1,250*Register for both courses and save $100 ....................... $3,125*

___________________________________________________ *A 20% discount will be applied to each additional registration when

registered at the same time, from the same company, for the same course. *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.

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: These two courses 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 partici-pants 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 courses (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.

Dr. Daniel M. Ennis - President, The Institute for Perception. He holds doctorates in food science and mathematical and statistical psychology with 35 years of experience in product testing theory and applications for consumer products. Danny consults globally and has served as an expert witness in a wide variety of advertising cases.

Dr. Benoît Rousseau - Sr. 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 California, Davis. He manages sensory and consumer science projects with clients in the US and abroad.

Dr. John M. Ennis - Vice President of Research Operations,The Institute for Perception. John is the winner of the 2013 Food Quality and Preference Award for “Contributions by a Young Researcher.” He has a strong interest in the widespread adoption of best practices throughout sensory science.

Scientific Team

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

David H. Bernstein - Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City. David regularly represents clients in advertising disputes in courts nationwide, before the NAD, NARB and television networks, in front of state and federal regulators, and in arbitration proceedings. He is also an adjunct professor at NYU and GWU law schools.

Christopher A. Cole - Partner, Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. Chris practices complex commercial 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.

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.

Nancy J. Felsten - Advertising Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine in New York City. Nancy advises advertising agencies and corporate clients on advertising, marketing and promotional matters. She fre-quently represents clients in false advertising challenges before the NAD, television networks, the FTC, and State Attorneys General.

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.

Don Lofty - Retired Corporate Counsel, at SC Johnson. Don has many years of experience in anti-trust and trade regulation, with emphasis on advertising law, including practice before the NAD. He was the head of the Marketing and Regulatory Legal Practice Group and managed the Legal Compliance Program at SC Johnson.

David G. Mallen - Partner, Loeb & Loeb in New York City. David spe-cializes in advertising law, claim substantiation, and legal issues in media and technology. He was previously the Deputy Director of the NAD where he analyzed legal, communication, and claim sub-stantiation issues, and resolved hundreds of advertising disputes.

Michael Schaper - Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City. Mike focuses on various types of complex civil litigation in the areas of antitrust and intellectual property law, as well as merger review and other antitrust counseling.

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 published author, Chair of the Consumer Affairs Committee of the New York City Bar Association, and a member of the Board of Directors of the New York Women’s Bar Association Foundation.

Lawrence I. Weinstein - Partner, Proskauer Rose in New York City. Larry is co-head of the firm’s renowned False Advertising and Trade-mark 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.

Legal Team

To read more extensive biographies, please visit www.ifpress.com/short-courses/