The authors review the principal surveys offered as evidence in FTC v. Kraft, Inc. (1991). The authors explain that the FTC's survey (Stewart 1987) is flawed in universe definition, question wording, experimental design, and analyses, and argue that though Kraft's survey (Jacoby 1988) employed generally recognized and accepted scientific practices, especially as applied in surveys conducted for litigated matters, the FTC Commissioners relied on the survey proffered by the FTC Staff. In addition, they dismissed Kraft's main findings and only relied on it for the one uncontested finding that supported the FTC's position. The authors discuss the implications of such actions and also respond to Stewart's (1995) article, which presents contrasting analyses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson (1987), Supp. 568, 581 (S.D.N.Y.).
2.
Borden, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc. (1984), 224 U.S.P.Q.
3.
CampbellDonald T., and StanleyJulian C. (1963), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
CookThomas D., and CampbellDonald T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
5.
Federal Trade Commission (1983), Policy statement on deception. 45 ATRR 689 (October 27). Reprinted in re FTC's enforcement policy against deceptive acts or practices, Commerce Clearing House, 50(November), 445.
6.
Federal Trade Commission v. Bristol Myers (1975), 85 ETC. 688.
7.
Federal Trade Commission v. Kraft, Inc. (1991), Final Order. Docket No. 9208, (January 30), Lexis 38. U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit. 970 F. 2d 311; U.S. App. LEXIS 17575; 1992–2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69, 911, July 31.
8.
Federal Trade Commission v. Sterling Drug (1983), 102 FTC 395
9.
Federal Trade Commission v. Thompson Medical Co. Inc. (1984), 104 FTC 648. Affirmed 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Circ.) 1986.
10.
FordGary T., and CalfeeJohn E. (1986), “Recent Developments on FTC Policy on Deception,”Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 82–103.
11.
Frisch's Restaurants Inc. v. Shoney's Inc. (1985), 759 F.2d 1261, (6th Circuit).
12.
Gillette Co. v. S.C. Johnson Inc. (1991), Appeal Before the National Advertising Review Board.
13.
Hampton-SosaCynthia, ed. (1991), Advances in Claim Substantiation: Proceedings of the National Advertising Division Workshop, Vol. 3. New York: Council of Better Business Bureaus.
14.
Handbook of Recommended Procedures for the Trial of Protracted Cases, (1960) 25 F.R.D. 351, 425–6.
15.
HilgardErnest R. (1971), “Toward a Responsible Social Science,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 1–6.
16.
Home Box Office, Inc. v. Showtime/The Movie Channel Inc. (1987), 665 F. Supp. 1079, 1084 (SDNY), affirmed 832 F.2d 1311 (2nd Circuit).
17.
Indianapolis Colts, Inc., NFL Properties, Inc., and National Football League v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club, James L. Speros and Canadian Football League, 34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994).
18.
JacobyJacob (1985), “Survey and Field Experimental Evidence,” in The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, KassinSaul M., and WrightsmanLawrence S., eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 175–200.
19.
JacobyJacob (1988), “The Materiality of Calcium in Consumer Purchase Decision Making and Usage Behavior With Respect to Kraft Singles Cheese Slices.” Proffered in FTC v. Kraft, Inc. Docket No. 9208, (April).
20.
JacobyJacob, and HoyerWayne D. (1982), “On Miscomprehending Televised Communication: A Rejoinder,”Journal of Marketing, 46(4), 35–43.
21.
JacobyJacob, and HoyerWayne D. (1987), “The Comprehension and Miscomprehension of Print Communications.”Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
JacobyJacob, and HandlinAmy H. (1991), “Non-Probability Sampling Designs for Litigation Surveys,”The Trademark Reporter, 81(2), 169–179.
23.
JacobyJacob, HandlinAmy H., and SimonsonAlex (1994), “Survey Evidence in Deceptive Advertising Cases Under the Lanham Act: An Historical Review of Comments from the Bench,”The Trademark Reporter, 84, 541–85.
24.
Johnson & Johnson-Merck v. Rhone Poulenc-Rorer (1994), U.S. Court of Appeals (Third Circuit) No. 93–1349, Slip Op. (March 15).
25.
KentFelix H. (1991), “The ‘Kraft’ Case: Symbol of FTC Activity,”New York Law Journal, (June 21), 3.
26.
Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1992), U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 970 F.2d 311.
27.
LoftusElizabeth F. (1979), Eyewitness Testimony.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LoftusElizabeth F. (1982), “Interrogating Eye-Witnesses—Good Questions and Bad,” in Question Framing and Response Consistency, HogarthRobin M., ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., 51–65.
29.
LoftusElizabeth F., and PalmerJ.C. (1974), “Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory,”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–89.
30.
LoftusElizabeth F., and ZanniG. (1975), “Eyewitness Testimony: The Influence of the Wording of a Question,”Bulletin of the Psychonomoic Society, 5, 86–88.
31.
Manual for Complex Litigation (1982), 5th ed. 2.712. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Judicial Center.
32.
MaronickThomas J. (1991), “Copy Tests in FTC Deception Cases: Guidelines for Researchers,”Journal of Advertising Research, 31(6), 9–17.
33.
McCarthyJoseph Thomas (1992), Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 3rd ed. Rochester, New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan.
34.
MorganFred (1990), “Judicial Standards for Survey Research: An Update and Guidelines,”Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 59–70.
35.
National Football League Properties, Inc. v. Wichita Falls Sportswear (1982), 532 F. Supp. 651. (W.D. Wash.)
36.
OrneMartin T. (1962), “On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment,”American Psychologist, 17, 776–83.
37.
OwenDebra, and PlyerJoyce E. (1991), “The Role of Empirical Evidence in the Regulation of Advertising,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(1), 1–14.
38.
PlevanKenneth A., and SirokyMiriam (1991), Advertising Compliance Handbook, 2nd ed. New York: Practicing Law Institute.
39.
PrestonIvan (1986), “Data-Free at the FTC? How the Federal Trade Commission Decides Whether Extrinsic Evidence of Deception is Required,”American Business Law Journal, 24(3), 360–76.
40.
PrestonIvan (1987), “Description and Analysis of FTC Order Provisions Resulting from References to Tests of Surveys,”Pepperdine Law Review, 14(2), 229–312.
41.
PrestonIvan (1989) “The Federal Trade Commission's Identification of Implications as Constituting Deceptive Advertising,”University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1243–1310.
42.
PrestonIvan (1992), “The Scandalous Record of Avoidable Errors in Expert Evidence Offered in FTC and Lanham Act Deceptiveness Cases,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 57–67.
43.
RichardsJef I., and PrestonIvan L. (1992), “Proving and Disproving Materiality of Deceptive Advertising Claims,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 45–56.
44.
SchumanHoward, and PresserStanley (1981), Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys.New York: Academic Press.
45.
StewartDavid W. (1987), “Advertising Copy Test. Report of Kraft Advertising Test Conducted by Market Opinion Research for the Federal Trade Commission,” (December).
46.
StewartDavid W. (1995), “Deception, Materiality and Survey Research: Some Lessons from Kraft,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(Spring), 15–28.
47.
Uncle Ben's v. General Foods (1989), (USDC SDNY). Matter settled out of court.
48.
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co. (1984), 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir.).
49.
WilkenfeldJudith (1991), “Use of Extrinsic Evidence by the FTC in Advertising Cases,”Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 40–43.
50.
WilkieWilliam L. (1974), “Research on Counter and Corrective Advertising,” in Advertising and the Public Interest, DivitaSalvatore F., ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 189–202.
