Extrinsic evidence is frequently offered in Federal Trade Commission advertising
deception cases, most often in the form of advertising research, such as copy tests.
Although generally accepted principles exist for copy test evidence presented before the
Commission, how these principles are operationalized can provide fertile ground for
challenges. Thus, the authors review six copy testing and ad interpretation issues from
the recent Stouffer Foods case. The authors discuss difficult tradeoffs inherent in
relative versus absolute claims, multiple claims, control ad groups, control questions,
and disclosure information. The careful consideration of such trade-offs in advertising
research decisions will help in the preparation of extrinsic evidence before the
Commission.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaJoseph W., and Wesley
HutchinsonJ. (1987), “Dimensions of
Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March),
411–54.
2.
American Home Products Corp.
(1981), 98 FTC 136–427.
3.
American Home Products v. The Procter &
Gamble Co., Syntex USA, Inc., and Procter-Syntex Health Products Co.
(1994), WL 727961 (D.N.J.), 1–28.
4.
Bristol-Myers Company
(1975), 85 FTC 688–754.
5.
CampbellDonald T., and FiskeDonald W. (1959),
“Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod
Matrix,”Psychological Bulletin, 56(2),
81–105.
6.
Cliffdale Associates, Inc.
(1984), 103 FTC 110–202.
7.
CohenJoel B. (1977), “Testimony Re:
Proposed Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Advertising for Over-the-Counter
Drugs,”Washington, DC: Federal Trade
Commission, (March 28),
3512–16.
8.
Concurring Statement
(1994), FTC Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga, in the Matter of
Stouffer Foods Corp., FTC Docket No. 9250 (October 4),
1–6.
9.
CookThomas D., and CampbellDonald T. (1979), Quasi-
Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings.Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
10.
DarbyM. R., and KarniE. (1973), “Free
Competition and the Optimum Amount of Fraud,”Journal of Law and Economics, 16(April),
67–88.
11.
FoxmanEllen R., MuehlingDarrel D., and MoorePatrick A. (1988),
“Disclaimer Footnotes in Ads: Discrepancies Between Purpose and
Performance,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 7,
127–37.
12.
FTC Enforcement Policy Statement on Food
Advertising (1994), Washington, DC:
Federal Trade Commission,
1–28.
13.
FTC Guides for the Use of Environmental
Marketing Claims (1992), Washington,
DC: Federal Trade Commission,1–27.
14.
Giant Food, Inc.
(1962), 61 FTC 326–63.
15.
Gillette Co. v. Wilkinson Sword,
Inc. (1991), No. 89, Civ. 3586, slip opinion at 16 (S.D.N.Y.),
January 9.
16.
Handbook of Recommended Procedures for the
Trial of Protracted Cases (1960), 25 Federal Rules
Decisions, 351, 425–26.
17.
HerrPaul (1989), “Priming
Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June),
67–75.
18.
JacobyJacob, and SzybilloGeorge J. (1995),
“Consumer Research in FTC Versus Kraft (1991): A Case of Heads We Win,
Tails You Lose?”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(Spring),
1–14.
19.
Johnson & Johnson * Merck
Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. (1992), 960 F.2d,
294–301.
20.
Kraft, Inc. (1989),
Initial Decision Findings of Fact (Sections: 1–280) and Initial Decision Discussion, 114
FTC 47–115.
21.
Kraft, Inc. (1991),
Gommission Decision, 114 FTC 40–46, 116–51.
22.
Manual for Complex Litigation
(1982) (Federal Practices Series), New York:
Clark Boardman Company, Ltd.
23.
MaronickThomas J. (1991), “Copy
Tests in FTC Deception Cases: Guidelines for Researchers,”Journal of Advertising Research, 31(December),
9–17.
24.
MazisMichael B., McNeilDennis L., and BernhardtKenneth L. (1983),
“Day-After Recall of Listerine Corrective Commercials,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 2,
29–38.
25.
Meyers-LevyJoan (1991), “Elaborating
on Elaboration: The Distinction Between Relational and Item-specific
Elaboration,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(December),
358–367.
26.
MitchellAndrew A. (1983),
“Cognitive Processes Initiated by Exposure to
Advertising,” in Information Processing Research in
Advertising, HarrisR. J., ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,13–42.
27.
MorganFred W. (1990), “Judicial
Standards for Survey Research: An Update and Guidelines,”Journal of Marketing, 54(1),
59–70.
28.
OwenDebra K., and PlylerJoyce E. (1991), “The Role
of Empirical Evidence in the Federal Regulation of Advertising,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
10(1),
1–14.
29.
PlevanKenneth A., and SirokyMiriam L. (1991), Advertising
Compliance Handbook, 2d ed.New York: Practising Law
Institute.
30.
“Positioning Advertising Copy
Testing” (1982), Journal of Advertising,
11(4),
4–29.
31.
PrestonIvan L. (1987), “Extrinsic
Evidence in Federal Trade Commission Deceptiveness Cases,”Columbia Business Law Review, (3),
633–94.
32.
PrestonIvan L. (1989), “The
Federal Trade Commission's Identification of Implications as Constituting Deceptive
Advertising,”Cincinnati Law Review, 57,
1243–1310.
33.
PrestonIvan L. (1992), “The
Scandalous Record of Avoidable Errors in Expert Evidence Offered in FTC and Lanham Act
Deceptiveness Cases,” in Proceedings of the Marketing and Public
Policy Conference, BloomPaul N., and StarrRichard G., eds.
Chicago: American Marketing
Association,2–19.
34.
RussoJ. Edward, MetcalfBarbara L., and StephensDebra (1981), “Identifying
Misleading Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8(September),
119–31.
35.
ShimpTerence A. (1978), “Do
Incomplete Comparisons Mislead?”Journal of Advertising Research, 18,
21–27.
StewartDavid W. (1995),
“Deception, Materiality, and Survey Research: Some Lessons from
Kraft,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(Spring),
15–28.
39.
Stouffer Foods Corp.
(1993a), Complaint Counsel's Brief in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, FTC Docket No. 9250 (May 21),
1–61.
SudmanSeymour (1995), “When
Experts Disagree: Comments on the Articles by Jacoby and Szybillo and
Stewart,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(Spring),
29–34.
44.
Thompson Medical Company, Inc.
(1984), 104 FTC 648–844.
45.
WilkieWilliam L. (1985),
“Affirmative Disclosure at the FTC: Objectives for the Remedy and
Outcomes of Past Orders,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 4,
91–111.
