160 likes | 268 Views
Methodological Issues in Consumer Protection Surveys. Michael B. Mazis School of Business American University 2007 ABA Consumer Protection Conference. FTC v. Telebrands. $19 million in Ab Force sales – 2001 to 2002 Complaint – September 2003 ALJ opinion – September 2004
E N D
Methodological Issues in Consumer Protection Surveys Michael B. Mazis School of Business American University 2007 ABA Consumer Protection Conference
FTC v. Telebrands • $19 million in Ab Force sales – 2001 to 2002 • Complaint – September 2003 • ALJ opinion – September 2004 • Commission Opinion – Sept. 2005 • Affirmed in Fourth Circuit – Aug. 2006
Ab Force Ads • EMS contraction of stomach muscles • Recall commercials for other ab belts • No express claims about weight loss or fat loss • Show models • Implied claims • Massage?
FTC Survey • Open-Ended Questions – What did ad communicate? (22% flat abs, lose weight/fat, gets you in shape) • Closed-Ended Q’s – Using Ab Force… • Well-defined abdominal muscles (65%) • Lose inches around waist (58%) • Lose weight (43%) • Effective alternative to exercise (39%) • Removes fat deposits (23%)
Is the Ab Force ad deceptive? Alternative Explanations • Inattentive respondents • “Yea Saying” • Pre-Existing Beliefs – about other Ab ab belt ads • Non-deceptive elements of ad • Questions may be leading or biased
Noise • Extraneous factors that make it impossible to state that ad CAUSED the observed results (deception) • How to control for NOISE?
Controls - Filters • Questioning Approaches • Filter Questions – eliminate respondents who are guessing “Did the ad say, show or imply that Ab Force improves users’ appearance, fitness, or health?” (to qualify for closed-ended questions)
Controls – Yea-Saying • “Yea-Saying” • “Did or didn’t the ad say, show or imply that Ab Force improves users’ appearance, fitness, or health or don’t you know?” • Necessary but not sufficient controls
Control Questions • Add additional items to control for yea-saying – items not appearing in challenged ad yet plausibly associated with product • Using AbForce… • Lowers blood pressure (6%) • Relieves pain from stomach ulcers (5%) • Relieves nausea (4%) • Limited as a control – controls for yea-saying only
Control Advertisements • Control for Pre-Existing Beliefs • Control for non-deceptive elements of ad • Goal: To show respondent a non-deceptive ad as close as possible to allegedly deceptive ad • Modified Ad – purge misleading elements; correct misimpression
Potential Problems with Creating Modified Ads • Technical difficulties – print vs. TV ads • Brand name – Ab Force/Aspercreme • May be little remaining • How much to remove – “fully cleansed” (Stouffer)
2. Ad with Disclaimer • Corrects alleged deception with statement • “Ab Force is effective for massage” • Potential problems • What should be the message? • Is message effective? • Will consumers notice it and believe it?
3. Same Brand – Different Ad • Often used for TV ads (FTC v. Kraft) • Problems • Must have an available non-misleading ad for brand • What is “best” ad to use? (multiple control ads)
4. Different Brand’s Ad • Used when no other control ad available (FTC v. Novartis) • Problem – many differences between test ad and control ad
Ab Force: Test vs. Control Ads • Closed-Ended Q’s – Using Ab Force… • Well-defined abdominal muscles (65% - 48% = 17%) • Lose inches around waist (58% - 42% = 16%) • Lose weight (43% - 28% = 15%) • Effective alternative to exercise (39% - 29% = 10%) • Removes fat deposits (23% - 19% = 4%)
Conclusions • No cookbook studies • Control questions – useful but not usually sufficient • Control Ads (or other stimuli) used in most studies • Trade-offs in selecting control ads • Knowledgeable, Experienced, and Independent Expert