1、Designation:E195812Standard Guide forSensory Claim Substantiation1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1958;the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or,in the case of revision,the year of last revision.A number in parentheses indicates t
2、he year of last reapproval.Asuperscript epsilon()indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONFormats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without aframe of reference of where that format or standard would fit within the leg
3、al framework thatsurrounds the topic.Tests are performed for three basic reasons:(1)Comparison of ProductsDetermines how one product compares to another,usually acompetitor or earlier version of itself.(2)Substantiation of ClaimsEnables marketing personnel to use positive references throughadvertisi
4、ng or packaging,or both,in the presentation of the product to the consumer.(3)Test Performance Ascertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scopeof its intended use.Compelling and aggressive claims are sure to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms,and ifinconsistencies
5、are found through competitive test data,the claims could be challenged in one or moreof the following venues:(1)National Advertising Division of the Council of the Better BusinessBureau,Inc.(NAD),(2)National Advertising Review Board(NARB),(3)one or more media,suchas print,broadcast,or electronic med
6、ia,(4)Consumer Advocacy Organizations,and(5)Civil orFederal courts.No single test design or standard test will prevent challenges.The criteria used by each of thepotential forums are not identical and are constantly evolving.With the introduction of newtechnologies coupled with changing consumer dem
7、ands,testing processes and protocols that weresufficient five or ten years ago may not hold up under todays criteria and scrutiny.Conversely,it canonly be speculated about the testing requirements of the future.The one constant is that,as advocatesof their clients positions,attorneys will defend the
8、ir clients testing processes and protocol whilequestioning with great detail every aspect of their competitors protocol in the attempt to sway thearbiter to agree that their clients are in the right.This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who are skilled in the science of testingconsid
9、er reasonable,and represents an effective method for both defendant and challenger todetermine the viability of a claim.The keyword is“reasonable.”If a particular aspect of a test is notreasonable for a specific application,it should not be used.Care should be taken to clearly define thereasons and
10、data supporting a deviation from the standard,as any departure invites scrutiny.Sincedepartures are inevitable,the word“should”is used in this guide to indicate when other techniquesmay have application in certain unusual circumstances.Whenever a test protocol has been completed,it should be critiqu
11、ed for weaknesses in reasonability.If weaknesses are found,corrective actionshould be taken,since the competition may point out any weakness or discrepancy and challenge the“reasonableness”of the study.With the importance of“reasonableness,”the question remains,“What is reasonable?”Unfortunately,the
12、re is no specific answer to that question.The measure of“reasonable”depends onthe company making the claim and its approach toward advertising.Some companies are aggressive;others are conservative.It will depend on the nature of the claim and the status of the competitor,themagnitude of the advertis
13、ing campaign,and the frequency of the advertisements exposure.Marketpressures(such as timing),testing budgets,and the internal dynamics of a companys marketing andlegal/regulatory approval departments also affect the interpretation of“reasonable.”Competition willconsider most tests unreasonable;ther
14、efore,it is more important to focus on whether the review boardconsiders the test more reasonable than the competitors challenge.Copyright ASTM International,100 Barr Harbor Drive,PO Box C700,West Conshohocken,PA 19428-2959.United States1 1.Scope1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designi
15、ng andimplementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining onlyto the sensory or perceptual attributes,or both,of a product.This guide was developed for use in the United States and mustbe adapted to the laws and regulations for advertisement claimsubstantiation for any other country.A claim i
16、s a statementabout a product that highlights its advantages,sensory orperceptual attributes,or product changes or differences com-pared to other products in order to enhance its marketability.Attribute,performance,and hedonic claims,both comparativeand non-comparative,are covered.This guide includes broadprinciples covering selecting and recruiting representativeconsumer samples,selecting and preparing products,construct-ing product rating forms,test execution,and statistical han-dling of data.T
