ASTM E1958-98

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E 1958 – 98
Standard Guide for
1
Sensory Claim Substantiation
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1958; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
No format or standard for testing related to claim substantiation can be considered without a frame
of reference for where that format or standard would fit within the legal framework that surrounds the
topic. Tests are performed for three basic reasons:
(1)Todeterminehowaproductcomparestoanother,usuallyacompetitororearlierversionofitself;
(2)Toprovidetheabilityformarketingtousepositivereferencesintheirpresentationoftheproduct
to the consumer through advertising or packaging; and,
(3) To determine if a product actually performs within the scope of its intended use.
Whenever a claim is strong, it will be scrutinized closely by competition, and if found inconsistent
with a competitor’s test data, it could well be challenged in one or more forums. It may be challenged
at the National Advertising Division of the Council of the Better Business Bureau, Inc./National
Advertising Review Board (NAD/NARB), one or more networks, or in any of a variety of courts. No
single test design or standard test will prevent a challenge. The criteria used by each of the potential
forumsarenotidenticalandareconstantlyinastateofevolution.Whatwassufficientfiveortenyears
ago probably would not be acceptable today and what will be required ten years from now is pure
conjecture. What can be counted on is that as advocates of their client’s positions, attorneys will
defendteststheydowhilequestioning,withgreatdetail,everyaspectofacompetitor’sprotocolinthe
attempttoswaythearbitertoagreethattheyareintheright.Sowhatisonetodo?Howcanastandard
be helpful?
This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals, skilled in the art of testing, considers
reasonable. This represents a more effective method for both the defendant and the challenger to
determine the viability of a claim. The keyword is “reasonable.” If a particular aspect of a test is not
reasonable for a specific application, it should not be used. Care should be taken to clearly define the
reasons and data supporting a deviation from the standard, as such a departure surely will be
scrutinized.Becauseofthenecessityofsuchdepartures,theword“should”isusedinthisguidewhere
other techniques may have application in certain unusual circumstances.Whenever a test protocol has
been completed, it should be critiqued for weaknesses in reasonability. If you find weaknesses, they
should be corrected, since your competition surely will point them out. But what is reasonable? There
is no specific answer to that question. What is reasonable will depend on the company making the
claim and its posture toward advertising. Some companies are aggressive; others are conservative. It
will depend on the nature of the claim and the status of the competitor, the magnitude of the
advertising campaign and the frequency of the advertisement’s exposure. It will be affected by market
pressures, such as timing, and of course, testing budgets, and the internal dynamics of a company’s
marketing and legal/regulatory approval departments. You can be certain that your competitor will
consider your test unreasonable. This consideration is a given and does not matter. What does matter
is that the forum reviewing your test considers it more reasonable than your competitor’s challenge.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E 1958
1. Scope E 253 Terminology Relating to Sensory Evaluation of Ma-
2
terials and Products
1.1 Thisguidecoversreasonablepracticesfordesigningand
implementing sensory tests, which validate claims pertaining
3. Terminology
only to the sensory characteristics of a product. A claim is a
3.1 Definitions—Termsusedinthisguideareinaccordance
statement about a product, which highlights its advantages,
with Terminology E 253.
sensory attributes or differences compared to itself or other
products to enhance its marketability. Attribute, performance,
4. Basis of Claim Classification
andhedonicclaims,bothcomparativeandnoncomparative,are
4.1 Avital step in the substantiation of an advertising claim
covered. This guide includes broad principles covering select-
is the explicit statement of what the claim will be, or what one
ing and recruiting representative consumer samples, selecting
hopes it will be, prior to actual testing. Providing such a
and preparing products, constructing produc
...