10 STEPS TO CREATING SUCCESSFUL SURVEYS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION

  

    

How to ensure your research study will stand up in court

Survey research is considered necessary to have as evidence in many Intellectual Property (IP) disputes.  Most judges expect one because a survey represents the voice of the customer.  In addition, if one side introduces a survey to support their argument, the other side must have one to provide equal leverage.

Here are ten steps to help create a successful survey for uses in IP litigation:

1. Determine what kind of survey is needed to best support your case in an IP dispute.
2. Hire two legal survey specialists: an experienced designer of legal research as your testifying expert, and an experienced research firm professional as your executional expert.
3. Carefully determine what universe of consumers to sample.
4. Design an unbiased survey in terms of sample and questionnaire wording.
5. Execute the survey using the necessary quality control procedures.
6. Use double-blind interviewing, where neither the interviewer nor the respondent is aware of the client or the sponsor of the survey.
7. Validate the results by re-contacting a minimum of 75% of all respondents.
8. Code verbatim responses twice, using two different people as coders to compare results.
9. Keypunch the data twice to eliminate all errors, and ensure 100% verification.
10. Submit your survey findings via a written report or affidavit from the testifying expert.

For more information, contact:

Larry Herman, Senior Vice President

Target Research Group, Inc.

845-426-1200, ext. 27

larry.herman@targetresearchgroup.com

A CAUTIONARY "TAIL" ABOUT TESTING FOR PARITY

 

USE CAUTION IN SETTING ACTION STANDARDS FOR PARITY

Most market research testing is conducted looking for superiority: 

• Is this new product better than the Current?
• Is my company's product better than a product made by a competitor?
• Which of several new commercials or concepts is most effective in generating purchase interest, in communicating a key copy point, in conveying the best image for a new product?

In these situations, action standards are traditionally established at the 90% or 95% level of confidence, using either a one-tail test or a two-tail test.  If there is an in-going hypothesis that the new product is better or if there is a desire to support an advertising claim of superiority, a one-tail test may be used.

However, sometimes the objective of a study is to determine if "parity" exists, for example between two products.  One of the more common examples of this is a Margin Improvement product (also called a Cost Reduction). The action standard to determine if the Margin Improvement is acceptable is generally set so that the reformulation should achieve parity with the Current product.  In this situation, using a two-test at the 90% level of confidence is not appropriate and could represent an unacceptable risk of alienating the franchise.     

While it seems contrary to expectations, when testing for parity, a lower level of confidence represents a more stringent test.  Historically, action standards for parity are established the 67% level of confidence using one-tail test) to ensure that there is no difference between the products.

The following hypothetical example has been created to illustrate the differences in interpretation that could occur if the wrong actions standards are used.  A Paired Comparison Home Use Test of a Margin Improvement vs. Current is conducted among 200 users of a brand.  Based on overall preference, 55% prefer Current and 45% prefer the Margin Improvement (no preference split equally).  If the action standard had been set as parity at the 90% level of confidence (two-tail test), the conclusion that would be reached is that the Margin Improvement is at parity with Current.  However, if the action standard had been set at the 67% level of confidence using a one-tail test, the Margin Improvement would be rejected because it fails to achieve parity with Current.  Using the wrong action standard could represent a risk of franchise alienation.

 

		Action Standards
	Total Sample(200) %	90% level of confidence (two-tail test)	67% level of confidence (one-tail test)
Prefer Current	55
Prefer Margin Improvement	45	At parity	Fails to achieve parity

 

To put this another way, when two numbers are tested for significance at the 90% level of confidence, if they are not significantly different, the statistical conclusion that is drawn is that the two products are at parity.  However, it is unlikely that anyone would want to replace a Current product with a Margin Improvement that loses to the Current product at the 89% level of confidence. However, if an action standard of parity at the 90% level of confidence using a two-tail test, a loss at the 89% level of confidence vs. Current would pass the action standards.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the difference between using the 90% level of confidence two-tail test and the 67% level of confidence one-tail test for parity. 

Figure 1 shows that at the 90% level of confidence two-tail test, any preference scores that fall within the blue shaded area would be considered to be at parity.

 

Figure 1

90% Level of Confidence-Two-Tail Test

If testing for parity is at the 90% level of confidence (two-tail test), anything within these lines is at parity. Based on a sample of 200 respondents, a Margin Improvement would be considered to be at parity if it lost by a margin of 55% to 45%.

 

Figure 2 shows the 67% level of confidence. In this example, only preference scores that fall within the red shaded area would be considered to be at parity.  

Figure 2

67% Level of Confidence-One-Tail Test

If testing for parity is at the 67% level of confidence (one-tail test), only losing preference scores that fall within the red area would be judged at parity. Based on a sample of 200 respondents, a Margin Improvement would have to achieve a preference score of at least 48.5% (vs 51.5% for the Current) in order to be considered at parity.

 

Conclusion

When the action standards for a study are established, make sure that they are appropriate and will result in the correct decision for the brand or product. 

 

 

If you have any questions, please contact:

David Buchler

Executive Vice President

Target Research Group, Inc.

845-426-1200, ext. 24

david.buchler@targetresearchgroup.com

 

 

4 Things to Consider in Selecting the Appropriate Product Test Design

 

 

Your company has developed a new formulation for an existing product and market research has been requested.  How do you decide which is the appropriate test and the correct sample composition to evaluate the reformulation?  In order to design the appropriate test, there are a series of questions that need to be answered:

• Why was the new formulation developed?
• Is it a product improvement?
• Is it a cost reduction/margin improvement?
• Is the change being made to attract non-users/less frequent users of the brand?
• Is an ingredient being changed because of lack of availability, or to comply with governmental regulations (FDA, etc.)
• Is there a desire to be at parity to, or better than a competitive product?
• What is the importance of the brand being changed to the revenue of the company?
• Will the formulation change be communicated to consumers, either in advertising or on the package?
• This will play a role in determining whether the test should be conducted on a blind or identified basis, and what other stimuli might be needed.
• Can the study be conducted using a CLT (sniff, taste, feel) or is a home use test needed (either to obtain in-home usage, multiple usage occasions, and/or because of preparation)?
• Is there some aspect of the product that makes paired testing invalid?
• For example, is there a residual effect that would make it impossible for a respondent to accurately evaluate a second product? (dandruff shampoo, facial moisturizer, acne treatment, very spicy product in a taste test, etc.)

 

When the answers to these questions are known, the study can be designed selecting from the  following options:

• Blind vs. brand identified or both
• Monadic, protomonadic, sequential monadic or paired
• CLT vs. Home Use Test (length of usage period)
• Concept/Product or Product only
• Brand users, loyal brand users, infrequent users and or non-users of the brand

When the correct study design is conducted, the information needed to make the decision will be provided.

If you would like assistance is designing and executing the correct test, contact David Buchler at Target Research Group, Inc.  david.buchler@targetresearchgroup.com

 

 

 

 

Who's Asking The Patients What They Want?

 

  

 

"The best interest of the patient is the only interest to be considered..." quote by W. J. Mayo

The best and the brightest healthcare professionals tell us what they think their patients want and need, but will often fail to directly ask their patients.  This results in clinical assessments and the important patient vocalizations of needs and desires are rarely captured.

By understanding the Voice of the Patient enables the healthcare organization to understand patient needs and wants outside of the clinical, and, if delivered, can begin to approach the healthcare experience holistically delivering the true best needs of the patient.  If accomplished,  the healthcare organization can determine not only the impact of a patients' clinical position on profitability but also their satisfaction on profitability.   In fact, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that patients who are satisfied with the patient / provider interpersonal relationship are less apt to express dissatisfaction with provider clinical "mishaps". 

To this end, large HMO's and hospitals, are significantly involved in implementing standardized patient feedback surveys.  The satisfaction data along with the clinical data are being used for key business decisions.  By contrast, the small to medium sized clinics, offices, and Managed Care Organizations (MCO's) are rarely doing patient feedback surveys, and if so, usually self implemented either because of cost or human resource implementation challenges. 

In addition, as these smaller healthcare organizations conduct their patient satisfaction studies, it's usually without the guidance of a  research professional versed in what questions should be asked and the way they need to be asked.  This introduces a bias associated with the self created survey and methodology and may not accurately reflect the true patient perception of the healthcare provider.  This underscores the significant need to collect reliable and unbiased satisfaction data from patients on an ongoing basis  at an "affordable" price.

Another critical issue is the time it takes to collect and report on the data collected.  Many healthcare organizations wait up to six months for the results.  I believe that patient feedback should be timely, and therefore, actionable.  I believe that one of the success factors of any patient satisfaction measurement should be the healthcare provider's ability to follow up with patient concerns in a timely manner or address patient satisfaction issues as quickly as possible so as not to undermine the postion of the healthcare organization in the patient community.  

Feel free to post a comment below or to contact me to further discuss these issues and how this can help your healthcare organization -- Fran Nuzzi @ 845.426.1200 or fran.nuzzi@targetresearchgroup.com