Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection, 1978–1979

debra.scammon@business.utah.edu). Personal Introduction to the Federal Trade Commission One of the things I like most about the marketing and public policy community is its tradition of mentoring young scholars. The early marketing scholars working with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) created a strong community into which young academics were welcomed. In the 1970s, I was Harold Kassarjian’s doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles. Hal introduced me to the public policy world and helped me become part of the small group of scholars who had the opportunity to work inside the FTC. As one of the first academics to work for the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Hal was involved with the FTC’s work on disclosures. Just as I was embarking on my dissertation research, the FTC was considering requirements for the disclosure of nutrition information in food advertising. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration was considering rules for nutrition labeling. In 1974, the FTC staff proposed a Trade Regulation Rule (TRR) for food to address concerns that, without appropriate disclosures, consumers could be misled by both implicit and explicit claims about the nutrients contained in food products. The FTC sought public comment on proposed alternatives for disclosures, including input about what and how much information should be disclosed and the format in which that information should be presented. The FTC’s proposed disclosures seemed like an ideal context within which I could evaluate the effects of amount and format of information on consumers’ information processing and decision making. I worked with staff at the FTC to create mock-ups of television ads that included some of the proposed formats for nutrition disclosures. With funds from a small grant from the FTC I was able to run a study at Preview House, an advertising and program testing facility in Hollywood, California. We embedded our test ads within television programs that were being tested by Preview House clients. Audience members evaluated the ads in several ways. Electronic response meters captured immediate reactions while the audience viewed the program and ads. A postexposure survey assessed people’s recall of the information disclosed and attitudes toward the brands advertised. Following exposure to the ads, audience members participated in an in-store shopping exercise to assess likely brand choices. My experience testing mock ads at Preview House was quite an adventure. National advertisers frequently used this facility to test ads, so the activities there were highly confidential. When I attended airings of my test ads, I was “escorted” to the theater and to the “store” and was not allowed to view any of the other ads or programs that were being tested. I was, however, able to obtain useful data. I found that consumers liked quantitative information such as “% of Recommended Daily Allowance of protein” better than they did qualitative information such as “a good source of protein.” However, they better understood the qualitative information (Scammon 1977). The design of this study was an early precursor to the laboratory research popular today in consumer behavior research. Through this project I became acquainted with the staff in the Bureau of Consumer Protection and, in particular, with the director, Thomas Donegan. When the FTC announced their search for a marketing academic to join Bureau of Consumer Protection, the opportunity was just what I was looking for, and I joined the agency in September 1978.