Press release concerning Cascade M11 concussion claims

[JR Boucicaut 3760]

I just received this directly from them - looking at the other recipients of this email (sports media), MSH is held in high regard.

NAD FINDS CASCADE SPORTS CAN SUPPORT CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR M11 HOCKEY HELMETS, RECOMMENDS COMPANY DISCONTINUE, MODIFY CERTAIN CLAIMS,

FOLLOWING BAUER CHALLENGE

New York, New York – June 28, 2010 – The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has determined that Cascade Sports could support certain claims about the M11 hockey helmet and its technology. However, NAD recommended that the company modify or discontinue certain advertising claims. The company voluntarily discontinued certain claims.

NAD, the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, examined safety, performance, comfort and endorsement and testimonials claims, following a challenge by Bauer Hockey, Inc.

The claims at issue appeared in direct marketing, Internet, product packaging, social media and other forms of advertising. Certain of the challenged claims included statements made by retired National Hockey League player, Mark Messier. Claims at issue included:

* The M11 hockey helmet provides "Maximum Protection.”

* "M11...Higher performance, higher comfort, higher protection."

* "Total reset for multiple impact protection."

* "In the CSA and HECC certification designed test, the Seven Technology performs 26% better on first impact, 107% better on 2nd impact and 140% better on third impact than conventional EPP foam."

* “90/10 configuration is stronger, smoother, safer.”

* “Better protecting our players will help to reduce the risk of concussion and this is crucial to the long term health of the game.”

The challenger also alleged that Cascade’s advertising made several implied claims, which Cascade denied. Implied claims at issue included:

* Cascade's M11 helmet protects hockey players 26%, 107%, and 140% better than all other helmets against concussions on the first, second, and third impact, respectively.

* Players who wear current high-end helmets, such as those made by Bauer, are 75% more likely to incur a concussion, compared to players who wear the M11, who have only a 33 percent chance of incurring a concussion.

* Cascade's M11 helmet is stronger, smoother, faster, more comfortable, and safer than all competitor helmets, including those by Bauer.

* Hockey players are more likely to get a concussion or other serious head or brain injury if they wear hockey helmets by the competition, such as Bauer helmets.

* Competitors' ice-hockey helmets (including those by Bauer) are not safe.

* Mark Messier is a qualified, impartial expert on the safety and performance of the M11 helmet, and the safety and performance of other brands' hockey helmets.

The challenged advertising introduces Cascade’s M11 hockey helmet, which purports to provide “maximum protection” and reduce the risk of concussions. The advertising highlights Cascade’s “Seven Technology” helmet liner, which purports to provide “total reset for multiple impact protection” and perform 26%, 107%, and 140% better than traditional helmet liners on first, second, and third impact. The advertising campaign features "The Messier Project,” a collaboration with retired National Hockey League player and Hall of Fame inductee, Mark Messier.

NAD examined evidence that included the results of testing by Cascade, which demonstrated that, under the test conditions, Cascade’s M11 helmet performed better than the other helmets tested in terms of absorbing energy from high impact linear force. NAD determined that Cascade provided a reasonable basis for its claim that the M11 helmet offers “maximum protection.”

However, NAD noted, “the more fundamental question concerned the relationship between such testing and the claims made in the challenged advertising, as well as the ability of a helmet to reduce the risks associated with concussion.”

Following its review of the evidence, NAD determined that there was no competent and reliable evidence demonstrating that the helmet could or would actually result in a reduction in the incidence or severity of concussions.

Accordingly, NAD appreciated the advertiser’s decision to voluntarily and permanently discontinue certain of the challenged advertising claims relating to concussions, including claims that described superior concussion protection provided by M11’s technology.

NAD determined that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis for claiming that “The Messier Project's mission is addressing the issues of concussions in hockey,” a statement that is both accurate and laudable.

NAD determined that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis for the claim that the helmet offers “Maximum Protection” provided the claim is not juxtaposed with or accompanied by language suggesting the helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of concussion.

NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claim that the M11 helmet (or underlying Seven Technology) is a “secret weapon” for combating the problem of concussions, noting that “such language may reasonably convey the message that the M11 helmet provides a greater level of protection against concussions than has been supported by competent and reliable evidence.”

NAD found that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis for claims about the comparative performance of its Seven Technology helmet liner and “total reset” capability as compared to traditional foam liners.

NAD determined, however, that the claims used in the context of the challenged print and product packaging, could convey the message that the M11 helmet performs dramatically better than competing helmets and provides quantifiable degrees of greater protection.

NAD recommended the advertiser discontinue these quantitative comparative claims in the context of the challenged print ads and product packaging. To the extent the advertising juxtaposes “total reset” with “impact protection” NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued, modified or confined to advertising clearly devoted to discussion of the liner technology.

NAD determined that the advertiser substantiated its claim that the M11 was “smoother,” but recommended Cascade modify its claims to avoid suggesting that its helmets, because they are “smoother,” are also “stronger” and “safer.”

Finally, concerning the endorsement of Mark Messier, NAD determined that, because Mark Messier possessed the necessary expertise to speak to issues of helmet design and testing of the M11 helmet, he could properly offer his opinion on such issues. Further, because collaboration with Cascade was sufficiently transparent, NAD found that no additional disclosure of a material connection between Mr. Messier and the advertiser was required.

The company, in its advertiser’s statement, said that it is “confident that the data that it is currently collecting from hockey teams using the M11 helmet, as well as the data it has already amassed, will ultimately provide the necessary NAD substantiation for these claims in the future.”

The company also said that it “has undertaken substantial efforts to develop a more protective hockey helmet and is pleased that the NAD has recognized its commitment to the health and safety of professional, amateur and youth hockey players.”

Finally, the company said that it “appreciates the NAD’s thoughtful review of this matter, and supports its self-regulation efforts.”

###

NAD's inquiry was conducted under NAD/CARU/NARB Procedures for the Voluntary Self-Regulation of National Advertising. Details of the initial inquiry, NAD's decision, and the advertiser's response will be included in the next NAD/CARU Case Report.

About Advertising Industry Self-Regulation: The National Advertising Review Council (NARC) was formed in 1971. NARC establishes the policies and procedures for the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the CBBB’s Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) and the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP).

The NARC Board of Directors is composed of representatives of the American Advertising Federation, Inc. (AAF), American Association of Advertising Agencies, Inc., (AAAA), the Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (ANA), Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (CBBB), Direct Marketing Association (DMA), Electronic Retailing Association (ERA) and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). Its purpose is to foster truth and accuracy in national advertising through voluntary self-regulation.

NAD, CARU and ERSP are the investigative arms of the advertising industry’s voluntary self-regulation program. Their casework results from competitive challenges from other advertisers, and also from self-monitoring traditional and new media. NARB, the appeals body, is a peer group from which ad-hoc panels are selected to adjudicate NAD/CARU cases that are not resolved at the NAD/CARU level. This unique, self-regulatory system is funded entirely by the business community; CARU is financed by the children’s advertising industry, while NAD/NARC/NARB’s primary source of funding is derived from membership fees paid to the CBBB. ERSP’s funding is derived from membership in the Electronic Retailing Association. For more information about advertising industry self-regulation, please visit www.narcpartners.org.

[Jarick 5]

Sounds like someone is out to get Cascade...haven't seen any other company targeted like this before.

[JR Boucicaut 3760]

Nobody is out to "get" them. I mean, if you're going to sling big words like that and call everyone else "unsafe," you must prepare yourself to be challenged, which is what Bauer did. No fault there.

Truth is, a helmet does not prevent concussions. They were toeing a real fine line there.

[Jarick 5]

I see, I read it wrong, I thought the claims were the determinations.

So here's the key parts I'm reading:

NAD determined that Cascade provided a reasonable basis for its claim that the M11 helmet offers “maximum protection.”

NAD determined that there was no competent and reliable evidence demonstrating that the helmet could or would actually result in a reduction in the incidence or severity of concussions.

Also found this interesting:

Finally, concerning the endorsement of Mark Messier, NAD determined that, because Mark Messier possessed the necessary expertise to speak to issues of helmet design and testing of the M11 helmet, he could properly offer his opinion on such issues. Further, because collaboration with Cascade was sufficiently transparent, NAD found that no additional disclosure of a material connection between Mr. Messier and the advertiser was required.

Either way, sounds like the PR firm (or dept) for the helmet screwed up big time.

And at the end of the day, it would be REALLY nice to see some better testing for helmets aside from the baseline certification.

[Chadd 916]

If they can justify the impact numbers, there should be nothing wrong with stating them. I guess that's the price they pay for not being vague like every other helmet manufacturer.

[Jarick 5]

That's what it sounded like, the implication that impact testing directly led to concussion prevention.

To be fair though, every person I know who bought the M11 helmet did so because they had a concussion and wanted to prevent it, and I know a couple other people bought high end helmets after getting concussions. I believe most of them got the concussions by hitting their head on the ice or boards. So I could see how they would be challenged for the claims, but I still think they're at least partially on to something.

[gerbe3:16 19]

Sounds like someone is out to get Cascade...haven't seen any other company targeted like this before.

I really felt that way too upon my first read. Will have to read it again and see if I can be persuaded to change my mind. I would hope they're not just making up numbers and have done some research using a legitimate form of scientific method.

Regardless, I really get a laugh out of most of the "implied claims" they are trying to shoot down. Talk about a reach. "Here are some straws, I will grasp at them."

edit - read it again. Still get the feeling that someone is looking to shoot them down. This was probably to be expected given the wording they've been using, as Chadd mentions. It certainly stands out a lot more and puts them in the crosshairs because of it. I guess the main thing here is simply whether a helmet's ability to absorb a greater impact gives the person wearing it a reduction in the likelihood of a concussion when compared to helmets with a lesser ability to absord impact. I imagine that judging from NAD's decision to ask them to remove some wording, there is not enough evidence in the scientific community to make such a jump in logic and as a result Cascade is pulling some of its claims from marketing materials.

[Chadd 916]

That's what it sounded like, the implication that impact testing directly led to concussion prevention.

To be fair though, every person I know who bought the M11 helmet did so because they had a concussion and wanted to prevent it, and I know a couple other people bought high end helmets after getting concussions. I believe most of them got the concussions by hitting their head on the ice or boards. So I could see how they would be challenged for the claims, but I still think they're at least partially on to something.

And I've seen people on here post about getting the newest Bauer helmet because it was better at preventing concussions. Every manufacturer implies that the new helmets are better at preventing concussions than older ones.

[Axxion89 32]

Sounds like someone is out to get Cascade...haven't seen any other company targeted like this before.

It happens a lot in the business world, we just don't see it too often. Also, most companies will not be this aggressive, especially larger companies who know the implications of such a marketing plan.

If they can justify the impact numbers, there should be nothing wrong with stating them. I guess that's the price they pay for not being vague like every other helmet manufacturer.

As a company, it's the risk you take when advertising vaguely or specifically. If you are very specific you need to have sufficient data to back up your claims and you have to be ready for the competition to challenge those claims. From what I read, the helmet was proven to reduce impact in the percentages stated but that does not necessarily translate to fewer concussions. A concussion varies from human to human and stating that a helmet reduces concussions assertively puts Cascade in a tight spot.

Also, attacking other helmet manufactures, especially when you are a smaller company going up against larger ones, is a very risky move. Bauer and other companies have the money and time to challenge Cascades claims and if Bauer wanted too, could attack Cascade's helmet concussion claims through its own research. Cascade should thank the review board for its recommendations and Cascade was smart for ending the statements in question because had they continued, I believe Bauer and other manufactures would have used the concussion statements to undermine Cascade's credibility.

[Chadd 916]

Also, attacking other helmet manufactures, especially when you are a smaller company going up against larger ones, is a very risky move. Bauer and other companies have the money and time to challenge Cascades claims and if Bauer wanted too, could attack Cascade's helmet concussion claims through its own research. Cascade should thank the review board for its recommendations and Cascade was smart for ending the statements in question because had they continued, I believe Bauer and other manufactures would have used the concussion statements to undermine Cascade's credibility.

If more than 10% of the people buying gear cared about something other than the name on the helmet or if they could get it on closeout, that might make a difference.

Cascade made a huge splash with the M11 and the marketing campaign that went along with it, especially if you compare it to their previous effort. This wasn't even a slap on the wrist for something that increased sales significantly and will linger in the minds of those that are looking for a "concussion reducing" helmet. It was likely time for them to change the marketing campaign a bit anyway, you can't run the same ads forever if you're a small company.

[Chadd 916]

Here are some other claims from manufacturers:

...material instantly absorbs and dissipates energy...

If the energy is dissipated instantly, you'll never get a concussion, right?

The molded EPP liner provides maximum protection

EPP liner and heat activated memory foam for maximum comfort and protection

Gee, those last two sound a lot like what got Cascade in trouble

I'm not a cascade fanboy. In fact, I have a number of issues with them and their product, but them being singled out has more to do with their sales success than any desire for "truth in advertising".

[Jarick 5]

And I've seen people on here post about getting the newest Bauer helmet because it was better at preventing concussions. Every manufacturer implies that the new helmets are better at preventing concussions than older ones.

Yep, that's the business model for the hockey gear...otherwise why upgrade?

My point was that the M11's marketing campaign was so successful it resulted in those purchases. It's like a lot of people assumed that it was the helmet to get if you had a concussion and wanted to prevent more. But that's not been established. But that's the way Cascade had to go because people would otherwise get whatever brand they preferred (Bauer, Easton, CCM, Reebok) 99% of the time.

Cascade also was really aggressive and got a lot of free publicity and advertising on a lot of programs...how many times did you see Mark Messier on a hockey intermission or calling into a radio show to promote the product? It was kind of given a bit of a pass in the name of preventing concussions. So again, I can see how Bauer went after them.

Still, the M11 would be my first choice for a new helmet, just because of the comfort and I do like the technology. I just wish there was a better head-to-head comparison study.

[Fisticuffs 0]

And I've seen people on here post about getting the newest Bauer helmet because it was better at preventing concussions. Every manufacturer implies that the new helmets are better at preventing concussions than older ones.

The problem with their claim, is that while it may be true, proving it would require a study that would be costly, expensive, and by the time the results were available, probably irrelevant (since other manufacturers will introduce new helmets which were not included in the study's sample by the time the data is compiled and analyzed). Their claim may or may not be accurate, but in any case, they shouldn't be using the claim in their marketing materials if they can't back it up.

There is an inherent ethical issue in telling a group of players that they can't wear a helmet that you honestly believe is more protective that the competition in order to provide you a control group for a study to determine reduced concussion risk. Further, hockey players (in my experience) are notoriously stubborn, and likely under-report concussions, so the reliability of the self reported data would be questionable at best.

Finally, shouldn't every new helmet be better at preventing concussions than the model they replace? Isn't that, you know, the point?

[DarkStar50 679]

I have to believe that the Bauer challenge to Cascade's marketing of the M11 was started at least by early this year. The Cascade ad campaign was obviously effective, however Bauer had reacted to the marketing claims, not the resultant Cascade sales. Everyone here, myself included, is speculating on intent. I would also speculate that Bauer's challenge was aimed at leveling the playing field among vendors with regards to the claims they make for their helmets.

[hamstercaster 2]

The problem with their claim, is that while it may be true, proving it would require a study that would be costly, expensive, and by the time the results were available, probably irrelevant (since other manufacturers will introduce new helmets which were not included in the study's sample by the time the data is compiled and analyzed). Their claim may or may not be accurate, but in any case, they shouldn't be using the claim in their marketing materials if they can't back it up.

There is an inherent ethical issue in telling a group of players that they can't wear a helmet that you honestly believe is more protective that the competition in order to provide you a control group for a study to determine reduced concussion risk. Further, hockey players (in my experience) are notoriously stubborn, and likely under-report concussions, so the reliability of the self reported data would be questionable at best.

Finally, shouldn't every new helmet be better at preventing concussions than the model they replace? Isn't that, you know, the point?

I'd be curious to see how many concussions are directly linked to a head blow, more specifically a blow to an area of the head which is protected by the helmet. Many of the concussions are the result of a direct hit to the chin/face or even just upper body. Others are the result of the player falling face first onto the ice or falling backwards with the helmet no longer sitting properly on the head following a blow to the head or body. A concussion is the result of your brain moving within the skull, causing trauma and therefore a concussion. Are helmets really helping avoiding the brain to move inside a skull per say? I can see how it can dissipate energy and such but the way most of the hits occur, it seems to me like the helmet doesn't do all that much preventing concussions. However, they can most certainly avoid other things like skull fractures from falling onto the ice pretty much the same way a motorcycle helmet or biking helmet would. This is more me asking himself and the forum the questions than a statement or an opinion. Just really throwing this out there to discuss.

[Jordan 13]

The bottom line:

Following its review of the evidence, NAD determined that there was no competent and reliable evidence demonstrating that the helmet could or would actually result in a reduction in the incidence or severity of concussions.

It's funny, because as a dad, who wouldn't want to put their son in the safest possible helmet?

That being said, I am a fairly skeptical person when it comes to grandiose claims. So, I tried to look up actual studies about the Cascade helmet versus others. At the time the only published study that I could find, compared a Cascade lacrosse helmet to a 'hockey type" helmet commonly used in lacrosse. In that study they compared the amount of force transmitted to sensor inside the helmet when struck from behind to the back of the helmet, and a strike from the side.

Basically. the Cascade was better for one of the hits, and worse for the other type of strike...can't remember which one off of the top of my head. Seemed to me at the time that there was a little over-hyping taking place. In the end, it didn't matter to me as that particular helmet didn't suit my son's head very well, and I figured that fit was the most important factor in allowing the helmet to work properly.

[Fisticuffs 0]

I'd be curious to see how many concussions are directly linked to a head blow, more specifically a blow to an area of the head which is protected by the helmet. Many of the concussions are the result of a direct hit to the chin/face or even just upper body. Others are the result of the player falling face first onto the ice or falling backwards with the helmet no longer sitting properly on the head following a blow to the head or body. A concussion is the result of your brain moving within the skull, causing trauma and therefore a concussion. Are helmets really helping avoiding the brain to move inside a skull per say? I can see how it can dissipate energy and such but the way most of the hits occur, it seems to me like the helmet doesn't do all that much preventing concussions. However, they can most certainly avoid other things like skull fractures from falling onto the ice pretty much the same way a motorcycle helmet or biking helmet would. This is more me asking himself and the forum the questions than a statement or an opinion. Just really throwing this out there to discuss.

My post was intended to be much the same... obviously the helmet is designed to be more protective than the models on the market now, and while it seems logical that a more protective helmet would reduce concussion risk, how do you prove that?

Obviously, a helmet reduces the risk of concussion when you feet get taken out, and you smash the back of your head on the ice. Perhaps one kind of padding protects from this risk better than others (I can't say for certain).

I've had two concussions on the ice, both from shoulder checks to the head. In one case, the gel padding in the helmet ruptured, and thus provided me little protection. In the other I got hit so hard my facemask crushed in on itself.

In one case, a better designed helmet might have helped prevent the concussion, in the other, I'm not sure it would have. Especially in cases where players take a shoulder to the chin, the type, size, and fitment of the cage, and the quality of a player's mouthpiece could have more impact on the risk of concussion than the type of helmet they are wearing.

[Chadd 916]

A concussion is the result of your brain moving within the skull, causing trauma and therefore a concussion. Are helmets really helping avoiding the brain to move inside a skull per say? I can see how it can dissipate energy and such but the way most of the hits occur, it seems to me like the helmet doesn't do all that much preventing concussions.

You can either dissipate the energy before it reaches your skull or decelerate the skull less abruptly. The second option would require thicker, softer padding and is why the Hefter helmet with the Zorbium was a complete failure. It would have been larger than an old Mission Carbster and we know how much people liked the look of that one. I do agree with you that helmets are irrelevant to a large number of concussions.

[Axxion89 32]

Here are some other claims from manufacturers:

QUOTE

...material instantly absorbs and dissipates energy...

If the energy is dissipated instantly, you'll never get a concussion, right?

QUOTE

The molded EPP liner provides maximum protection

QUOTE

EPP liner and heat activated memory foam for maximum comfort and protection

Gee, those last two sound a lot like what got Cascade in trouble

I'm not a cascade fanboy. In fact, I have a number of issues with them and their product, but their being singled out has more to do with their sales success than any desire for "truth in advertising".

For the first statement in you example, it says material instantly absorbs the energy, didn't say it instantly dissipated it but when reading it twice, it can be taken in your interpretation or mine

The other 2 statements did not get Cascade into any trouble. In the second half of the report, the NAD states that statements like those that Cascade used were ok and had sufficient proof to be continued. What Cascade DID get recommendations to remove were those statements that directly stated or implied that the helmet prevented or decreased concussions. Cascade took a risk and in a sense, it paid off because when you associate concussion prevention with a helmet, most hockey fans will probably think Cascade.

[Chadd 916]

In one case, a better designed helmet might have helped prevent the concussion, in the other, I'm not sure it would have. Especially in cases where players take a shoulder to the chin, the type, size, and fitment of the cage, and the quality of a player's mouthpiece could have more impact on the risk of concussion than the type of helmet they are wearing.

I've also heard a couple doctors say that a mouthpiece won't prevent a concussion. I think it's important to realize that no one piece of gear is going to prevent a concussion, but there are certainly ways to reduce the possibility. Foremost would be having referees actually enforce the head contact rules on the books and/or making those penalties more severe. Without a change in the attitude of hockey players, you will never see concussions become as rare as they should be.

[hamstercaster 2]

You can either dissipate the energy before it reaches your skull or decelerate the skull less abruptly. The second option would require thicker, softer padding and is why the Hefter helmet with the Zorbium was a complete failure. It would have been larger than an old Mission Carbster and we know how much people liked the look of that one. I do agree with you that helmets are irrelevant to a large number of concussions.

Thanks for the clarifications Chadd.

[Chadd 916]

For the first statement in you example, it says material instantly absorbs the energy, didn't say it instantly dissipated it but when reading it twice, it can be taken in your interpretation or mine

Actually, I misquoted. It says that the material "...absorbs and instantly dissipates energy when impacted..." on the website right now.

[Axxion89 32]

Actually, I misquoted. It says that the material "...absorbs and instantly dissipates energy when impacted..." on the website right now.

Oh ok well then that is an incomplete/vague statement because as you said, if it did instantly absorb and release the energy you would feel nothing. Rather, it absorbs as much energy as it can and the rest goes straight to your noggin.

[raganblink 82]

I'm not a cascade fanboy. In fact, I have a number of issues with them and their product, but them being singled out has more to do with their sales success than any desire for "truth in advertising".

Bingo. Their quality control is HORRIBLE. However saying that, they were the easiest sell (especially the price) of the helmet we have. More of a counter move to try to get some of their share back than anything imo

[Dolom1te 0]

I had 6 concussions over 3 seasons with a Bauer helmet. I switched to cascade this year, took a couple bad hits from behind, in which my head hit the boards HARD, and other hits in which i hit the ice HARD with my head and i did not receive any concussion symptoms. I'm not saying it prevents concussions by any means, i am just stating what my experiences with the helmet have been and how i truly do believe in the technology.

I agree with Chadd. I think it is more of an attack to lower they're sales success than to actually make the quotes "proper", because i know that recently with they're marketing campaign saying it is the safest helmet out there, they have really started to take away from other companies helmet sales.