A performance claim must be substantiated before it runs, not after a complaint. Here is what that means concretely for a script.
The timing is what people miss
Three misunderstandings come back constantly.
The first: believing substantiation is prepared when it is asked for. It must exist beforehand, and the burden falls on whoever publishes.
The second: thinking responsibility stops at the creator. The brand that publishes carries what is said in its video, including what was not in the script.
The third: assuming a cautious sentence is enough. What counts is the general impression the video leaves, not the isolated wording.
What counts as a performance claim
Five families, broader than people imagine.
A figure: duration, range, speed, saving, percentage.
A comparison: faster, stronger, more effective, even without naming a competitor.
A promised effect: lasts all winter, does not rust, lasts three years.
An implied superiority: the best, number one, the most sold.
And a guarantee of results, including when phrased as a personal experience.
Testimonials are not substantiation
The most frequent mistake, and the most costly.
Somebody saying "it lasted all winter at my place" is telling their experience. That sentence proves nothing about the product, and it does not exempt the brand: run in an advert, it becomes a claim that has to be supported.
Two consequences. A testimonial never replaces a test. And a hundred concordant testimonials are worth no more than one.
How the creator should phrase it
Four rules, simple to apply.
Describe instead of asserting: "I used it every day for three weeks" rather than "it lasts for years".
Situate the experience: the place, the duration, the conditions.
Repeat word for word the wording supplied by the brand when a figure or an effect is involved.
And refuse to improvise on this ground: an invented sentence about performance binds everybody, including the person saying it.
What each type of claim requires
| Claim | What is needed | Who provides it |
|---|---|---|
| A performance figure | A documented test | The brand |
| An origin | A production record | The manufacturer |
| A health benefit | An authorisation | The competent authority |
| A comparison | The source of both values | The brand |
What to ask for before filming
The document supporting every sentence of the script. An unproven claim commits the brand, but the video carries the creator's name, and that stays visible for a long time.
What is said instead of an unverifiable claim
What you observed yourself, over a stated period. A personal observation is not a claim, provided it is presented as one, to be confirmed with a lawyer.
The practical version
A four-step process, fitting into one week.
The brand writes the list of authorised claims, with the exact wording and the associated proof.
The lawyer approves the list, not the video: it is faster and it can be reused.
The creator shoots each claim as a separate take, which allows a sentence to be removed in the edit without reshooting.
And the brand archives, before publication, the one-page file, the approved script and the final edit.
That file takes an hour to build and it is the only thing that counts the day a question arrives. Without it, the discussion turns on good faith, which is not an argument.
