mouse
Go to Homepage


Subscribe to free weekly newsletter

Mouse Print*
is a service of
Consumer World

Support us by using:

Deal Alerter
Visit our sister site:

Consumer Reporters & Advocates in Media


Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

September 25, 2006

Scott Toilet Paper: Still 1000 Sheets*

Filed under: Downsizing,Food/Groceries,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:48 am

scott singleThere are certain things in life you can always count on, literally. One is that Scott toilet paper will have 1000 sheets on the roll and will last a lot longer than its ever-shrinking competitors.

Scott recently released a “Now Improved!” version of the product saying in an ad that it is an “improved long-lasting value.”  “Now with a new soft-textured pattern — and long-lasting convenience.”

What they didn’t boast about was this:

*MOUSE PRINT:  Each of the 1000 sheets is now 3.7 inches instead of the old 4.0 inches long, thus making each roll 300 inches shorter. [Click picture to see old and new packaging and square footage statement.]

In an email, the makers of Scott explained further:

“The new embossed sheet on SCOTT® 1000 bathroom tissue was extensively tested with consumers before it was introduced to the market. Consumer research indicated that the embossed sheet enhanced softness, thickness, and overall product quality. Although consumers preferred this new sheet, we are sorry that you were disappointed. Please be assured that we will share your comments with those involved.

Consumers told us that they preferred our new embossed sheet. To add this feature, we need to choose to either reduce the number of sheets in the roll or decrease the size of each sheet to maintain the overall roll diameter. Consumers favored the smaller sheet to the count reduction. “

Toilet paper, like many products is periodically downsized. You get a little bit less, and typically the package stays the same as does the selling price. It is a clever way to pass on a price increase, since you are paying more per ounce, pound, foot, or whatever.

Thousand sheet toilet paper started out by having sheets that were typically 4.5 inches wide by 4.5 inches long. The length was shortened a bit to 4.4 inches and then to 4.0 inches. With Scott going to 3.7 inches, the other brands are sure to follow. The net result is that 8/10ths of an inch has been shaved from each sheet over the years. That means each roll is 800 inches shorter.

Some improvement.

• • •

129 Comments

  1. I think Scott shortening the length of the toilet paper and calling it “Now Improved” is just an outrage! I mean, if they were to do that quietly I would still think it to be wrong, but the fact that they’re leading consumers to believe they actually improved the product in such a way to give the consumer more is just reprehensible. The whole poiknt of having 1000 sheets a roll is that u feel ur getting more and that the roll shuld last u longer, but that gets negated if each sheet is shorter because u’ll have to use more sheets.

    I am very disappointed that Scott is willing to trade its reputation for having a longer lasting toilet tissue to nickel and dime
    people. Sure, it’s not the only manufacturer downsizing their products at the same cost, but i think toilet paper should have sum sa
    sanctity to it, as it is a staple everyone needs.

    Comment by allison donovan — September 25, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
  2. I have been buying Scott for years because of the 1000 sheets which last a long time. I did not know that they are gettibng smaller. Hereafter, I will look for another brand.

    Comment by Albert Novak, Jr — September 26, 2006 @ 12:20 am
  3. Why is everyone so surprised… Do you actually think these companies are going to do something postiive for the consumers ???

    Comment by s galatolo — September 26, 2006 @ 6:35 am
  4. There was a brand of bathroom tissue called “Soft Weave” that actually had 1200
    sheets per roll and contained more paper than Scott. I think Scott put them out
    of business as I can’t find that brand anymore.

    Until other brands downsize too, I’ll switch from Scott.

    Comment by Robert Dayton, Fountain Valley, CA. — September 26, 2006 @ 7:19 am
  5. Hummmm … at this rate off loss per sheet of “TP” ..soon there will not be enough of a sheet lleft to clean the “sheet” from under my finger nails !!

    Comment by BadFrog, Michigan — September 26, 2006 @ 7:30 am
  6. Scott just lost a steady customer.

    Comment by Peter Roland — September 26, 2006 @ 7:31 am
  7. WoW! Wait’ll it gets to be improved to fingernail-sized or smaller!
    (I’m not sure what customer groups would prefer that …)

    Comment by peter gair — September 26, 2006 @ 7:46 am
  8. Well, this is a bad introduction to mouseprint.org.

    Sheet is shorter, but thicker. Is the total weight of paper the same? Then no, they’re not bilking you. The individual sheet may be smaller, but you need fewer sheets.

    Comment by Carey — September 26, 2006 @ 7:49 am
  9. I agree with Carey – you have the same volume and therefore you are getting the
    same value. If you buy a 4 inch cookie that is 1/4 inch thick and then they start
    making a 3 inch cookie at 1/2 inch, you are actually getting more cookie, even
    though it is “smaller.” Do the math.

    Comment by Craig — September 26, 2006 @ 8:40 am
  10. Craig would be correct if the volume is constant between the two “cookies.” If the volume of the sheets are not the same, and they are filled with air, then you are not getting the same amount. It is just like yogurt producers making “whipped” yogurt, and passing it off as better for you. You are now getting a whole lot of air, and very little yogurt. I feel that this is a way for Scott to pass off cost increases to consumers by giving them less product for the same price.

    Comment by matt — September 26, 2006 @ 9:09 am
  11. would love to agree with the last two (Comment by Craig — September 26, 2006 @ 8:40 am )comments but

    Comment by Jason — September 26, 2006 @ 9:11 am
  12. sorry got cut off, as noted when you click on the picture above the overall
    length was shortened, so yes it is deceptive. i’ve been using scott since they came in indiviually paper wrapped roll that came in a variety of colors, but without reading this aticle, and checking out this sight, i noticed the difference a couple of months ago, and i think they suck, for the practice, companies now pretty much have the levereage to do as they please, by way of milking the customer, so scott, “Poo Poo! on You!” i have already switched.

    Comment by Jason — September 26, 2006 @ 9:21 am
  13. I disagree with Carey and Craig. Scott boldly advertises 1000 sheets per role. That’s their pitch. It’s disingenuous to claim the same total weight of paper as justification of shortening the sheets when you tell your consumers that it’s the number of sheets that should be the measure of value. By this measure 1000 3.7 inch sheets is less than 1000 4 inch sheets.

    If they really do have the same weight and believe that to be a legitimate claim of sustained value than their pitch needs to change to match.

    Comment by Glenn — September 26, 2006 @ 9:24 am
  14. I agree with Matt. Any embossing on the paper or even how tight they roll the paper on the spool will make it look like
    the roll is the same size. With a paper product such as this volume doesn’t matter, it is the length that is the key and you are definately getting less for your money. Companies do this all the time. Like a “new and improved” jar of spaghetti sauce will have 2 ounces
    less in the jar. That’s been documented as happening, tho I forget which brand it was. All they did was make the bottle a
    little narrower and shorter. Nothing the customer would notice on the shelf of the store, but they got away with it.

    This is just another case of “Caveat Emptor”

    Comment by Mysticstar — September 26, 2006 @ 9:31 am
  15. I have never cared for the 3-inch-wide toilet paper offered in public restrooms, in places like restaurants, theaters, public libraries, etc. This is probably the future of consumer version of the product. The ultimate will be when we are expected to use our hand to clean ourselves and then wash our hand. Most people wash their hands after using a restroom, anyway, so this would be a great way for businesses and local governemnts to save some money!

    Comment by John Hoffman — September 26, 2006 @ 9:35 am
  16. How ironic that while American posteriors have grown (as, presumably, have the pudgy hands that service those netherlands) that the tools to complete that job have grown commensurately smaller!

    Cynically thinking ahead: maybe this is a first step that is clearing the way for the eventual introduction of some completely new genre – i.e., a multi-staged butt lavage system! Like some type of exotic wood house decking that needs a scrub followed up by staining and then sealant, the ivy towers at Scott are envisioning a family of products to address a consumer “problem” which this TP size reduction will help to highlight and accelerate.

    Consumers – once they have used the newly reduced TP for a while and subconciously experienced its inadequacies but not consciously aware of the size reduction action by Scott (and inevitably matched by competitors) – will then be “educated” by Scott as to their behavioral deficiencies (i.e. first define the ‘problem’) and finally be “saved” from this new consumer menace by a new Scott remedy that includes several complementary products (i.e. then give them the ‘solution’).

    Comment by Consumer Joe — September 26, 2006 @ 9:35 am
  17. Just found your site through Bob Sullivan’s article at Red Tape. Thanks, your site is much needed.

    I stopped buying Scott a couple of years ago. They were such a good deal; it’s sad they’ve gotten deceptive.

    I noticed this trend of deceptive marketing at the end of the 80’s. It seemed to die out, started again in the late 90’s, and now it’s back with new tricks.

    I’m sure this “deal” deception has been around forever, just under different identities. The public seems to become aware of certain practices and the marketing wizards find something new. Does anyone know where I can find articles or books on the history of this type of deceptive marketing?

    Comment by Susan — September 26, 2006 @ 10:12 am
  18. Volume and surface area aren’t the same thing…if 1000 feet is their catch, they need to back it up.

    Comment by Violet — September 26, 2006 @ 10:20 am
  19. Sorry, I meant that it’s misleading if they have reduced the size of the sheets.
    :)

    Comment by Violet — September 26, 2006 @ 10:21 am
  20. Meh, my household uses Scott. We noticed the change in the product quality and it does seem to deplete less quickly, regardless of the sheet changes, so perhaps their ‘embossing’ or what have you does the trick they claim. I’ll agree that the strong claim of 1000 sheets is both true AND misleading.

    Comment by Jeremy — September 26, 2006 @ 10:34 am
  21. Being on a septic system, it was recommended that our household use Scott years ago. Every since, we have not had a problem with tissue clogging up the septic tank line; therefore, we will continue using Scott tissue no matter what. Sorry to say, if deception in advertising stops you from buying a products, if you check each claim carefully, you will not be buying anything. I don’t trust advertising to persuade me to purchase a product. I purchase it if it does what I need it to better than other products I have tried.

    Comment by Faye — September 26, 2006 @ 11:59 am
  22. Am I the only one who looks at the total length of the roll, and NOT the size of each sheet. I don’t know about anyone else, but I use more than one sheet at a time, and honestly could care less about how far apart the perforations are. In truth, having smaller sheets could actually promote people being less wasteful… No i don’t work for SCOTT… I just think it’s ridiculous for people to get (as one commenter put it) “outraged” when they’re choosing to rely on a variable unit (sheets) for their standard of judgement… so what… should we ask the government to regulate the standrad size of a sheet of toilet paper?

    Comment by Really? — September 26, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
  23. well get ready for the future shock:
    “NEW! IMPROVED! BUTT FLOSS …Embossed for greater satisfaction!”
    …and only republicans will be able to afford that!

    Comment by boof lamore — September 26, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
  24. Perhaps the government should require that the sheet size be posted along with the number of sheets on toilet paper packaging. If they keep doing this BS, no pun intended, then they could eventually be required to print other information like sheet width.

    What about these products that claim to kill 99.99% of all germs? That has become such a cliche and a totally missleading claim.

    Comment by SI — September 26, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
  25. Everyone is missing the point. Scott is stuck with an implicit market requirement to maintain the roll diameter at less than some particular value, so they won’t get complaints that “the new rolls won’t fit in my toilet paper holder.” To do this they either have to put fewer sheets in the new rolls (because the sheets are thicker) or make the sheets smaller. They asked consumers and the feedback was (at least according to Scott’s response) that the preference was for smaller sheets rather than fewer sheets. The actual volume of paper doesn’t come into the question because the embossing makes the paper “seem” to be thicker than it really is – which is apparently what people like.

    Comment by Richard — September 26, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
  26. I have long believed Scott Tissue Paper should be re-named to John Wayne Tissue Paper. Simply because it’s
    rough, tough and doesn’t take sh*t off of anybody.

    Comment by dpletedurcranium — September 26, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
  27. You are all a bunch of morons. There is one way and one way alone to determine the value of a packaged paper product- price per unit area. Manufacturers are required to print the unit area on the package. Each package of toilet paper has the quantity of square feet printed clearly on the package. Now do the math. Divide the price of the package by the number of square feet the package contains. The number you get is the “dollars per square foot” of paper product. Compare one product to another and choose the winner- the product with the lowest cost per square foot. Now go forth and enjoy the fruits of intelligence.

    Comment by Bill — September 26, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
  28. Speaking of morons Bill, you ought to be sure you are out thinking everyone else before you call names. Because when you are wrong, you highlight yourself as the moron, as you did here!

    Re-read Richards post – he hit the nail on the head. Paper rolls can NOT get bigger, or they wont fit on your dispenser. So if you make each sheet thicker and more puffy, you have to either give less sheets or make them shorter. They asked consumers and people wanted shorter sheets, and they got it. So you get softer, puffier sheets and the same number, but they’re a bit shorter.

    Some of you just like to whine at any company. Large sheets, many sheets, thickness. Pick two you like. I’d rather have softer thicker sheets and less than a thousand yards of single ply sandpaper. Those of you obsessing over the # of sheets or the size, go buy single ply commercial toilet paper and get THOUSANDS of sheets!

    Me, I’m not broke, so I’ll buy the good stuff.

    Comment by Mike — September 26, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
  29. PLEASE… let’s keep the discussion civil, on point, and not call each other “morons” or simlar derogatory names. Comments of that sort in the future will just be deleted.

    Comment by Edgar — September 26, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
  30. Save your money and use water like billions in rest of the world…bidet, left hand..feel more fresh! TP alone doesn’t get it done, hence the skidmarks..

    Comment by Feeling fresh — September 26, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
  31. Just found this site and find it very informative. Concerning
    this debate on Scott Tissue, let’s get real. I switched to store
    brands years ago. Most name brands tout there number of sheets
    and their tecture, but they are mostly 1 ply sheets. The store brands
    have just as many sheets, cost less and are usually 2 ply. I
    think what Scott has done is just the norm in today’s business
    world, although I don’t agree with their methods. They are not
    alone though. I remember a few years back a pharmcutical company
    had 2 cold products on the market. One came with a green label
    and was for certain symptoms, one came with a red label and was
    for other symptoms. One cost around $1.00 more than the other.
    Reading the labels though showed that the ingerdiants were exactly
    the same! Answer is; Read the labels and make educated decisions!

    Comment by Tony — September 26, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
  32. Could someone compare the mass, without the cardboard bushing, of the old roll to that of the new roll?

    Comment by eldy — September 26, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
  33. I don’t understand what the problem is. There aren’t any fewer sheets. Given that I use four sheets per wipe, and I will still get 250 wipes out of every roll, I don’t see how this will affect me any negatively. If anything, it will help me know I am flushing less down the toilet.

    Comment by Kim Siever — September 26, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
  34. Guys, really.

    This is a not a very hard concept. If you make toilet paper thicker, you have to make the length of the roll shorter — otherwise the rolls as a whole are bigger. I don’t know how big your toilet paper dispenser is, but mine won’t hold a roll that’s an inch in diameter larger. Maybe I should buy a dispenser that sticks out further from the wall, or one of those stand-up ones from Ikea, but I’m not going to do that. And neither are most people.

    And plus, is there anything wrong with thicker, shorter toilet paper? Apparently people like it.

    The sky is NOT falling.

    Comment by Austin — September 26, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
  35. You know they could just add a TP roll extender. Many brands do this already.

    They have bigger rolls, and therefore my business.

    Comment by Steven — September 26, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
  36. Thats it, this is the last straw! I am no longer going to use toliet paper!

    Comment by BigHands — September 26, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
  37. I bought the so called “new improved” TP by accident and DID NOT like it as well as the original 1000 sheets. I’m hoping the company continues to make the original or I will be trying other brands. Very sad they have to be so deceitful.

    Comment by quilt lady — September 26, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
  38. There are a number of levers at play here that are all about keeping the
    retail price of Scott the same. Consider this:
    1) Scott wants to make the roll “look” as big as normal — so add embossing
    to fluff up the roll. You’re getting a roll the same “size”, but really, you’re
    getting more air in the roll than before. The Scott brand positioning is not
    about being soft, it’s about value. Embossing is more about fluffing up
    paper fibers to make the roll look big versus improving softness. Consumers
    who put softness at the top of their priorities aren’t buying Scott anyway.
    2) Scott wants to maintain price point at retail, but they have to find a way to
    pass along increasing costs that all manufacturers are experiencing. They COULD
    take a price increase and keep the sheets the same; however, that would mean
    telling Walmart, Target, and other retailers that pricing is going up on a
    “value” brand. Not a fun conversation.
    SO, it’s easier to fluff up the roll, shorten the sheet, and hope that most
    shoppers won’t notice.

    Comment by Bill — September 27, 2006 @ 1:39 am
  39. OMG…
    I can’t believe that somewhere in this world…people are actually having
    an intellectual discussion on toliet paper….lol.

    Comment by UseAFreakinBush — September 27, 2006 @ 3:49 am
  40. Aside from the fact that I think it is shameful for this great American society to have to wipe its own A$$ (as opposed to Japanese society, which has toilets that take care of this dirty job); this yet another example of hidden inflation.

    I mean, really, no one has noticed more air and less potato chips in their bags???

    Best,

    Mr. Feasor

    Comment by Mr. Feaor — September 27, 2006 @ 4:33 am
  41. I have been a loyal Scott’s brand customer for years, and will continue
    to be…despite this typical screw-the-customer tactic.

    The “bottom” line is, they stil outlast all other brands, and save me
    money.

    Comment by Michael Elder — September 27, 2006 @ 8:25 am
  42. I notice the “Good Housekeeping Seal” is gone, too…

    Comment by Joni — September 27, 2006 @ 9:44 am
  43. “Most people wash their hands after using a restroom, anyway”

    No, they don’t.

    Comment by Gracey — September 27, 2006 @ 10:09 am
  44. OK, we’ve been using Scott for years. First, the original is okay, but it is
    very thin, and it DOES take more sheets to “clean up” with the older version
    than it does with the “softer, thicker” version. Second, for those of us who
    actually use a standard toilet paper holder, the roll barely fits between the
    “spindle” and the side of the cabinet as it is (on a standard spindle). If it
    were any larger, we wouldn’t even be able to use it on the dispenser until we used up a portion of
    it.

    For those of you who are so immediately OUTRAGED without even taking a
    moment to think about it, and who are calling the company “deceitful,” take a
    pause to think about it for a second. While there are plenty of “deceitful”
    examples out there in the marketing world, this isn’t one of them.

    I guess this illustrates best a greater problem… lack of critical and
    logical thinking ability (perhaps from lack of education) in this country.

    Comment by Susan — September 27, 2006 @ 10:26 am
  45. ACK!

    Comment by dogfaceboy — September 27, 2006 @ 11:15 am
  46. I too bought the “New Improved” stuff by mistake. If I wanted to wipe with cushy, fluffy, pouffy or whatever, I would be buying a different brand. I use Scott because it doesn’t leave lint all over the place – not strictly for the size of the sheet (although that does come into play and I still compare brands).

    Comment by SC — September 27, 2006 @ 11:51 am
  47. Has anyone also noticed that the cardboard tubes on toilet paper rolls keep getting
    BIGGER as time goes on? That way, the roll appears bigger while in fact we get
    a lot less paper on the roll. And frankly, no matter how these companies
    manipulate the number of sheets on a roll, for “certain uses”, you can’t get away
    with using less toilet paper!

    Comment by LindaM — September 27, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
  48. Are you all serious? It’s toilet paper. Do you have nothing better to do than get enraged over a simple matter like toilet paper? Grow up.

    Comment by Mike — September 27, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
  49. Excellent site…. thanks for the useful information, it was about time!!!!!

    Comment by Leo — September 27, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
  50. I KNEW they weren’t lasting as long as usual! Thanks for reaffirming what I was thinking!!

    Comment by Lori — September 27, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
  51. I will not purchase the Scott brand again!

    Comment by Norman — September 27, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
  52. Charmin has just pulled something similar. I noticed two slightly different heights on packages of Ultra 12 double-roll. The rolls have been reduced in width, from 4.5 inches to 4.27 inches.

    Comment by Jim C. — September 27, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
  53. i think you are all rediculous. who stinking cares how many sheets of toilet paper are on scott toilet paper or how long the sheets are?!?! seriously people. get a life or a hobbie or something.

    Comment by anna — September 27, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
  54. Math? .3 inches times 1000 equals 300 inches not 800 inches. To me the new stuff works just as well and who really counts the number of sheet they use each time. It’s still a better buy from the other brands and we don’t have any clogged toilets like we experienced with some of the others.

    Comment by Janis — September 27, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
  55. Frankly, I really do not care about the size, as long as it does not
    80 grit sand paper in texture. I am sensitive, ya know!

    Comment by Emery — September 28, 2006 @ 12:09 am
  56. sorry, should have read as long as it does not resemble 80 grit

    Comment by Emery — September 28, 2006 @ 12:12 am
  57. Has anyone actually measured the diameter of the old paper tube vs. the new tube? Also, regarding the discussion of thinner but longer sheet vs. puffier but shorter sheet: can anyone measure the weight of the paper (less cardboard tube) of the old and the new versions? If the new puffy version has significantly less total weight then that would belie the “its a smaller sheet but the puffed quality makes up for it” argument and expose the puffiness as a red herring.

    Comment by Consumer Joe — September 28, 2006 @ 12:50 am
  58. If I understand, the original point was that you are getting less than you
    thought you were getting with the new size. The same is true with paper towels.
    The deception involved is that the label says the same number of sheets, but
    the fine print reveals that the size of each sheet being smaller, you are
    getting less. I wonder if Government Inflation figures are based on the shrinking
    sizes of product packages. Do the people doing the research for the government
    actually check the fine print or do they assume that a roll of TP is just a roll
    of TP?

    Comment by Mikey — September 28, 2006 @ 8:15 am
  59. The real conspiracy is: why don’t we have those butt sprayers like they do in Eurpoe? That would reduce how much toilet paper is needed. It’s conservative, and a nice jet cleans better ;0)

    Comment by Paul Redmond — September 28, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
  60. not to mention the cardboard rube is larger in diameter now than in the past
    nit picky but true

    Comment by Bill — September 28, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
  61. Ironically, while American toilet paper is getting S-M-A-L-L-E-R, the average American rump is getting W-I-D-E-R.
    ;-P

    Comment by A.R.Yngve — September 29, 2006 @ 4:31 am
  62. worse yet, i fell for scott’s extra soft toilet tissue. for same price
    as the 1000 roll i am getting 600 sheets. beware!

    Comment by rita israel — October 1, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
  63. Less product, same price? Nothing new! Ice cream used to come in half gallon
    cartons, coffee in lb cans. Consummers take this type of bait & switch price
    increase easier that a straight price increase. I’m waiting for 10 eggs
    to a carton merchandising (cartons will be streched to be the same size as
    the ones holding a dozen).

    Comment by Dennis — October 3, 2006 @ 8:03 am
  64. As other’s mentioned, this is nothing new. I used to work for a fellow who’s prior job was at the place that manufactures Brawny paper towel. They also made several brands of tissue.

    He told me that they regularly play this kind of game in the paper products industry. A box of kleenex will slowly lose sheets and eventually as it becomes too obvious the box is less full the boxes will shrink too. Then they will release a “Family Size” or “Jumbo Size” or whatever box that is really about the original sheet count but at a higher price. Then the process starts all over.

    I’m not certain but I heard that they have managed to get changes to the law that lets them leave off sheet count. That may not be true but the box of Kleenex I am looking at right now doesn’t have them. Then again it was in a bulk pack so maybe it’s only required on the outside wrapping.

    Comment by Cory — October 5, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
  65. I know that everyones keeps looking at the 300 inches AND cant really visualize it, but that .3 inches is taking 25ft of TP off the roll.. I honstly think they should make it six inches long instead of four and cut the count to around 600 sheets. Honestly, who uses one sheet of TP? I think that one sheet of 6 inch of TP would go farther and be more efficent use rather than shrinking the TP size.

    Comment by Cliff — October 6, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
  66. Personally I like Charmin. Mega roll has 704 sheets…I’m not going to notice that much of a difference. They even have one with lotion. They just think consumers are goin to just grab & not think! Like the Migraine & Arthritis Tylenol…no special ingrediant in them…just longer lasting…heck I can take Tylenol more often! I don’t need to buy one for each problem. Less Calories Milky Ways…less candy!!!! Then the bottles of kitchen Bacterial spray & bathroom…is there different ingredients for different bacteria? No! And they say 25% more…how could you tell? They don’t tell you how much of the active ingredient is in it on the back of the bottle! We are suppose to take their word for it! Ugh!

    Comment by Psychfun — October 7, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
  67. We are clearly being misled, why not? Should Scotts care
    about the consumer loyalty it has enjoyed for so long? I
    think so and I am no longer a customer. It was very clear
    that they began reducing the roll size some time ago. Remember
    when the new roll would hardly turn in the dispenser because
    it was larger than everyone elses product? Now it spins
    freely. Here’s a tip: take a look at the generic brands that
    offer 1000 sheets per roll. Each square is not 4.5″ x 4.5″
    like the old Scotts was but the length is 4.0″ on some rather
    than the 3.7″ of Scotts and they are priced competitively even
    when they are not on sale. Thanks for reading this!

    Comment by Nicholas — October 11, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
  68. I’ve got a solution: Get a bidet!

    Comment by Frenchy — October 12, 2006 @ 7:07 am
  69. Why would someone cheat you out of toilet paper thats pretty low. Well when i go
    to the store im not going to buy Scott toilet paper anymore.

    Comment by Annomymus — October 12, 2006 @ 8:22 am
  70. Sheet length? Sheet thickness? Sheet count? Roll weight?

    Who cares? All that matters to me is that I get the same number of effective, um, “uses” before I have to reach under the sink for the next roll.

    If someone made really high quality toilet paper that would REALLY work well with one sheet, but only gave me 100 sheets on a roll, why is that any worse than a similarly priced roll of 1000 sheets that require 10 sheets per use?

    So, here’s my proposal to the paper industry: Don’t tell us how many sheets are in the package and don’t tell us how much surface area is in the package (this ignores the 3rd dimention anyway) – just run some tests, get an average usage rate, and tell us how many generic USES are in the package. This provides an apples-to-apples comparitor for us. And, no, since I may use more than the average and the next guy may use less, the actual number won’t count, but it will let us compare this package to the next.

    Comment by That Little Voice — October 12, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
  71. First of all: Scott toilet paper DID NOT stay the same price.
    It went up 10 cents a roll, and it decreased in length. I
    could swear that it is thinner too. Did anyone check that
    aspect? My first thought was “gosh I didn’t think it was
    possible to make this any thinner, but they did.” I have to
    make sure that I pull more off the roll, because if I don’t,
    my fingers go right thru it. So, no matter how you look at it,
    Scott toilet paper doesn’t last near as long as it did. And
    for an extra 10 cents a roll, that’s a double whammy. I do
    agree, it feels softer, but I think that is just because it
    is flimsier. I have to pay a lot closer attention to how
    much paper I pull off the roll now, than I ever had to before.

    Comment by Anne Mantey — October 13, 2006 @ 3:13 am
  72. I never bought Scott. Now I never will.

    Comment by Another Anonymous — October 16, 2006 @ 9:13 am
  73. I remember when SCOTT and other Toilet Paper’s were like 11cents a roll, now now only
    are they making the rolls SMALLER but it cost almost $1.00 to use it, don’t forget to
    also add the tax! Then you have the super duper double stuff that clogs up the toilet
    Especially if you have kids. So either way you cant win.
    I either buy the store brands now or MARCAL. They are both reasonably priced!

    Comment by ms.Anonymous — October 23, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
  74. “…consumers preferred this new sheet…”

    Scott is spouting a series of white lies to make people believe that they are listening to their customers. In fact, it appears that Scott diliberately set up a faulty test in order to get consumers to appear to say what Scott would love to hear them say. Scott would love to hear that consumers would prefer to receive less value for the same price.

    Here is how Scott did it. They improved the individual sheet, by embossing it. Then they got a small group to try it out. They liked it. It may not have been a significant difference, but they felt it was better than the non-embossed sheets. Then Scott told consumers they would have to either shorten the sheets, or have less sheets. Those were the only two choices. Consumers chose shorter sheets.

    Notice that Scott never asked the consumers whether embossing made enough of a difference that they would prefer to shorten the sheets. Sneaky.

    I got all this info from reading between the lines in the two paragraphs displayed in the post. Re-read it if you need to.

    Comment by Winter Knight — October 25, 2006 @ 1:27 am
  75. Scott is much too soft and thin for me. I use Marcal, but from summer I found that an impostor has been selling thin and shiny paper in Marcal wrappers. They should investigate and arrest somebody.
    I found out long ago that I need to tear used hand-towels into 8 portions and fold each 2″ x 3″ piece into 2 digits of thin tissue to wipe properly. Repeat as necessary. If I dont, my fingers will punch through into feces every time (ugh).

    Comment by MikeNYC — November 11, 2006 @ 10:48 am
  76. They are downsizing everything. shorten eyebrow pencils. You can barely hold onto it. Kleenix tissues also short sheet.

    Comment by f.kaye — December 11, 2006 @ 8:25 am
  77. I just KNEW there had to have been a change in the amount in each roll because our large family is going through it faster. I had not previously previously noted the size of each sheet so I couldn’t compare that; however, I did notice that there were still 1000 sheets, so I thought maybe the new texture was somehow related to the amount we were using (?) I Googled Scott TP to see what I could come up with and found you – and the answer! I.e., less TP on each roll. Duh! Good grief, if I wanted softer I’d get one of the designer brands. I want economy! I’m disgusted.

    Comment by n carter — January 4, 2007 @ 7:59 am
  78. I have a hard time wondering why a lot of seemingly smart adults are having such a deep discussion about toilet paper. I’m sure there are other much more important topics to talk about. I use Scotts, but whether I use it again or not is really not that important for a discussion.

    Comment by Barbara — January 10, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
  79. I have bought scott for the last five years, I am switching I get tired of deceptive packaging.
    These co downsize on soup cookies ketchup you name it. anything to charge you more. and you get less.
    I wonder what will happen when they cant downsize anymore?

    Comment by deborah — January 29, 2007 @ 10:41 am
  80. Manufacturers have been doing this for years. Check out that 3 lb can or 1 lb can of coffee you buy. It is now 14 oz or 39 oz. If the price doesn’t go up the quantity comes down. There is no free lunch.

    Comment by Mary Shinsky — February 16, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
  81. You’re all missing the point. 1000 sheets at 4″ = 4000 linear inches
    or approximately 333′.
    1000 sheets at 3.7″ = 3700 linear inches or approximately 308′.
    That’s a difference of 25ft.
    If there’s 4 rolls in a package that’s 100′ less per package. For ease of
    calculating, let’s say you use 1 ft per wipe.
    That’s 100 less wipes per package.

    Comment by Dave S — February 17, 2007 @ 1:17 am
  82. I have been a scott tp purchaser for years.BOOOO on your new & improved.
    I don’t like the texture,feels thicker like I’m using a paper towel.
    It stickes to the roll making it hard to take off(roll off)
    I shop at BJ’S Wholesale,Therefore I was “stuck” with 24 rolls.
    Please please please go back to the original

    Comment by Patricia Crammer — March 5, 2007 @ 11:26 am
  83. When I compare prices on TP I use sq feet which is on the packaging. We prefer Scott because of the break apart factor so it doesn’t clog up plumbing. They also have the best sales and when they have a great sale, I usually buy enough for a year. What is noticably missing on the new package is the Good Housekeeping seal so it might be interesting to ask them or GH why the seal is gone. That could be more important than a change in the size of the sheet.

    Comment by Kris — March 11, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
  84. I also use sq feet when I compare prices for toilet paper, taking into
    considertion whether the paper is two-ply or single. I have to say that had not realized the removal of the Good Housekeeping seal–makes one wonder.

    Comment by Shar — March 15, 2007 @ 8:55 am
  85. Can I still buy the old type of toilet paper?/ The new edition clogs my toilet all the time I don’t like it al all.

    Comment by peggy reese — March 25, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
  86. IVE BEEN BUYING SCOT TOILET PAPER FOR 30 YEARS, THIS LAST 12 ROLLS WE BOUGHT WAS 1 PLY BUT EVERY SHEET HAD HOLES IN IT, IS THAT YOUR BEST PRODUCT, WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THIS PRODUCT. NOT A CUSTOMER ANY MORE JO ANN KELLER

    Comment by jo ann keller — April 4, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
  87. I was just thinking that scott tp was smaller… and speaking of smaller- icecream half-gallons are now for the most part a thing of the past- they are 2L which is approx 1.89qts.

    Hood basically did not answer my question about it. I first noticed it with Friendly’s icecream not being 1/2gal anymore. then some major brands did the same thing. occasionally you can find a store brand that still is 2qts.

    Julie

    Comment by juliesawtelles — May 22, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
  88. I found this site by doing a name search for “Soft Weave” Toilet tissue. I was buying that brand, and all of a sudden I could no longer find it in any stores in my area. I never paid close attention to who the manfacture was, and when it disapeared I did not even know who I could contact to find out why or if there was any way I could still get it. I too as a consumer knew it was a better value for my money than Scott was. Yes, it had 1200 sheets per roll vs Scott’s rolls of 1000 sheets. Like most American families we struggle to make ends meet, and what I buy has to be the most for my money. It is happening more and more to the consumers, that they are getting cheated by product manufactures. The size and quantity keeps decreasing but the prices either stay the same or increase, and all for less product. The manufactures must think all of us consumers are either too busy or stupid and do not notice what is hapenning. I for one am sick and tired of being treated this way, after all their pockets are full with the high profits they are making from us. Other than letting off steam by adding my comments to this site, isn’t there some way we can unite and let them know that enough is enough ?

    Sharon from Wisconsin

    Comment by Sharon Zak — June 5, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
  89. It would be nice if the Scott paper manufacturer were using the excess profits to restore the forests they have trampled. I might be willing to pay a bit more for a shorter roll of lesser quality if I thought the environment was the winner…I am sure Scott tissue advertising would be all over that if it were the case. As it is, the consumer and the environment are being ripped off! Shame on big company!

    Comment by Mia Taylor — September 27, 2007 @ 9:08 am
  90. I have used Scott Toilet Tissue for as many years as I can remember.
    I used it first because I liked it and next because of its long
    lasting rolls. It was perfect. Wish you had not changed it. Why mess
    with a perfect product. I have tried the “new” and do not like it. If I could find a store that still had the old I would buy all they had. I do not want to change, but the “new” is just not as good.
    I have been a proud Scott Tissue customer. I have been known to change my friends and family’s mind on other products and to use your product. I am so saddended about your change. My husband thinks it may not be good for the septic tank. Thanks for listening!

    Comment by maureen gray — November 15, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
  91. I noticed the technique of “less for the same price” when working for Kroger in the late ’40s. Vegetables that were in #2 cans started showing up in ‘303’ (smaller) cans – at the same price. It’s either higher prices or less for the same money – or both – that’s the name of the game.

    Comment by Bill — November 17, 2007 @ 10:56 am
  92. I didn’t notice the change in sheet size but… why am I seeing only one objection to this new 1-ply deal? They came out with a new improved softer purple-packaged tissue (so I switch from the old blue-packaged version) and then that new softer version devolves into a substandard version of the original cheaper version. Are we not suppose to notice that? Oh, well….Time to say goodbye to an era. The music fades…

    Comment by Sandy — January 10, 2008 @ 2:18 am
  93. I BOUGHT A PACKAGE OF 20 ROLLS OF SCOTT TOILET PAPER AND THIS IS THE SECOND ROLL I HAVE USED THAT IS NOT SCORED, IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING THAT I CANT RIP IT OFF .

    Comment by Louise Collins — January 24, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
  94. Since Scott changed so have we. We have tried everything out
    there and none compare to the original Scott. I was willing to
    pay more for it, but not anymore.

    Comment by Bonnie — March 24, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
  95. Hey, you must all be wrong. I just wrote Scott to complain about the new tissue. I was informed on 3-25-08 that Scott had not changed the tissue since JANUARY 2006. Man, they must have had a heck of a supply built up. I just placed rolls of the tissue on the shelf. I noticed the core of the new rolls is larger. hmmm I picked up both rolls at the same time. The old roll is firm when you place one finger in the core and the other on the outside of a new roll and press. The new roll mashes in when doing the same thing. The improved tissue also tears in use.
    I did offer to send Scott a roll of each so they could tell that I knew what I was talking about. I have not received a reply. I too am looking for another brand. I hate the deceptive way Scott went about raising their prices.

    Comment by Alma Cornwell — March 26, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
  96. Just like every product now. I remember seeing a report like this on 60 minutes or something a long time ago showing all the different products that have shrunk in size. Everything from beverages to cupcakes to toilet paper. Total scam.
    Their defense was that “we tell you how much is inside right on the label”. Yes, but if you normally have a specific amount in that container, suddenly reducing the amount without warning is flat out deceitful (and printing it on the bottom corner of the label that people normally don’t even look at is NOT a warning). If they have nothing to hide, why not just say “NOW – smaller size!” right on the label?
    I don’t care how much anyone tries to justify it (let the buyer beware etc.), it’s ripping people off. It’s just their way of saving money without raising prices – which people are more likely to protest about because it’s more noticeable. They’d rather be sneaky about it so they don’t lose your business. They count on people taking for granted that the amount they have been putting in that package for years will stay the same.
    I seem to recall buying half gallons of ice cream from Breyer’s (to name one brand). Now,when you buy it, it’s “1.75 quarts”. Check out some other products you normally buy – bet you’ll see this in many products.

    Comment by Not surprised — April 3, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
  97. I have been a Scott’s 1000 roll customer for probably 20+ years. But I’m not so committed to Scott’s that if I found comparable tissue (1000 sheets)on sale of a “store brand” that I wouldn’t buy it. At this point I’m debating whether to buy those 500 sheet rolls I’ve seen at the 99¢ Only store (.39¢ each). They are the full size sheets, 4.5×4.0. Or perhaps find some business supply company that supplies the tissue to big businesses and buy a box of 100 :) Scott’s is definitely not alone in this, Bounty has gone from 90 to 84 to 80 in the last year and Dixie value pack plates went from 125 to 115 to 110 to 100 in a 3 year time span.

    Comment by Virginia G. — April 29, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
  98. scott toilet tissue is not only SMALLER, but it is DEFINITELY THINNER!…i have bought my last roll(s) of the product since i thought i purchased the new softer thicker tissue (at a higher price),but whoa!….it’s almost tissue paper thin….shame on scott!…..

    Comment by j.brown — May 5, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
  99. Im doing a paper for college on Scott toliet paper, because my friend from school says that this is her favorite brand. I also love Scott tissue, it has been in my house since birth, I’m now going on 28. I hope to get another A in class researching this product!

    Comment by karen swindle — May 17, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
  100. I’ve noticed the change in the Scott tissue. I’m very disappointed, and will probably look for an alternative product. Scott was the best value on the market, but no more!

    Comment by Patty — June 23, 2008 @ 9:47 am
  101. i been getting scotts and i noticed red bugs on this toilet paper with red dots this was my last roll anyone notice this?!

    Comment by WeedSeed — June 23, 2008 @ 10:09 am
  102. I thought I was going nuts the past year. It seemed like I kept running out of toilet paper much too frequently. This is so annoying to find out. Does anyone know any brands similar to Scott?

    Comment by marcia — July 8, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
  103. I TOO AM DISAPOINTED BY THE CONSTANT CHANGES BUT THIS TIME IT IS THE LAST STRAW!!! We HAVE A BUILT IN TOILET PAPER HOLDER AND THEY HAVE MADE THE SCOTTS 500 SHEET ROLLS SHORTER AND NOW THEY FALL OUT OF THE HOLDER.I HAVE A FULL PKG OF THE OLD AND NEW, THE 500 SHEET THICKER ONE IS NOW LIKE 468 SHEETS ALSO. I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS A BUILT IN TP HOLDER AND I DO NOT BELIEVE I AM THE ONLY ONE.

    Comment by MONA — July 22, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
  104. no one has told me the actual measurant of the tubes,I am looking for the diamater of “old” tubes.new is 1 1/2 inches. thanks, G

    Comment by Guyalbert — August 8, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
  105. So what else is new? I’ve been a pro-business type all my life having served as CEO of a number of chambers of commerce.

    Recently I’ve been e-mailing a large of firms complaining about the “screw the consumer” philosophy.

    Check your favorite ice cream maker. Used to get a half-gallon for $x.xx.
    Not any more. You now get 48 oz. instead of 64! Same size (roughly) container…..same damn price.

    Then check soup can sizes, cracker box weights and what is this “Certified Angus Beef” crap. That is NOT a USDA grade for meat.

    I asked one meat manager what grade of beef his store bought. He said: “Select or better.” I asked what percentage was Select and what was Choice or Prime. He said he didn’t know and I’d have to ask headquarters. I did. Shaw’s gave some lame response but no answwer.

    Comment by JimVT — September 18, 2008 @ 9:10 am
  106. Also look at the new larger “Improved ” cardboard tube size. Please mislead and rip me off.

    Comment by Bill Hawes — December 7, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
  107. I’ve been buying Scott tissue for years! In the last couple of years, I noticed that I had to replace the roll sooner and sooner than in the past. I thought I’d developed a bad paper-wasting habit, but I see the trick now. I’m gonna try Marcal 1000 sheets, see if they are doing the same thing.

    Comment by YY — December 9, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
  108. I went into my local Safeway two weeks ago, looking for their house brand 12-roll pack of 1000-sheets. It sells for around $8, but is frequently on sale for $5. There was none to be found. The only 12-roll/1000-sheet pack available was Scott, normally $11, on sale for $8. I used to buy this product til the cheaper Safeway brand came along, but now I’m being forced to buy up — and pay substantially more — if I want 1000-sheet rolls.

    Then came the Big Insult. I got home and discovered the sheets that used to be 4.5 inches by 4.5 inches are now 3.7 inches by 4.5! If my rudimentary math skills are still operative, each square has been reduced from 20.25 square inches to 16.65 sq inches! That’s a 17.5% reduction.

    So, hosed on both ends of the deal.

    Toilet paper used to come in sheets of 4.5 x 4.5 or larger, with 650 sheets per roll. A four-pack was 39 to 48 cents. I wouldn’t mind the three decades of inflation if the product were still the same. But it’s not.

    There’s no such thing as truth in packaging anymore. It’s been supplanted by rip-off in packaging. Next time around Scott can go wipe itself!

    Comment by Freewheelin' Franklin — December 11, 2008 @ 7:33 am
  109. What a joke after making a comment to Scotts consumer headquarters I was told I was getting a free coupon to appease my dislike of their toilet paper product,I will not buy any of their products anymore I think they are taking advantage of us the consumer. I am two person household I don’t think we should have to use more than a roll a week,my bathroom habits haven’t changed through the years but the toilet tissue has. Shame on Scotts.

    Comment by sally benney — December 16, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
  110. Shame on scott tissue, is right!
    I use to have a roll last me 3 weeks! Now its gone in 6 days!
    To those who find this topic silly…well its not about toilet paper..ita about MONEY and the cost of consumer goods and the deceptive practices that are being passed onto the consumers as “improved versions”!
    I wrote scott an email, a week ago, they have yet to reply!
    Maybe we should flood them with emails of discontent, and they might get the hint.
    BTW, their roll of paper towels has shrunk too!

    Comment by Mshandi — January 15, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
  111. HOw about the 12pk is now 9pk same price?

    Comment by shelia — January 26, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
  112. Well, the good news for me is that Scott apparently is still 4.4 inches wide. I have to buy it, because I just found out that both brands of recycled toilet paper I used — Trader Joe’s and Seventh Generation– have reduced the WIDTH of their toilet paper.

    This sound ridiculous, but it’s the difference between being able to use my toilet paper holder or not. I have a toilet paper holder that has no middle part– the toilet paper fits between two bars which have springs in the heads. It’s called a Kohler Finial Toilet Tissue holder — here is a picture: https://www.homecenter.com/ProductDetails.asp?SID=31248.

    The toilet paper has to be 4.4 inches wide, or the holder can’t hold it– the new rolls literally fall right through the two side parts of the toilet paper holder.

    The two sides of the toilet paper holder are drilled into my tile bathroom wall. To move them would be a massive mess… plus, if I move them to fit the current smaller width toilet paper, what happens when it gets even smaller?

    I was shocked that Seventh Generation and Trader Joe’s would reduce the WIDTH of their toilet paper. I mean, go ahead and reduce the length, but the width? Iy yi yi. So I can’t use either brand any more, and will be using Scott– as long as it stays 4.4 inches WIDE.

    Comment by Melissa — March 2, 2009 @ 1:04 am
  113. Does anyone know what happened to Scott’s 2 ply toilet paper? Locally, our groceries are only carrying single ply. This saddens us immensely.

    Comment by Christine J — March 25, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
  114. The newer softer toilet paper clogs my toilet. I have to buy the cheapest stuff to get it to flush. My toilet is one of the cheap newer models that uses ”
    “less” water, works out to more if you have to flush 3 times to get the darn crap down.

    Comment by Marci — July 27, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
  115. I used to own a B & B in Cooperstown,NY, between 1989 and 2005 and I LOVED the Scott toilet paper, it was the best and longest lasting, and with 10 bathrooms, a lot less toilet paper changing. Now I am depressed because it has changed. It seems like a little thing, but with all the companies making their little changes, it’s starting to add up. So I am making my own soap, jam, and everything I can make, and doing without the “rip off” items with the exception of toilet paper(still looking for one I like.) Before long even the raw materials will be going up with less amount. No more processed foods, now doing trips to the local produce sellers (I get fresh vegetables for 1/3 the price paid at the supermarket). That’s how I fight back. A little bit of work, but very satisfying…

    Comment by Paula — August 29, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
  116. I’m not certain why anyone would purchase Scott toilet paper. It is so incredibly THIN that it’s in shreds by the time you mangage to get some off of the roll. And I have found that it takes 3 times as much paper to do the same job than Charmin – or any other brand for that matter. My opinion is that it’s crap (pun intended) as is the marketing scam of maintaining 1000 sheets per roll and leaving out the little (but oh so important) tid-bit that each sheet is smaller! The old gray mare ain’t what she used to be.

    Comment by Jean — December 14, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
  117. I recently wrote to Quilted Northern when I noticed their toilet tissue no longer fit between the tabs on my toilet paper holder, (too short)
    SEE THEIR RESPONSE BELOW:

    >We understand you may have some concerns about the roll width and/or sheet count of Quilted Northern Soft & Strong(r). As noted at the bottom of the package, Quilted Northern Soft & Strong(r) is about 1/2 inch narrower than before, and we have slightly reduced the sheet count. Because of today’s economy, cost is a factor. We made the decision to slightly reduce the roll to bring you the bathroom tissue you trust and not raise our price to retailers.<

    VERY deceptive! and I told them so!

    Comment by MaryAnnW — December 30, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
  118. Toilet paper should be sold by weight. It is about the only supermarket product that does not a have a weight amount on the package. It would be a lot easier for the customer to calculate and compare the actual price and costs between brands. I have thought about taking some toilet paper packages to weigh on the scales in the vegetable section of the supermarket. However, I am sure that would probably be considered unacceptable to actually weigh toilet paper, particularly on the vegetable scales. Hmmm.

    Comment by C. Weed — February 23, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
  119. i have bought scott tissue for about 35yrs and i do not like the soft tissue you come out with i am very dissatified with it it does not last like the regulare scott does thank you very much i will go back to the regular

    Comment by diana rumsey — July 24, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
  120. I have a stainless stand alone toilet paper dispenser that i find quite attractive. I noticed because now the toilet paper looks rediculous sitting on it. I have to use Scott because of septic so for that reason and that reason only did I notice. I will continue to buy probably because other three bathroooms have in the wall dispensers, but, if you all could see what it looks like,(and it’s in my guest bathroom, an add on) it looks really silly. It is so noticeable and looks crazy like i cut the roll in half to save money.

    Comment by Elle — August 6, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
  121. Dear Scott Management,
    I have read criticisms of your toilet paper quality on this and another site. It is obvious that you have disappointed a number of loyal customers.
    I have examined my new purchase which I find to be only one ply, strong but thin, and now only 4″ X 3&3/4″.
    I know you are pressed to maintain the quality of the product which for years was a seemingly favorite brand of many. Expenses are obvious, and many companies feel the pinch. Still, I naively maintain that you were mistaken in your judgment to change quality.
    If I were management, I would maintain the high quality. OK. It is true your company would profit less. So Scott makes less money. Let’s face it. You are still earning good money if you maintain the product, despite growing expenses. You would have a company that continues its high quality with a wonderful reputation. Isn’t this worth a lot? You could even use this as an advertisement promotion suggesting that “Scott doesn’t compromise.” You have been on the market for so many years. Why damage your reputation?
    Of course– if not cutting back would seriously trouble your company financially– I can understand the change. I don’t know your economics. I am asking you to ask yourself how much you would hurt by maintaining your product. Would your losses be so damaging?
    Keep continuing to read all the negative criticisms and ask yourselves if this is really worth it when you had such an apparently loyal following. So you profit less. I know this is somewhat naive to suggest. But money should not always be your bottom line. You will hardly go broke. You will still profit nicely and carry a longtime reputation for so many years soundly into the future.
    You are the ones with the dollar numbers to crunch. I am not. I only ask you to ask yourself just how necessary a change in quality is.
    Reputation means so much. People loved your product. You had a real following. Will you eventually lose the high regard for your name?

    Comment by Bob — August 31, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
  122. Scott made a change in width. I told customer service that I would rather have an 800 (rather than 1000 sheets) if the width stayed the same.
    I also was offered 2 coupons (I guess to buy Scott again).
    I’m not using the coupons, I’m going to try to find a wider toilet paper
    instead. As far as I remember (65 + years) Scott had our loyalty.
    Not anymore. Remember years ago Coca Cola decided to change their
    formula, guess what, the public protested and they decided to go back to what works. If they want to make more money, let them put the committee
    (that came up with the cost saving idea) on a four day work week. That’ll save the company 20 %. Labor costs are more expensive to any company than srinking size of the product. In Brooklyn NY restaurants diners that have steady customers and the longest return customers are the ones that give large portions of food. So, you can’t eat that much,
    no problem, bring it home and have another meal. They are really prospering. Bottom line, if something works, leave it alone.
    Procter and Gamble (Ivory Soap) are you listening ? I see a lot of comments about Ice Cream, they are pumping it up with air, eventually
    the air has to escape, then the subject is back to toilet paper. I’ve said my piece, and am sticking to it.

    Comment by Roy D'Urso — September 26, 2010 @ 7:02 am
  123. I HAVE BEEN BUYING SCOTT TOILET PAPER FOR THE PAST FORTY ONE YEARS. THE QUALITY HAS CHANGED. THE PAPER IS NOT AS SOFT AND THE WIDTH IS SMALLER. I WILL BE LOOKING AT OTHER BRANDS SINCE YOUR QUALITY HAS CHANGED .YOUR NEW TOILET IS NOW EQUAL TO THE NO NAME BRANDS.

    Comment by Maurice B Brewer Jr. — September 28, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
  124. I agree the WEIGHT should be on each package of TP. There are a lot of factors consumers might want to consider before making a purchase, so the more information the better.

    Comment by Jackie — November 26, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
  125. I have a one handed roll holder, it is two buttons that hold the roll from the sides, no thingy roller that removes. THATS the big f’n deal. And the cheaper brands make a HUGE cardboard roll thats super heavy so it feels heavy and beefy. Scott will no longer fit in my holder. It is not the type of holder you have.I am pissed, they should not cut one inch off the end. It is only to give Scott more money. I can remember tp being three for a buck.
    Oh well, dollar store paper here I come. Scott lost me.

    Comment by Janine — February 3, 2011 @ 7:38 pm
  126. ALDI’S HAS “OLD” SIZE!!!!!!!!!!! Aldi’s grocery stores has a type of toilet paper single-ply, HUGE 4.5 X 3.7 JUST LIKE PRE-2006 SCOTT TOILET PAPER!!!! The name on the front….I don’t know, but look for the big “1,000″ on the front of the package. Each 4-pack costs $2.49, while Scott costs $3.79 per 4 pack at my grocery store.
    My bum loves it, and I will NEVER GO BACK TO SCOTT!!!!

    Comment by earl — March 17, 2011 @ 5:21 pm
  127. Thank you for finally publicizing what I’ve said for years, that the Scott rolls are smaller. Not just shorter, but narrower, too. They’re still better than competitors, so I won’t be switching, but if some other company would come along and make a roll that actually lasts as week, as Scott used to do, I’ll start buying it.

    Comment by Lisa B — April 6, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
  128. Please don’t stop selling 1000 sheet tolet paper, I haved used this tolet paper for 37 years. If you don’t worry about savings then your stupid.We haved use other tolet paper, but scott can we can use 1 roll, which,loast 3 times longer than any other brand. PLEASE PUT BACK ON back on the market!!!!!!! We love the long lasting 1000 sheet tolet paper.

    Comment by ara victria kelly — May 7, 2011 @ 11:43 am
  129. I have a home with paper holders built into the walls. The smaller rolls now look way out of place, like mini rolls in fill size holders, as they are much narrower than the holders. New holders can be made smaller in width to accommodate the narrower rolls but not the built in units. Manufacturers should quit screwing the public and just make the polls the same old size and just charge accordingly. The paper tube the toilet paper is wrapped around in now 1/4″ inch smaller than the old center tube which means even less paper for your dollar. I bet most people would pay more for the original size paper that the shrunken model now being sold. Our butts, hands and fingers are not getting smaller so the paper should not be getting smaller either. Corporate management does not see the real picture all they see is how to make a profit. Reduce what they supply to you without raising the price is really raising the price as now you receive less product for the same amount of money. Unfortunately almost every product you buy today is like this as the executives have to figure out ways to continue to make profits for the stockholders. This type of practice will continue with all consumer goods until people quit buying them to the point that a company actually loses large amounts of money, then maybe something will change to the benefit of the consumer. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen though.

    Comment by D. Clayton — January 22, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

Comments RSS

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Copyright © 2006-2014. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.