There 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.
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.
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.
Why is everyone so surprised… Do you actually think these companies are going to do something postiive for the consumers ???
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.
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 !!
Scott just lost a steady customer.
WoW! Wait’ll it gets to be improved to fingernail-sized or smaller!
(I’m not sure what customer groups would prefer that …)
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.
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.
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.
would love to agree with the last two (Comment by Craig — September 26, 2006 @ 8:40 am )comments but
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.
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.
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”
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!
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’).
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?
Volume and surface area aren’t the same thing…if 1000 feet is their catch, they need to back it up.
Sorry, I meant that it’s misleading if they have reduced the size of the sheets.
🙂
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.
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.
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?
well get ready for the future shock:
“NEW! IMPROVED! BUTT FLOSS …Embossed for greater satisfaction!”
…and only republicans will be able to afford that!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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!
Could someone compare the mass, without the cardboard bushing, of the old roll to that of the new roll?
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.
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.
You know they could just add a TP roll extender. Many brands do this already.
They have bigger rolls, and therefore my business.
Thats it, this is the last straw! I am no longer going to use toliet paper!
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.
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.
OMG…
I can’t believe that somewhere in this world…people are actually having
an intellectual discussion on toliet paper….lol.
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
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.
I notice the “Good Housekeeping Seal” is gone, too…
“Most people wash their hands after using a restroom, anyway”
No, they don’t.
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.
ACK!
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).
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!
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.
Excellent site…. thanks for the useful information, it was about time!!!!!
I KNEW they weren’t lasting as long as usual! Thanks for reaffirming what I was thinking!!