Wow. I know $86 million is probably standard fare for a company like P&G, but my goodness! With all the things that you could do for $86 million, surely someone would have realized that they could have done so much more!

Ted,

If Charmin calls me, I guarantee that we can create a story that is both compelling and people-focused for well under $10,000, and they can keep the change.

What are they thinking? Recognizing that most of that $86M is the media buy, not the creative, it stills seems a bit much. They will mass market a message that is neither sticky nor compelling, using a medium that lacks the magnetism of so many other marketing tools that could be used instead, or at least in addition to, and for less than $86M.

This is a perfect example of a Marketing Department having too much money in their budget and using it the same old easy way.

Here's my advice: Outsource their marketing to those of us who can't sit in our cozy cubicles knowing we have a paycheck arriving every two weeks, whether or not we do a great job. And if this campaign was created by an outside firm, Charmin hired the wrong firm.

P.S. All you corporate marketing folks who are doing great work, and there are many of you, this last paragraph is not about you.

Cam,

Exactly.

Lewis,

"What are they thinking?" Exactly. As you pointed out: much of the $86 million is going to media buys, not creative. Still, I'll bet even adjusting for inflation, the old Mr. Whipple spots which were quite "sticky", didn't cost that much to create.

How about it creative Daily Fix readers and contributors? What would you do to create a sticky, contemporary marketing campaign for Charmin if you were awarded the project?

Ted, I'd sponsor a sandpaper convention. :)

Specially designed for her family!? There are two kinds?

They'd be better off wheeling out a modern, hip Mr. Whipple yet style very earnest. He could be more over-the-top than the original Mr. Whipple.

He would be super earnest with more than a hint of irony. I think it would be funny.

Paul,

Too funny! With comments like these, we can't take marketing problems needing solutions too seriously, can we? Levity is always great and works in most situations. Thanks for sending some our way.

Interesting idea, Neil. I don't know what a hip Mr. Whipple would look like--could be interesting. Humor can always make for some memorable marketing campaigns. . .and I suppose something as mundane as toilet paper might give people some funny ideas. Look at Paul's contribution!

Thanks for posting your idea.

BTW, Neil, forgot to answer your question. The two new kinds of Charmin are Ultra Soft and Ultra Strong. Enough said.

P&G should run a social media campaign featuring confessionals from those who "squeezed the Charmin."

Or, if they are really wedded to this "soft v. strong" gig.. two competing Facebook groups -- 100 random people from the group that ends up wtih more members gets a case of their chosen product.

OK, so not great ideas.. but at least we know why I'm not a creative!

: )

Ann

Ann,

Great ideas sometimes have to evolve from brainstorming sessions. That's a practice that we, as designers engage in, besides conducting our research.

We're almost all creative in one way or other. . .and your idea of running a social campaign might be a lot of fun. Actually, wouldn't you be surprised if P&G didn't scoop up one of your ideas, Ann? You never know.

Ted,

The new, hip Mr. Whipple would remind people of the old one and he would have the same concern for his Charmin. But he would be hip, ironic, and way over-the-top.

That way, those who do not remember the original would still laugh.

What would he look like? It might be even funnier if he kept the mustache and the bad suit.

Or they could completely update him and he could be kind of like the Mac guy vs. Microsoft guy. Dressed well. Very cool. But earnest as hell about the Charmin.

It would almost be like this guy is so damn hip but he loses that the moment someone tries to squeeze the Charmin. He turns into a barking lunatic in a second.

As a former P&G brand manager and copy supervisor (a position they abandoned quite a while ago), I'm surprised at a couple of things:

First, that so many of you find $86 million "over the top" when it comes to advertising spending. If the ROI is attractive, then $86 million is no more "over the top" than any other number you might come up with. I'll bet they figured out that they max out on reach/frequency goals at $86 million, so spending less or more would not be as profitable.

Second, that you're assuming they haven't done the copy testing (or pre-testing) and concluded that "2 kinds of Charmin" will have greater appeal/impact on the target audience (and the business) than reprising Mr. Whipple.

I'll hold on to my P&G stock, thank you.

As a side note, AG Lafley, P&G's Chairman and CEO, has reached out to the P&G Alumni community and gets plenty of feedback from former Proctoids. I'd be surprised if this move hasn't already been considered by some of them -- especially if there's any ambiguity in the research numbers.

Thanks, Neil. . .interesting ideas. . .you were thinking of a Groucho Marx kind of character, updated for 2007 maybe?

Michael,

Maybe $86 million isn't an untoward advertising spend for a billion dollar brand. . .but ad spots that talk about two kinds of Charmin really doesn't seem all that inventive, or provocative. This is all the more surprising since P&G is known for doing extensive consumer research. As a former Proctoid, as you dub yourself, maybe you know something the rest of us don't. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the new Charmin advertising looks like and gauge its success.

Thanks for sharing a different point of view, Michael. Every discussion benefits from balance.

The "rediscover" angle makes it seem as though they're trying to win back previously loyal consumers, or encourage curently loyal buyers to re-engage with the product, rather than grab new audiences.

If you've never used (or cared about) Charmin in the past, you have nothing to "rediscover"--the message, it suggests, is not meant for you.

Hi Carolyn,

I'm not sure that people who are commenting on this post are suggesting a "rediscovery" of the brand is needed through a new advertising campaign. Rather, they are suggesting a rediscovery of a Charmin brand icon, Mr. Whipple, might be updated and used for a modern audience.

Smart marketers know they must continually deliver solid experiences with their brands to keep their current customers, while trying to engage new ones through strategy-based tactics. . .advertising included. Thanks for adding another dimension to this conversation, Carolyn.

I think Michael proves the points that we are trying to make:

First, the copy has been tested, probably in focus groups, which mean little to nothing in terms of its affectiveness once launched, because the medium, the creative, and the attention plus the attitude of the audience combine to determine the message's affectiveness, which cannot be factored in through testing; advertising ROI sits at the bottom of all other marketing ROI in terms of percentage return, and we are assuming this is an advertising buy based on the costs; third, an advertising media buy reaches everyone using that media, which means it isn't targeted to the ideal customer--a stupid waste of money. Reach is most affective for building brand recognition, not selling product.

P&G folks don't nitpick the points. We don't have all the details so we are responding with generalized comments based on research and experience.

Does this kind of stuff annoy me? Yes! Give the $86M to a charity. At least their it will result in favorable returns.

I like the idea of the updated Mr. Whipple. Maybe the campaign could make itself relevant to today's marketplace where it is ok to sqeeze the Charmin? Mr. Whipple could be featured in many scenarios trying to come to terms with the squeezing generation?

Maybe he's in therapy, being given the Charmin to squeeze for therapy? Maybe he witnesses young skaters are using it for knee pads, etc.

Some of the sequences could even highlight the differences between different products.

On a side note, I have enjoyed the discussion. Great exercise in flexing the creative muscle.

I suspect Michael is correct and P&G knows what they are doing - but for me, there is still value in the exercise.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Lewis,

You raise some provocative issues. You're right about advertising ROI and the fact that advertising in traditional media reaches some targeted customers, but fails to deliver to many more potential consumers.

However, large CPG companies like P&G have cut some of their traditional advertising spend to reallocate some of those dollars into other marketing vehicles, including Internet-based ones. . .yet, they still continue to spend heavily on traditional advertising. And I don't see that changing any time soon.

Charmin is a mature brand, so using traditional advertising to reach consumers, or to sell consumers, may or may not be the best way to spend a marketing budget, but as you say, Lewis, we are not privy to P&G's internal data and its decision-making rationales.

Daily Fix readers place great value on the honest, open assessments of Lewis Green. Myself included. You're the real deal, Lewis, and I thank you for your great observations.

Valerie,

I like what you said: "Maybe the campaign could make itself relevant to today's marketplace where it is ok to sqeeze the Charmin?"

The times have changed since the original Charmin spots aired and your idea of relevancy is key for all marketers.

I also think you're onto something with the idea of using updated spots to then point out the differences between the two Charmin products.

As you rightly point out, there is value to thinking about the decisions marketers are making and assessing them in a creative manner. Thanks for jumping into this discussion, Valerie.

Rethinking the resurrected Whipple... it might be sort of icky, like the resurrected Orville Rederbacher felt last year-ish. Back from the Crypt.

(Ok, I know we're not talking just about Whipple. But I haven't thought about the guy in a long time -- and so today I'm slightly distracted by the idea of him on our TVs again...)

Ted et al,

I kind of lost it back there and I apologize. Having come out of the corporate world,I am making some assumptions that may or may not be correct. However, my guess is that the media buy and the rest of the marketing campaign, assuming there is one, may or may not be integrated.

An advertising buy often is the first choice of CMOs because they can show pretty pictures and entertaining videos in the boardroom, getting oohs and ahs, but usually those advertising dollars could be better spent. First, by putting more dollars into strategies and tactics that feature more innovative ways to reach audiences and second by targeting audiences more directly by increasing buys on or in, in this case, womens magazines, women's TV shows, women's blogs, etc. Put the money where the decision makers live, not in broad-based media buys that emphasize reach.

If P&G does this, hats off to them. If they don't, it's the same old same old in the marketing department. Do what we always do because it's easier than being innovative and actually trying to engage our customers where they live and work.

So here's my idea:

Create a campaign around a story about a mother changing her baby's diaper. And instead of the usual wipedown materials for the sensitive spots, use Charmin. The mother wipes affectionately, while the camera moves in on the baby's face, which features a huge smile and a few ga-ga and goo-goos. Then the mother says, "Nothing is softer than Charmin." And the baby replies, "I love you Mom." Yes, it's a talking baby and the mother shows shock and awe over the baby's first words.

And then create an integrated targeted campaign around the story.

Ann,

Had to laugh when I read your latest comment. That resurrected Orville Redenbacher did look ghoulish, didn't he? Awfully wan and the hairpiece really didn't work, did it? Oh well. . .maybe with the kinds of budgets P&G has at their disposal, they could find a more convincing Whipple II?

Lewis,

No need to apologize. . .I can't believe anyone would be offended by your honest comments. I certainly wasn't. Your second paragraph states some of the things I was trying to say, and even better.

Your campaign idea sounds like it would be one for the ages--and it would certainly be sticky! P&G really should have considered you for the job. Love it. Thanks for your comments, Lewis.

Michael,

To be clear I was the one talking about wheeling Mr. Whipple back out so I take the blame. :-)

LOL, Ted.

Yes, Groucho Marx meets the Mac guy would be the new M. Whipple.

If the target market is the average stay at home or working mom, I'm not sure that rediscovering something they have probably never discovered in the first place is a very solid concept. Mr. Whipple who looks like a contestant from The Bacholor is probably a winning combo.

Ann,

I agree that wheeling out a Mr. Whipple that looks like a Frankenstein Monster retread of the original Mr. Whipple would be a bad idea. :-)

Okay, I can't resist. Here are some of the olds ads and there are more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbXPjzM5no4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bl9uwFiXFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bx6Mpyi4xk

Mr. Whipple?
Mr. Whipple?
Mr. Whipple?

Man, Bill Bernbach is turning over in his grave.

FWIW, one of the best known ad books, aimed at introducing young 'uns to the business, a book almost every junior copywriter or art director owns, is called "Hey Whipple, Squeeze This."

Sort of sums it up, doesn't it?

http://www.amazon.com/Hey-Whipple-Squeeze-This-Creating/dp/0471293393

Here's the opening:

http://tinyurl.com/2mo59j

But TToad, on page 2 the author notes that Mr. Whipple sold a LOT of toilet paper.

TToad,

Thanks for that reminder of a truly great book. It really takes me back to my days as a copy supervisor, when my job was trying to "sell" the P&G learnings about what works in advertising to our advertising agencies without totally stifling their creativity.

Of course, the job also entailed encouraging some creative experimentation so that we could either validate or refute the "truths" in advertising that we worked so hard to develop (with rigorous quantitative analysis of business data and consumer research).

And, FWIW, Lewis, I doubt that P&G researches its advertising primarily with focus groups or other qualitative techniques. They're very quantitative, and they want to be certain they're making decisions based on statistically reliable and projectable information. Maybe I have too much faith in their good business judgment, but I'm pretty sure that focus groups have not become a mainstay in the P&G research diet. They're too smart for that.

Ted, I seriously doubt that P&G's objective was to create " ...ad spots that [are] all that inventive, or provocative." I suspect they want to communicate the benefits of soft and strong.

P&G has long been very bottom-line oriented with its advertising. They expect every commercial and every print ad to pull its weight, not win awards for creativity. When you spend only 8-9% of sales on advertising for a billion dollar brand, you want a return on your investment. You don't much care if it's inventive or provocative. You want it to sell stuff.

We'll soon see how smart they are (or aren't). I'm still holding my P&G stock.

Read on, Neil, and you'll find this: "Offensive, dull, abrasive, stupid advertising is bad for the entire industry and bad for business as a whole."

Sullivan also points out that annoying consumers with shrill, unlikeable characters was a tried and true practice... back in the 1960s.

@Michael: Thanks for the reminiscence, but I'm sure you know that until last year, P&G was synonymous with bad, safe, over-tested creative that no one remembered or liked. Even P&G reached that conclusion when they decided to take a chance on Saatchi's Tony Granger.

Yes, TToad, I know. Being the person between the official P&G position and the agency creatives (and account team), I often had to mediate between the two sides after they had drawn lines in the sand.

There have been several commercials over the years in which P&G departed from the "mold," and most of them didn't work as well as the bad, safe, over-tested creative. It was frustrating for everyone.

Even the Proctoids are sensitive to the overly conservative image. They just find it difficult to stop doing something that seems to be working (in terms of business results).

Maybe things are finally changing!

P.S. This exchange has motivated me to go back and re-read my autographed Rosser Reeves book! It's amazing how many of the principles still apply.

Fair enough, TToad, I do accept that are clearly much more experienced and wiser than I.

That said, why could they not bring back a more likeable, cool Mr. Whipple? It seems like he is an asset that sold a lot of toilet paper. Instead of building on that, they are going off in a direction that seems trite and uninspiring to me.

I got to the store and all the toilet papers make the same claims, though some now are Green, too. How does re-discovering how soft or strong Charmin is and how customized(!) for your family going to build the brand and sell the paper? I don't see it.

Give Mr. Whipple his due, he could sell paper in massive quantities. Maybe people won't admit it but in some ways they liked ol' MW. Maybe it even was fun to hate him.

I do honestly think an updated MW could inspire some nostalgia (and retro), while making new generations laugh. The new MW would have some big shoes to fill, though. We'd have to see if he could move the paper like the classic.

Lively interchange and I thank you all for adding a lot to the conversation here. You've all made some great points. I agree with Toad: safe, dull advertising is never memorable. . .and maybe resurrecting Mr. Whipple isn't the answer, either. Maybe a new contemporary storyline ought to be developed for Charmin. Regardless, we'll see how well P&G fares with its new campaign.

Thanks to Neil, Michael, Toad and Daryl for a terrific discussion.

With the new "double rolls" of toilet paper, the product seems to have become thinner in order to fit on standard bathroom fixtures, so strength is probably a more important attribute than it used to be.
P&G might want to consider doing an ad featuring cats -- known to shred and unravel toilet paper -- in an effort to get the message across about the features it is selling, while still catching the eye of people who want either stories or cuteness or both in their ads.
Some ads could feature children discovering the cat with the toilet paper, in order to appeal to the mom market.
Maybe they could play off lolcat images in some markets or online to broaden the appeal of the campaign.
I think the most interesting advertising commentary about toilet paper was the beer ad where the guys buying the beer didn't have enough for the toilet paper. The cashier asked "paper or plastic?" They chose paper. (Sorry, I can't remember the beer -- I don't drink beer.) I guess this puts me in the "story ad" camp, except that I never cared for Mr. Whipple.

Yeah, forget MW, let the cats try to shred Charmin to no effect. I love it.

But also show the soft side...

Barbara,

Great idea, and well thought out in a logical fashion. You illustrate the point that a story can be memorable. . .of course, it helps if we remember the products or services being advertised. Cats are in; Mr. Whipple is out. Thanks for adding something substantive to the conversation.

Can the cat (the new Mr. Whipple) revel in the plush, softness after his failed attempts at shredding or is this a separate thing?

In creative spots of our own devising, we can advertise the product in the way we find most effective. To answer your question, Neil: absolutely.

Well, someone noted that the strong and the soft were sort of separate products.

One version = super soft and plush.

The other = stronger than a cat. :-)

I am just wondering if Kitty would go after both versions with the same vigor or would he be stopped in his tracks immediately by the irresistible softness of the super soft version?

Incidentally, the strong version would *really* have to be able to withstand cats for this to be credible lest it be blogged that the cat in question must have been de-clawed. :-)

It would be funny if the Cat were named Mr. Whipple.

The commentator could say things like, "face it Mr. Whipple, Charmin is irresistibly soft."

I can't see telling a cat that something is "Ultra" anything. It was "squeezably soft" with the classic MW but the new Mr. Whipple lacks opposable thumbs.

I like Neil's sandpaper contest idea. . .

Michael raised an interesting point back there - "copy supervisor (a position they abandoned quite a while ago)"

At my old corporate marketing dept they also got rid of the "copywriter" position. For some reason the ability to write creative, coherent copy is now seen as some sort of redundancy by many corporate bean-counters. In the end, being a really good graphic artist or enthusiastic account rep does not mean you're an expert in the subtleties of language. That's what happens when you put accountants in charge of the creative process! (of course we do love all of our bean-counter friends :)

Hi Eden,

Thanks for adding another dimension to this discussion. FYI: I believe it was Paul who mentioned the idea of a sandpaper convention, but didn't everybody, including Neil, offer some creative ideas for new Charmin ad campaigns?

As a creative, I know what you're talking about, Eden. But whether we're copywriters, graphic artists or multidisciplinary designers, we need to prove our value to our organizations, just as everyone else does. Budget cuts are painful, and seem unjustifiable to us because we understand the value we bring to our companies. Bottom line: the onus is on us to get our companies to see and understand our value. Then, it's out of our hands, but we will have done what we can to prove our worth.

It's easy to feel that corporate accountants make business decisions without always understanding the ramifications of those decisions; in the end, I don't think anyone relishes having to make cuts. Sometimes when we move on to the next chapter in our lives, we've grown a bit and taken some valuable experience and lessons with us, though. I wish you the best, Eden; on to the next of life's challenges.

Ted, thanks for the excellent discussion.

Also thanks for your kind words - luckily I was not the person who got canned! But it was frustrating to see the overall product quality suffer after she left.

You also bring up a good point, something many younger folks in the business would do well to heed: "Proving your own value" is a constant process. It is often good practice to make your own Microsoft excel spreadsheets and/or develop your own metrics, and be ready to share.

Corporate Cycle [reprised]: New decision-makers come in, want to cut expenses, staff gets cut. The bottom line goes up. Product quality suffers, churn rate goes higher, customers leave and new ones are harder to attain. The bottom line goes down. Old decision-makers fired. New decision-makers hired; "Whoops! Where's the human capital we need to make this better?" New people get hired [sometimes even the same ones who were previously fired], productivity goes up - but so do costs. Repeat cycle.

You make more great points here, Eden. And thanks for being so articulate and succinct in recapping the old "corporate cycle". I wrote a blog post last year to point out that no company has a greater asset than it's 'human capital'. It's hard to put a dollar amount on how much value seasoned, quality personnel bring to a company for many in the C-Suite. . .but try to run a successful company without them. Employees who prove their worth and bring great value to a company should never be viewed as expendable. . .especially if they embody that company to its other employees and its customers. Unfortunately, for many companies, this simply isn't the case and guess what? It ultimately impacts sales, growth potential and profitability more adversely than anything else. Thank you for adding a rich dimension to this conversation, Eden. I appreciate it.

Thank you Ted.

"Rediscover Charmin. Choose the one that’s best for you."

Phew!!

(Insert your auto, feminine care or financial securities product here :) Great discussion.

Eden,

What I find funny is they are asking the sixties house wife to re-discover Charmin!

Is that really their market now? And, plus, choose the one that is best for you!!??

If there were numerous version, I maybe could see it, but there are two versions. That does not seem very custom made.

Let's face it, custom made is not really the value proposition for toilet paper.

Neil,
Ha! That last line was great.

Maybe you're on to something though. . . Maybe that is the demographic they're shooting for - but people who may not be here in ten years?? Doesn't seem like a smart growth strategy if you want your brand to be around in twenty.

Here's one: Get radical and do some product placement. Throw that puppy into a movie like "Transformers."

When Pepsi did that with Michael J. Fox in the 80's it was legendary. Picture Shia LaBeouf grabbing a puffy roll of Charmin out of the clearly-recognizable-but-not-too-blatant bag of product, throwing the roll at an oncoming transformer [which of course somehow saves the young star] and exclaiming, "Wow! I never knew you could use THAT stuff for more than one thing!"

Bam. Of course you know it would be just that easy :)

Here's a tagline - "Charmin: It Can Save Yo Ass"

Eden,

I like it. If the "strong" Charmin is that strong it should be good for a lot of things. Q from could issue some to James Bond to repel or bungy jump out of bad situations.

The soft version could somehow transformed into a bed later in the movie. Q is good. He can get these things done.

I hope this observation from a non-ad pro is relevant.

Sometimes it's not just the storyline, it's the product.

I came across this discussion because I'm a very disgruntled Charmin customer, and was searching the web for the name of the Charmin brand manager so I can write a complaint to him (And I've NEVER written a letter like that to a company before.) Not that I expect it will do any good. I've bought Charmin for about 20 years and I think I'm close to done with this brand.

The recent changes have all the appearance of some overpaid brand manager trying to earn his keep by doing _something_.

Here are my beefs with 'new' Charmin:

1. Which customer, in their right mind, ever bought Charmin because it was 'strong?' I used to know exactly what I wanted: Charmin 'regular' with the red label. This was regular Charmin, soft and reliable. When they introduced the roll sizes at different prices that was a little wierd, but I could then adjust to a bigger or smaller roll depending on how 'flush' I was feeling.

Now the Red label Charmin is something called 'Charmin Ultra Strong'

"Excuse me?" if I wanted 'strong' why would I be buying Charmin? Frankly, this 'strong' Charmin stuff reminds me of some kind of industrial belt material. Not soft, not nice and plush, not Charmin!

From the Charmin site:

"Our New Charmin® Ultra Strong has a 2-ply Diamond Weave texture that makes it more durable."

"Diamond Weave?" How about "Diamond Plate!!!"

I bought it once, felt fooled and never will again.

2. Charmin Ultra - The softest, plushest around. More expensive, but hey, sometimes you just would say what the heck and go for it. The Blue label was an Ultra version of the already great Charmin product, the ultra-softest around and, while not always what I wanted or needed, I knew what Charmin in the bue label meant.

Now everything is 'ultra.'

Hint: If everything is 'Ultra' then nothing is.

I really hate that now if I want Charmin softness, I have to buy the more expensive Ultra.

3. Charmin Basic - Charmin customers don't want Basic. Basic TP customers buy single ply rolls of bleached cardboard! I suspect good old regular Charmin in the red label is now Basic. I'm not sure. I'll try it, but I don't have high hopes.

4. These ads with the dancing bears hoovering each other's butts? Where do I even begin? Moronic and offensive. But not offensive in a "hey did you see that commercial" buzz-building offensive, like Paris Hilton fellating an Arby's burger or something. But offensive to me as a customer. Yes, it deals with a particular aspect of Charmin (how far do I go down this path without getting gross?) But Charmin customers know what they are getting. Now we've been 'dumb, dirty bears' for all these years?

Well, I don't know if this is the type of comment you guys want on this blog. I thought I'd share a point of view of a customer, not an ad or marketing pro. And rant a little.

Regards,

Mike
NYC

Dick Wilson, the actor who play Mr. Whipple, has died. He was 91.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_en_tv/obit_mr__whipple;_ylt=ApsjThWNniPlBzHjPqUsc8MDW7oF

Mike, your point is well taken, with the help of Mr. Whipple, they owned the "soft" position once. Am I right or am I right?

So why do they go to Ultra this and Ultra that? Doesn't that confuse matters?

Has something changed in our society so radically that we need Ultra strong TP?

Why not re-capture the soft position, my friends. Why not?

May the king of soft rest in peace. :-(

Thanks for an insightful "rant", Mike. As a customer, you have something valuable to say to P&G about their Charmin products and their marketing. Hope they pay attention to their customers on this.

Neil, thanks for your input on the subject, too, as well as the short but eloquent send-off for Dick Wilson, aka Mr. Whipple, who passed away this week. As many news reporters have stated, he was an icon and many of us have fond memories of him.

What I want to know is what has changed in our society to make "Ultra Strong" a value proposition for TP?

For duct tape and security fences, give us Ultra Strong; for TP, soft will do just fine.

Who are these people that go in for Ultra Strong TP? And how are they different (market segments) from those who go in for Ultra Soft?

All I have to say is I hope we don't have "Ultra Strong" dads influencing the next election. God knows who they would support.

P&G, honor the memory of "The King of Soft." Take back soft! And get rid of Ultra for God's sake. Nothing is Ultra unless it flies.

I have to chime in my two bits about the relevancy of "softness" in toilet paper. Of all the characteristics I hope to experience in toilet paper, softness is not in my top three. What I want to know is 1) will it get the job done well? Some of the softer brands take more runs at it (no pun intended) then the less soft brands. 2) Am I going to punch through? 3) anti-dingleberry qualities. Now, put me on the P & G task force to figure out how to convey those messages! Personally, I think that toilet paper companies choose to peddle the "soft" button because they don't have to deal with the real issues. Soft is just that--a soft sell.

Good point Pulis.

Perhaps soft and strong are what make a good TP?

Frankly, though, I have to say that P&G knows the answer to this much, much better than I. For some reason, though, this conversation has been a lot of fun from the beginning.