Should Kcww Make A "Goodnites" Like Product For Daytime Use?

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Okay, Darkfinn's comment in the "Huggies Jeans" thread, as well as the new Goodnites got me thinking about an idea I've had for awhile. My basic question is this: Should KCWW, makers of Goodnites, create a comparable product for daytime use? Also, should this new product, as well as Goodnites, come in an "XXL" size?

I personally believe that the answers to my questions are "yes," and "yes." As Darkfinn noted, we must assume that diaper companies want to keep consumers in diapers as long as possible, because it will naturally improve their profit margins.

My idea behind "Goodnites for daytime use" is that they could be used by children who are either partially incontinent/have trouble training their bladders, or who are fully incontinent, that is, have full urinary incontinence, either as a result of a birth defect, accident, or other illness. My idea for the "XXL" size is that KCWW could extend the demographic that they're targeting Goodnites to. At present, many smaller adults with light urinary incontinence--adults who aren't AB/DLs, would rather pick up a package of Goodnites than, say Depends (also a KCWW brand) in part because of a mental perception that if they're carrying Goodnites, it'll be "less embarrassing" than carrying Depends to the checkout counter. This perception of "embarrassment" is purely psychological, but it exists nevertheless. Since teenagers/young adults have similar body types, and the L/XL size of Goodnites is intended for use by teenagers, an "XXL" size could still be targeted at children/teenagers, but used by teenagers/young adults with light urinary incontinence.

There are individual arguments for why each of these ideas won't work, and I'd like to address them individually now, starting with the argument for why a "Goodnites for Daytime" use won't work. The general argument against a product such as "Goodnites for Daytime use" goes something like this: Goodnites are intended for bedwetting, hence their name, so there's no point in making a variation for daytime. There are plenty of companies already manufacturing youth diapers that could fulfill the role of "Goodnites for daytime," and besides, P&G has already tried a "larger diaper" in the form of Pampers Size 7, if they can't find shelf space for those, how will anyone have shelf space for Goodnites for daytime use?

First, I reject the notion that there's no point in making a variation of Goodnites for daytime use. While it's true that Goodnites are intended for nighttime use, there's absolutely no reason why a product for daytime use carrying the Goodnites brand name couldn't be created; at present, some children with urinary incontinece wear products like Goodnites during the day. I also reject the concept that Goodnites for daytime wouldn't sell because youth diapers serve the same function. Unlike youth diapers, products such as Goodnites are intended to be discreet. A person--especially a child, with light daytime urinary incontinence would likely appreciate the ability to have a discreet product available to them, rather than a more obvious product. Remember, children generally are not understanding of such problems, and a child in diapers, especially diapers that are noticeable, is likely to be ridiculed day in and day out; it is my belief that such children would prefer a more discreet option to manage their urinary incontinence. Similarly, I also reject the concept that "Goodnites for daytime use" wouldn't sell because Pampers Size 7 don't sell well. Pampers Size 7 are still marketed and sold as "baby diapers," whereas Goodnites are marketed and sold as "disposable youth undergarments," to remove the "diaper" stigma associated with them. I also believe that the number of children who need protection for daytime urinary incontinence is likely a fraction of the number of children who need protection for nighttime urinary incontinence; as a result, the amount of shelf-space needed for such a product would be significantly less than the amount of shelf-space needed for something such as Pampers Size 7. Furthermore, in the event that brick and mortar stores did not wish to carry the product at first, KCWW could distribute it strictly online; many parents do much/most, if not all of their shopping online anyway, making online distribution through a company like Amazon an economically sound decision. The other difference between Pampers Size 7 and a pull-on diaper, such as Goodnites, is the fact that Pampers Size 7 still "look" like diapers, and carry the stigma of "diapers," while pull-on diapers such as Goodnites do not carry such a stigma. If you were to ask an incontinent child whether they'd rather wear a baby diaper or "absorbent underwear," they'd probably pick the "absorbent underwear," which is essentially what Goodnites and similar products are marketed as. Thus, I believe that "Goodnites for daytime" would be a product worth developing.

The arguement against an "XXL" size of Goodnites, and a product similar to the one I just mentioned, generally reads like this: Children/teenagers fit just fine into the L/XL size, what would the purpose of an XXL size be? Goodnites are intended for use by children and teeangers up to the age of 15, so there's no point in creating a size that fits teenagers above the age of 15. Also, young adults who are embarrassed by having to purchase a product such as Depends should just order it online and have it delivered to their doorstep.

The purpose of the XXL size would be to fit teenagers/young adults from the age of 15 through 25. Most adults stop growing between the ages of 13-17, and some 13-15 year olds who might fit in this new XXL size that have outgrown the L/XL size. I reject the notion that there's no point in creating Goodnites that fit teenagers who are older than 16 as well. An "XXL" size designed for 15-25 year olds, could do well with teenagers and young adults who have grown up with light urinary incontinence and/or nocturnal enuresis. As noted before, many smaller adults can still fit into Goodnites, and many of these adults who are not AB/DLs would still rather purchase Goodnites over a brand such as Depends. Again, the reasoning behind this is psychological; even though the checkout cashier doesn't care what one purchases, many teenagers and young adults would feel embarrassed bringing Depends to the cash register, because their perception is that everyone is watching them, and everyone knows that those diapers are for them. (Even if those diapers are for a sibling I might add.) In contrast, teenage and young adult bedwetters feel less embarrassed purchasing Goodnites, because the general perception is that "Goodnites are for children," and "no one will think these are for me," or "people will think I'm buying these for a younger relative." I also reject the notion that young adults should just purchase their diapers online if their embarrassed by having to make said purchase; while some may choose to, others might prefer to purchase their diapers in a brick and mortar store while grocery shopping. Delivery of an item, rather than picking it up in person, does not guarantee that it will arrive discreetly, even if it's shipped in a plain box; the box may tear, break, or otherwise be damaged in shipping. Again, there is a social stigma to needing diapers after a certain age, and teenagers and young adults most certainly feel this stigma just as much as children who are constantly told that "only babies need diapers" do; just like children, teenagers/young adults have that phrase "only babies need diapers" drilled into their heads at a very young age, and we're conditioned to believing it, even if it isn't true. By marketing an "XXL" size of Goodnites for teenagers/young adults and not mentioning the words "teenagers/young adults" on the packaging, the "diaper stigma" can be avoided, at least to a certain degree. Even if an XXL size of Goodnites were intended for use by 15-18 year olds, as noted before, we stop growing between the ages of 13-17, which means that this XXL size could fit 15-25 year olds, and theoretically, if one stays in shape 15-50+ year olds. In some situations, an XXL size for Goodnites could eliminate the need for youth diapers for light daytime urinary incontinence and nocturnal enuresis between the time when one may outgrow L/XL Goodnites and the time when one may fit into adult diapers. Again, I believe an XXL size of Goodnites would sell, especially to teens and young adults with various forms of urinary incontinence, if only for the fact that in general, even for people who aren't AB/DLs, it's a lot less embarrassing to purchase a product like Goodnites than a product like Depends.

I actually believe that the L/XL Goodnites on the market today may also be "silently" targeted at some rather small young adults, as well as their intended (advertised) users. A couple of manufacturers of feminine protection make extremely large menstrual pads; these are marketed and sold as menstrual pads, often as overnight pads, but many people believe that the reason these particular overnight pads exist is so that women with very light urinary incontinence can purchase them rather than urinary incontinence pads, which also have a "diaper stigma" attached to them. In essence, the aforementioned pads are marketed as menstrual pads, can be used as such, and while some women may actually need them, more women actually use them as light urinary incontinence pads than as menstrual pads. Similarly, Goodnites are marketed as a product for children who wet the bed, but there's a good chance that the majority of people who use the L/XL size are actually teenagers and young adults with light urinary incontinence issues, who don't want to be subjected to the perceived stigma of purchasing "diapers for old people," such as Depends or a similar product. I truly believe that XXL sized Goodnites would be a profitable product, as long as they were marketed the same way that the S/M and L/XL size is. I also believe that there's a market for "Goodnites for daytime use," and I believe that it's a market that KCWW should pursue.

But enough about what I think, what do you think? Should KCWW come up with a "Goodnites for daytime use" product? What about an "XXL" size for Goodnites and the aforementioned variant thereof? Please explain your answer.

[Guest JS1989]

Yes I think that KCWW should make a XXL sized goodnite. I've heard of some people outgrowing goodnites and having to buy depends for bedwetting. Just from a business stand point KCWW is losing costumers to Depend. Also there are teenager/young adults who get in a car accident and become incontinent temporally of permanently and would rather wear a product like goodnites than depends. A lot of teens who never wet the bed as a child start wetting the bed during puberty due to their bodies changing, although most of those teens could fit into the L/XL size, but they wouldn't know it because they are marketed for children up to 125 pounds and only AB/DL's know that they can fit a much bigger person.

As for making a goodnites for daytime (I'm calling them Goodays) I think yes and no. Yes there is a market for those with incontinent children/teenagers/young adults but I don't think the market is large enough to justify KCWW making a whole new product. Many children experience incontinence during the day and do not want to use pampers size 7. A lot of kids may make it to the bathroom in time but won't be able to take off a baby diaper and much less put it back on and a pull up like goodays would help them. But Goodays might not be cost effective for KCWW because of a small market for the product and also goodnites are intended for bedwetting but just because the suns up doesn’t mean a product will magically not work. I think KCWW should make goodays but we won't see a brand new diaper, instead they'll probably just make goodnites, change the designs and stick them in a goodays bag, sorry.

[timmyc]

There isn't a law that people can't wear goodnights in the day time

[Angela Bauer]

Just from a business stand point KCWW is losing costumers to Depend..

Actually KCWW (Kimberly Clark World Wide) has always owned Depend as well as Huggies. P&G started Attends. Although P&G sold the North America Attend brand and factory to Paper Pak Corp (now Attends Health Products) in the rest of the Attends is still part of P&G.

Clearly P&G and KCWW have their reasons for making the sizes and styles they make.

As others have shared, GoodNites and UnderJams are frequently worn during the day by folks who are awake and active.

Also, the Pampers Cruiser Size 7 is identical to the Size 6 around the top. The Size 7 is longer, to better fit taller toddlers who are active. Huggies Size 6 are slightly larger at the top, but are no longer than a Pampers Size 6. Many parents find the Cruisers work best of all when kids are active. Huggies and Baby Dry are felt to work best when kids are napping or sleeping.

[peelover]

Your right, make them for daytime use.

[messyman]

Most retail stores don't have shelf space for size small adult diapers. There are already various pull on products in smaller sizes sold through other channels.

[SomeThing]

Okay, Darkfinn's comment in the "Huggies Jeans" thread, as well as the new Goodnites got me thinking about an idea I've had for awhile. My basic question is this: Should KCWW, makers of Goodnites, create a comparable product for daytime use? Also, should this new product, as well as Goodnites, come in an "XXL" size?

Quickly and to the point:

No, a daytime equivalent product should not exist.

Yes, they should make an XXL version.

I personally believe that the answers to my questions are "yes," and "yes." As Darkfinn noted, we must assume that diaper companies want to keep consumers in diapers as long as possible, because it will naturally improve their profit margins.

You might think that, but that isn't that simple.

Yes, companies have a profit-motive to increase their customer base, but the market for that kind of product is miniscule: children are always going to get toilet-trained between the ages of 2 and 3. I won't deny the average age has probably risen in recent years and that there are more extreme cases, but no doctor (or even child psychologist) would advocate putting it off any longer than is necessary, also remember your typical preschool and kindergarten admissions policies.

Besides, Size 6 products and the larger Pull-Ups already fit older children perfectly fine. Kimberly-Clark has always positioned GoodNites right next to the largest Pull-Up product (take a look at the product packaging, it's right there).

Fact is, there's more money to made by engaging competitor's customers than seeking out new markets, it's also a lot less risky. That's why Pampers (in the UK at least) has started inching onto the store-brand products with their "Simply Dry" range: a back-to-basics product that appeals during this recession. I'll bet they've made more money from that than they would if they launched Size 7 in the UK.

My idea behind "Goodnites for daytime use" is that they could be used by children who are either partially incontinent/have trouble training their bladders, or who are fully incontinent, that is, have full urinary incontinence, either as a result of a birth defect, accident, or other illness.

Then those children already have a fully diagnosed medical condition, will have seen their family doctor, and already been prescribed treatment programs and appropriate "management products". Companies like Attends already produce young-children sized products (including pullups) for this very market.

My idea for the "XXL" size is that KCWW could extend the demographic that they're targeting Goodnites to. At present, many smaller adults with light urinary incontinence--adults who aren't AB/DLs, would rather pick up a package of Goodnites than, say Depends (also a KCWW brand) in part because of a mental perception that if they're carrying Goodnites, it'll be "less embarrassing" than carrying Depends to the checkout counter. This perception of "embarrassment" is purely psychological, but it exists nevertheless. Since teenagers/young adults have similar body types, and the L/XL size of Goodnites is intended for use by teenagers, an "XXL" size could still be targeted at children/teenagers, but used by teenagers/young adults with light urinary incontinence.

No.

There are individual arguments for why each of these ideas won't work, and I'd like to address them individually now, starting with the argument for why a "Goodnites for Daytime" use won't work. The general argument against a product such as "Goodnites for Daytime use" goes something like this: Goodnites are intended for bedwetting, hence their name, so there's no point in making a variation for daytime. There are plenty of companies already manufacturing youth diapers that could fulfill the role of "Goodnites for daytime," and besides, P&G has already tried a "larger diaper" in the form of Pampers Size 7, if they can't find shelf space for those, how will anyone have shelf space for Goodnites for daytime use?

First, I reject the notion that there's no point in making a variation of Goodnites for daytime use. While it's true that Goodnites are intended for nighttime use, there's absolutely no reason why a product for daytime use carrying the Goodnites brand name couldn't be created; at present, some children with urinary incontinece wear products like Goodnites during the day. I also reject the concept that Goodnites for daytime wouldn't sell because youth diapers serve the same function. Unlike youth diapers, products such as Goodnites are intended to be discreet.

Actually, those products are intended to be discrete. I think you're looking at the wrong market here: the main consumers of youth diapers are going to be the profoundly disabled. You overlook the fact that, as I said, companies like Attends already produce pull-up products for children with less severe continence issues.

[SomeThing]

(Posting in 3 parts because of the quote-per-post limit)

A person--especially a child, with light daytime urinary incontinence would likely appreciate the ability to have a discreet product available to them, rather than a more obvious product. Remember, children generally are not understanding of such problems, and a child in diapers, especially diapers that are noticeable, is likely to be ridiculed day in and day out; it is my belief that such children would prefer a more discreet option to manage their urinary incontinence. Similarly, I also reject the concept that "Goodnites for daytime use" wouldn't sell because Pampers Size 7 don't sell well. Pampers Size 7 are still marketed and sold as "baby diapers," whereas Goodnites are marketed and sold as "disposable youth undergarments," to remove the "diaper" stigma associated with them. I also believe that the number of children who need protection for daytime urinary incontinence is likely a fraction of the number of children who need protection for nighttime urinary incontinence; as a result, the amount of shelf-space needed for such a product would be significantly less than the amount of shelf-space needed for something such as Pampers Size 7.

Okay, so that's a fair point: re-target GoodNites for "general" use and potentially people who have daytime issues would be more likely to use them for their problems, in addition to the people who already use them at night time.

...except the people with daytime issues is miniscule, tiny, a percentage of a fraction of the people with bedwetting problems. Bedwetting often has a psychological cause in older children (>5 years) and not physiological (which is probably like 95% of all daytime wetting problems).

And in that case, they probably already do use GoodNites during the day to provide some level of protection.

Furthermore, in the event that brick and mortar stores did not wish to carry the product at first, KCWW could distribute it strictly online; many parents do much/most, if not all of their shopping online anyway, making online distribution through a company like Amazon an economically sound decision. The other difference between Pampers Size 7 and a pull-on diaper, such as Goodnites, is the fact that Pampers Size 7 still "look" like diapers, and carry the stigma of "diapers," while pull-on diapers such as Goodnites do not carry such a stigma. If you were to ask an incontinent child whether they'd rather wear a baby diaper or "absorbent underwear," they'd probably pick the "absorbent underwear," which is essentially what Goodnites and similar products are marketed as. Thus, I believe that "Goodnites for daytime" would be a product worth developing.

I'd argue that only a very small minority of parents shop online: shopping online still incurs a delivery bill and doesn't let you see what you're buying. A family with parents and children is more than likely to have a 'mom' person who goes shopping, inspects fruit and veg, and everything else.

Anyway, you're naive if you think children won't associate a rebranded "now does daytime too!" goodNite product with a diaper, because that's exactly what it is. "Depend" has never had the word "diaper" printed on its marketing material or products, but everyone calls them that. People see straight through marketing.

The arguement against an "XXL" size of Goodnites, and a product similar to the one I just mentioned, generally reads like this: Children/teenagers fit just fine into the L/XL size, what would the purpose of an XXL size be? Goodnites are intended for use by children and teeangers up to the age of 15, so there's no point in creating a size that fits teenagers above the age of 15. Also, young adults who are embarrassed by having to purchase a product such as Depends should just order it online and have it delivered to their doorstep.

They don't though. Increased rates of childhood and teenage obesity are going to mean they will eventually release a larger product. I recognise a genuine demand for an XXL-sized product that provides more protection than Depend's pull-ons (which are not marketed as a night-time use product, only the Depend Fitted Brief is, and that's often overkill for a person who only wets lightly).

The purpose of the XXL size would be to fit teenagers/young adults from the age of 15 through 25. Most adults stop growing between the ages of 13-17, and some 13-15 year olds who might fit in this new XXL size that have outgrown the L/XL size. I reject the notion that there's no point in creating Goodnites that fit teenagers who are older than 16 as well. An "XXL" size designed for 15-25 year olds, could do well with teenagers and young adults who have grown up with light urinary incontinence and/or nocturnal enuresis. As noted before, many smaller adults can still fit into Goodnites, and many of these adults who are not AB/DLs would still rather purchase Goodnites over a brand such as Depends. Again, the reasoning behind this is psychological; even though the checkout cashier doesn't care what one purchases, many teenagers and young adults would feel embarrassed bringing Depends to the cash register, because their perception is that everyone is watching them, and everyone knows that those diapers are for them. (Even if those diapers are for a sibling I might add.) In contrast, teenage and young adult bedwetters feel less embarrassed purchasing Goodnites, because the general perception is that "Goodnites are for children," and "no one will think these are for me," or "people will think I'm buying these for a younger relative." I also reject the notion that young adults should just purchase their diapers online if their embarrassed by having to make said purchase; while some may choose to, others might prefer to purchase their diapers in a brick and mortar store while grocery shopping. Delivery of an item, rather than picking it up in person, does not guarantee that it will arrive discreetly, even if it's shipped in a plain box; the box may tear, break, or otherwise be damaged in shipping. Again, there is a social stigma to needing diapers after a certain age, and teenagers and young adults most certainly feel this stigma just as much as children who are constantly told that "only babies need diapers" do; just like children, teenagers/young adults have that phrase "only babies need diapers" drilled into their heads at a very young age, and we're conditioned to believing it, even if it isn't true. By marketing an "XXL" size of Goodnites for teenagers/young adults and not mentioning the words "teenagers/young adults" on the packaging, the "diaper stigma" can be avoided, at least to a certain degree. Even if an XXL size of Goodnites were intended for use by 15-18 year olds, as noted before, we stop growing between the ages of 13-17, which means that this XXL size could fit 15-25 year olds, and theoretically, if one stays in shape 15-50+ year olds. In some situations, an XXL size for Goodnites could eliminate the need for youth diapers for light daytime urinary incontinence and nocturnal enuresis between the time when one may outgrow L/XL Goodnites and the time when one may fit into adult diapers. Again, I believe an XXL size of Goodnites would sell, especially to teens and young adults with various forms of urinary incontinence, if only for the fact that in general, even for people who aren't AB/DLs, it's a lot less embarrassing to purchase a product like Goodnites than a product like Depends.

Basically you just repeated yourself three times there, in a wall-of-text too. I recommend reading up on how to communicate effectively in writing.

[SomeThing]

I actually believe that the L/XL Goodnites on the market today may also be "silently" targeted at some rather small young adults, as well as their intended (advertised) users. A couple of manufacturers of feminine protection make extremely large menstrual pads; these are marketed and sold as menstrual pads, often as overnight pads, but many people believe that the reason these particular overnight pads exist is so that women with very light urinary incontinence can purchase them rather than urinary incontinence pads, which also have a "diaper stigma" attached to them. In essence, the aforementioned pads are marketed as menstrual pads, can be used as such, and while some women may actually need them, more women actually use them as light urinary incontinence pads than as menstrual pads.

Ooooh, I love a good conspiracy theory!

(let's totally overlook the fact your username outs you as a maxi-pad fetishist)

Similarly, Goodnites are marketed as a product for children who wet the bed, but there's a good chance that the majority of people who use the L/XL size are actually teenagers and young adults with light urinary incontinence issues, who don't want to be subjected to the perceived stigma of purchasing "diapers for old people," such as Depends or a similar product. I truly believe that XXL sized Goodnites would be a profitable product, as long as they were marketed the same way that the S/M and L/XL size is. I also believe that there's a market for "Goodnites for daytime use," and I believe that it's a market that KCWW should pursue.

You made this point before and I already agreed with it.

On the subject of a daytime use GoodNites product: there's the problem of absorbption and fitting. You can either make it hold enough to last a whole day (realistically, about 6 hours' wearing) or make it easy to change frequently. A pull-ups style product would not be popular because you have to take your trousers off to put a new product on. This works fine for night-time products because the idea is you'd put it on when you get changed for bed anyway, but have the tear-away sides so you're able to take it off as soon as you wake-up, so you don't need to get dressed properly immediately afterwards. The traditional hourglass-style diaper product wouldn't work because it's indignified (and requires you to lie down to get it on right). So the only options are either flex/wings type products that are meant for this kind of thing (but are still lightly diaper-like) or catheterisation.

...and guess which option is the most popular amongst people with daytime continence issues today? That's right, catheters. It's significantly cheaper, works just as good, and can be emptied a lot quicker than changing any kind of diaper product. You can also easily store a pint's worth of urine in pouches on each leg.

So I guess my point is that daytime continence management has already been solved.

But enough about what I think, what do you think? Should KCWW come up with a "Goodnites for daytime use" product? What about an "XXL" size for Goodnites and the aforementioned variant thereof? Please explain your answer.

Summing up my points:

* The target market for a daytime version of Goodnites is negligible, is already served by Pull-Ups for under-5s, existing companies for slightly older children (5+), and alternative solutions: e.g. catheterisation or implanted bladders.

* XXL GoodNites should be made for the 15+ bedwetter market which I feel is commercially viable and is ill-served by existing mass-market products.

As an aside, I'm surprised that I feel compelled to make a point-by-point rebuttal to your posting. Usually I let people battle these issues amongst themselves and for P+G/KCWW to ignore them totally

(You know, if you want to make any impact you should know to contact directors and product development people directly rather than filling in anonymized feedback forms on their website).

[Leilin]

SomeThing is 100 percent correct:

1: Goodnites do not need to be larger and are not "in competition" with Depend, as they are owned by the same supercorporation.

2: As such, a daytime product would be counterproductive. You're talking about discretion, but imagine how much of a pain it would be for a teen without daytime control if that teen had to get halfway undressed every time a change was necessary? That is the nature of a pull-up and precisely why most people in that situation prefer diapers.

Basically, try not to let the fetish override your common sense here.

[SomeThing]

SomeThing is 100 percent correct:

1: Goodnites do not need to be larger and are not "in competition" with Depend, as they are owned by the same supercorporation.

2: As such, a daytime product would be counterproductive. You're talking about discretion, but imagine how much of a pain it would be for a teen without daytime control if that teen had to get halfway undressed every time a change was necessary? That is the nature of a pull-up and precisely why most people in that situation prefer diapers.

You say I'm correct, but then contradict my point that I think there should be an XXL product.

Competition doesn't come into this, KCWW's products are such that one, and only one product is suitable for a given situation (i.e. as soon as you outgrow Pull-ups then move on to GoodNites, and then Depend), however my point is that their Depend range does not adequately serve the 15-25 market well.

Basically, try not to let the fetish override your common sense here.

Heh, now that I can agree on. Now if only everyone else was like that...

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

(Splitting my reply into multiple parts to avoid issues with quotes as well.)

Yes I think that KCWW should make a XXL sized goodnite. I've heard of some people outgrowing goodnites and having to buy depends for bedwetting. Just from a business stand point KCWW is losing costumers to Depend. Also there are teenager/young adults who get in a car accident and become incontinent temporally of permanently and would rather wear a product like goodnites than depends. A lot of teens who never wet the bed as a child start wetting the bed during puberty due to their bodies changing, although most of those teens could fit into the L/XL size, but they wouldn't know it because they are marketed for children up to 125 pounds and only AB/DL's know that they can fit a much bigger person.

JS1989, KCWW wouldn't lose customers to "Depend," because they own the Depend brand, just as they own the Goodnites brand, the Huggies brand, the Kotex brand, and the Kleenex brand among others. The L/XL size of Goodnites claims to fit people up to 125+ lbs, thus a medium-frame 5'1" female, or a small-frame 5'2" male would effectively fall within the weight range for the L/XL size. A teenage female who begins wetting the bed as a result of puberty would likely still fit into the L/XL Goodnites, but the average teenage male would not. Most males are pushing 5'2" by their 13th birthday, and by the time that most teenage males stop growing, they're usually 5'9" to 6' tall. If we use a medium-frame male as an example since bedwetting is more common among males than females, the "extreme" for the weight range that the XXL size would have to fit would be 139-162lbs. Admittedly, a more realistic weight range would be 125-165+ lbs, and that would still properly (emphasis added) fit an older teenager/young adult whose 6' tall, as well as teenagers who may be between the current L/XL size and my "proposed XXL" size. Again, I want to be clear that my above example assumes that a person is of the ideal weight range for their height; obviously your mileage may vary.

As for making a goodnites for daytime (I'm calling them Goodays) I think yes and no. Yes there is a market for those with incontinent children/teenagers/young adults but I don't think the market is large enough to justify KCWW making a whole new product. Many children experience incontinence during the day and do not want to use pampers size 7. A lot of kids may make it to the bathroom in time but won't be able to take off a baby diaper and much less put it back on and a pull up like goodays would help them. But Goodays might not be cost effective for KCWW because of a small market for the product and also goodnites are intended for bedwetting but just because the suns up doesn’t mean a product will magically not work. I think KCWW should make goodays but we won't see a brand new diaper, instead they'll probably just make goodnites, change the designs and stick them in a goodays bag, sorry.

That's actually the exact idea that I was getting at, JS1989. The "Goodays" as you're calling them, (I like that "codename," for the theoretical product,) would simply be repackaged Goodnites with a different/more discreet print, and slightly different packaging. Actually, I could see such a product being slightly thinner, (i.e. having less padding,) than traditional Goodnites, much the way a pair of 3T-4T Pull-Ups for daytime use is slightly thinner than a pair of 3T-4T Pull-Ups for night time use. (There's no 4T-5T Pull-Ups for night time use, most likely because the children who would fit into them would also fit into Goodnites.) I'm not suggesting a "brand new diaper" so much as a variation on what we're already familiar with; in essence "Goodays" would be an extension of the Goodnites product line; not an entirely new product.

Actually KCWW (Kimberly Clark World Wide) has always owned Depend as well as Huggies. P&G started Attends. Although P&G sold the North America Attend brand and factory to Paper Pak Corp (now Attends Health Products) in the rest of the Attends is still part of P&G.

Clearly P&G and KCWW have their reasons for making the sizes and styles they make.

As others have shared, GoodNites and UnderJams are frequently worn during the day by folks who are awake and active.

Also, the Pampers Cruiser Size 7 is identical to the Size 6 around the top. The Size 7 is longer, to better fit taller toddlers who are active. Huggies Size 6 are slightly larger at the top, but are no longer than a Pampers Size 6. Many parents find the Cruisers work best of all when kids are active. Huggies and Baby Dry are felt to work best when kids are napping or sleeping.

Angela, you kind of beat me to the punch about KCWW owning Depend. I actually thought that P&G started the Depend brand, sold it to KCWW, started the Attend brand to replace it when they realized the sale was a mistake, and then sold the Attend brand to Paper Pak in the US, while retaining the brand name in the rest of the world. I may be wrong about this though, and I may have to do further research to see if KCWW actually started the Depend brand.

I'm aware that GoodNites and UnderJams are both used in the daytime, my suggestion was less of an entirely new product than a simple packaging variation, and maybe a small reduction in padding given the fact that they'd be intended for daytime use.

Thank you for the information about the differences between Pampers (Cruisers) Sizes 6 & 7, and Huggies Size 6. To be quite honest, I always understood the point of Huggies Size 6, as well as Pampers Size 6, but I've never understood the point of Pampers Size 7. Huggies Size 6 seemed like a necessary addition to the Huggies product line in the mid-90s when they were first introduced, and once they were successful, a "Pampers Size 6" was necessary for P&G to continue competing with KCWW. I've always seen Pampers Size 7 though as a product with a market that's either served by Huggies or Pampers Size 6, or by a pull on diaper, such as Pull-Ups or Easy-Ups, at least in the way it's currently being marketed. P&G has been known to have "half-sizes," such as a "Size 2/3" to serve taller toddlers, which may explain why I couldn't wrap my head around the need for a Size 7 prior to reading your post. (I would be looking for a size 6/7 that matched the other sizes intended for taller babies and toddlers.)

Most retail stores don't have shelf space for size small adult diapers. There are already various pull on products in smaller sizes sold through other channels.

Messyman, the ideas that I'm suggesting aren't "small size adult diapers," at least not in the traditional sense; they're a variation of GoodNites, essentially a packaging variation, a different print, and maybe a slight reduction in padding. A local pharmacy, which already stocks medical supplies, could stock the "Goodays" product, as JS1989 has dubbed it. Likewise "big box" stores such as Wal-Mart and Target stock diapers for both adults and children, so those stores could also carry these. I also don't believe that this product would need a lot of shelf space, because the demand for it isn't as great as the demand for the already established GoodNites that are intended for night time use. If you look in most diaper aisles, you won't see any preemie diapers; the demand for retail space isn't there, but the aforementioned preemie size is available online and in specialty stores. The baby diapers that you'll see the least of are the newborn "N" size, followed by sizes one and two. Stores will stock roughly the same amount of sizes three and five, which is a significantly greater number than sizes N-2; likewise most stores have a greater number of size 4 diapers than any other size, because it's the most common. Most stores carry the same quantity of size six diapers as sizes one and two, because the demand for such a product is about the same. A product such as "Goodays," (I really like that name,) would likely need minimal shelf space, and I'd expect two-three bags of each size to be on the shelves at any given time, in comparison to the four-eight bags that GoodNites take up.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

SomeThing is 100 percent correct:

1: Goodnites do not need to be larger and are not "in competition" with Depend, as they are owned by the same supercorporation.

2: As such, a daytime product would be counterproductive. You're talking about discretion, but imagine how much of a pain it would be for a teen without daytime control if that teen had to get halfway undressed every time a change was necessary? That is the nature of a pull-up and precisely why most people in that situation prefer diapers.

Basically, try not to let the fetish override your common sense here.

Leilin, please reread what SomeThing actually said; your first point contradicts your initial statement that SomeThing is 100% correct. SomeThing stated that GoodNites do need to be larger, and neither he nor I stated that they're competing with Depend. I also stated in my initial post that Depend was a KCWW brand, just like GoodNites.

In response to your second point, I'm not talking about a teen with complete loss of daytime control, but rather, a teen with partial loss of daytime control. The "Goodays" concept (I really, really like that name,) would be aimed at children/teens who may not be able to make it to the bathroom in time, but who are still able to try to do so, and who are likely to make the attempt.

You also miss the point of a "XXL" size for GoodNites, and who they'd be intended for. Smaller teens/young adults can comfortably fit into L/XL Goodnites because their build is about the same, while larger (both taller and/or overweight) teens cannot fit into the product that is intended for them. An "XXL" size would serve these teens, and by extension, young adults because their builds are virtually identical. (Emphasis added.) The Depend brand is marketed at the elderly, and if teens/young adults are given a choice between a brand marketed toward the elderly, or a brand marketed toward children/teens, they will inevitably choose the latter, because they (that is, we as a society) are socially conditioned to associate youthfulness with ideas such as "good" and "useful," and elderly with ideas such as "bad," and "useless." I could make an entire thread about the sociological reasons for this, so I won't go into detail about them here. Furthermore, even though most of us (all of us?) know that the cashier ringing our stuff up doesn't care what we're purchasing, we are socially conditioned to believe that they do, and if we are buying an item that can be perceived as "embarrassing," to us, it makes us incredibly self-aware. A teen/young adult in need of diapers, purchasing the Depend brand is likely to feel as if the entire store is watching them, and knows that they need diapers, even though this obviously is not the case. In contrast, that same teen/young adult, purchasing the GoodNites brand is likely to feel that if anyone is watching them, that person will believe that the product is for a younger sibling, and that they're (the teen/young adult is) doing something nice for a relative. This is because the teen/young adult is also likely to believe that "GoodNites are for children," in part because that's how KCWW markets then, and because the aforementioned teen/young adult has rationalized a way to feel less embarrassed about their purchase, and the pre-conception that people are "watching" them, even when in actuality, people are not.

Furthermore, I'm not letting my fetish override my common sense; the entire reason I created this thread was to see what others thought. It sounds like many people agree that their should be an "XXL" size of GoodNites, but as I'm typing this, there seems to be a near 50/50 split as to whether or not a "GoodNites for daytime use" concept would be a good idea or not. I'll be honest, I know people who work in marketing--not for KCWW or P&G, (not yet anyway,) but for companies who compete with some of their other product lines, and I also know that sometimes one person in the marketing division brings up an idea that seems a little obscure, but actually turns out to be a better concept than anyone believe it will be. A good example of this would be the "upside down" Ketchup bottles. We've had Ketchup bottles for over 100 years, but only in the past decade or so did someone realize that it made sense to put the cap on the bottom rather than the top of the aforementioned bottle. Shampoo/bath soap manufacturers have yet to realize that the same benefit of the "upside down" Ketchup bottle could be applied to their product as well. Likewise, some products that are expected to do incredibly well actually do incredibly poorly. A classic example (pun intended,) is "new coke," which was so bad that the company had to go back to "old coke," remove the cocaine from it, and rebrand it as "Coca-Cola Classic." Another great example would be the recent change to the "Tropicana" brand's packaging, which was also so poorly received that "Tropicana" went back to their old packaging.

Quickly and to the point:

No, a daytime equivalent product should not exist.

Yes, they should make an XXL version.

To be quite honest, these are pretty much the answers that I was expecting to my questions. I figured that most people here would think that an "XXL" size is a good idea, and that a daytime variant might not be. I want you to know that I have read your whole post SomeThing, but I'm only going to quote part of it; if there's a specific part you would like me to respond to that I skip though, just let me know.

Yes, companies have a profit-motive to increase their customer base, but the market for that kind of product is miniscule: children are always going to get toilet-trained between the ages of 2 and 3. I won't deny the average age has probably risen in recent years and that there are more extreme cases, but no doctor (or even child psychologist) would advocate putting it off any longer than is necessary, also remember your typical preschool and kindergarten admissions policies.

Besides, Size 6 products and the larger Pull-Ups already fit older children perfectly fine. Kimberly-Clark has always positioned GoodNites right next to the largest Pull-Up product (take a look at the product packaging, it's right there).

Fact is, there's more money to made by engaging competitor's customers than seeking out new markets, it's also a lot less risky. That's why Pampers (in the UK at least) has started inching onto the store-brand products with their "Simply Dry" range: a back-to-basics product that appeals during this recession. I'll bet they've made more money from that than they would if they launched Size 7 in the UK.

I'll get to the profit-motive in a moment, but I want to touch on the toilet-training issue first. The average age for toilet training used to be 2-3, but has risen to 3-4, and in some cases 3-5 in the US. In Southeast-Asian countries, such as Japan, larger diapers aren't uncommon, and some children aren't fully toilet trained in the daytime until they're between the ages of 5-7. I use Japan as an example, because Japan has generally been a good "measuring stick" for where the US will be within 5-10 years as a society. Whether or not the median age of toilet training will rise or not is certainly unknown, but I wouldn't rule it out. While most Kindergarten classrooms in the US will not take children in diapers, (there are actually some states that don't even offer Kindergarten classes if you can believe it,) unless a medical reason has been given by a pediatrician, many preschools have actually begun to accept them already. Similarly, many public schools (private schools in the UK) in the US have begun banning peanuts from school cafeterias as a result of peanut-related allergies. The sensible solution to the peanut allergy issue (and the one that the more level-headed schools have adopted,) is a "peanut-free zone" where children with peanut allergies can eat without having to worry about a potentially lethal allergic reaction. However, many schools have given the 5% minority with the peanut allergies control over the 95% majority without the aforementioned allergies, and some parents whose children will only eat peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch, (which may explain a good deal about why our society is so overweight,) are now being told to have their parents bring their lunch, and to eat it in said parent's vehicle. Sadly, the peanut-allergy issue isn't the first of it's kind, nor is it likely to be the last. If a 5% minority can get peanuts removed from an elementary school entirely, it's also likely that a similar 5% minority will eventually be able to get schools to accept children in diapers without a medical issue, whether or not this is actually a good idea. (I personally believe that this is a bad idea.)

Size 6 diapers and Pull-Ups fit some children fine, they do not fit others though. Likewise, some children and teens do not fit into Goodnites, often as a result of obesity. I am quite familiar with the location of the GoodNites product line as well. I admittedly can fit into the L/XL size without a problem, and while I don't consider myself "incontinent," I do have a need for such a product. As I've mentioned in other threads, I am, (and have become even moreso,) extremely allergic to cleaning chemicals used in public restrooms. Every time I enter one, my face becomes flush, I have trouble breathing, and instead of being able to urinate within the space of five seconds, I can spend as long as half an hour attempting to urinate; if I don't before I leave the public restroom, I will have to urinate as soon as I have left it. Thus, I generally wear GoodNites if I'm in an area where I may need to use a restroom, so that I can begin urinating before I actually enter the aforementioned restroom. Once I begin urinating, I won't stop until my bladder is empty, and I can quickly enter the public restroom, change/remove the GoodNites that I'm wearing, dispose of them, and leave the restroom within a reasonable amount of time, and with far less pain and far less of an allergic reaction to the cleaning fluids used in the restroom.

When it comes to engaging competitors customers in the US, it's the generic brands that are attempting to take customers from the name-brands; not the other way around. Most generic brands here are also manufactured by a third large corporation (Tyco) that competes with KCWW and P&G. P&G would likely never release the Pampers "Simply Dry" range in the US, because they also control the Luvs brand name, and Luvs are essentially a "budget" diaper that's designed to compete with generic store brands, although they admittedly used to be a "premium" brand like Huggies and Pampers. If P&G were to release a "Simply Dry" line here, they'd see market cannibalization, because Simply Dry would be competing with Luvs, both of which are made by P&G and occupy the same market.

Similarly, GoodNites have a stranglehold on the bedwetting market in the US. Most stores here do have a generic brand of disposable sleep pants, but they can't compete with GoodNites. Price-wise, GoodNites are often less expensive than the generic brand, (go figure,) while also being of higher quality. The first real threat to GoodNites was Luvs Sleepdrys, and the reason that they were discontinued wasn't because they were a bad product, but rather, because they simply couldn't compete with GoodNites. Likewise, Pampers UnderJams don't seem to be doing a very good job of competing with GoodNites either. Most stores that I've been to only have one or two bags of UnderJams, in some cases only for one gender, and only in one size, and those bags are crammed onto shelves with the generic store brands--off to the side where nobody bothers to even look for them unless the store is about to run out of GoodNites. GoodNites is currently the most widely used brand of disposable sleep pants in the US, and the only direction that their profit margins can move is downward. Unless KCWW ignores Pampers UnderJams, (which they havent,) there's no way any brand-name product, let alone a generic, will ever really be able to compete with them. Thus, engaging competitors customers really isn't an option, not to gain any new customers anyway, so KCWW effectively has to seek out a new market if they want to increase their profit margin.

Then those children already have a fully diagnosed medical condition, will have seen their family doctor, and already been prescribed treatment programs and appropriate "management products". Companies like Attends already produce young-children sized products (including pullups) for this very market.

Actually, those products are intended to be discrete. I think you're looking at the wrong market here: the main consumers of youth diapers are going to be the profoundly disabled. You overlook the fact that, as I said, companies like Attends already produce pull-up products for children with less severe continence issues.

Attends in the US is owned by Paper Pak, Attends in the UK is owned by P&G, which is KCWW's primary competitor; they also make Pampers, Luvs, Always sanitary protection, and a slew of other products. With the exception of Rite-Aid, which carries its own brand of youth diapers, most Pharmacies (Chemists in the UK,) here do not carry youth-sized diapers. This means that parents of disable children effectively have to purchase them from a medical supply store, and medical supply stores may be difficult to come by in some areas.

The main consumers of youth diapers are not necessarily profoundly disabled, they may be "profoundly disabled," to borrow your wording, but they may also have light urinary incontinence, or a temporary problem (e.g. healing from surgery,) that's causing a temporary loss of urinary continence. These children/teens don't need the same level of protection that a severely disabled child would need, and a product like "Goodays" would be suitable for them. GoodNites became popular because they were less expensive than youth diapers like Attends for overnight use, and were more readily available than such youth diapers. When I was a child, I was a bedwetter, but GoodNites weren't available until either the last year that I wet the bed, or the year after the last year that I wet the bed. Although my parents and I briefly considered it, I was never put into youth diapers at night time because they were too difficult to easily find and relatively expensive; it was easier just to have an extra set of sheets and to wash them each night. I had friends who wet the bed as well, and their parents did the same thing that mine did. It was only after GoodNites were introduced that it became easier as well as more economical to use diapers than to wash sheets, and some of my younger sibling's friends who wet the bed had parents who did just that. I believe that at the very least, a product for daytime use should be test marketed; if it does well, expand the market, if it does poorly, there will be proof that the market for such a product just isn't viable.

I'd argue that only a very small minority of parents shop online: shopping online still incurs a delivery bill and doesn't let you see what you're buying. A family with parents and children is more than likely to have a 'mom' person who goes shopping, inspects fruit and veg, and everything else.

Anyway, you're naive if you think children won't associate a rebranded "now does daytime too!" goodNite product with a diaper, because that's exactly what it is. "Depend" has never had the word "diaper" printed on its marketing material or products, but everyone calls them that. People see straight through marketing.

Actually, knowing several parents of young children, I can tell you that a great deal of them shop online, and the person doing the shopping is just as likely to be "Dad" as it is to be "Mom." Now granted, "Mom" is still likely to go to the grocery store to pick out perishables, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, etc., I'll give you that, but both "Mom," and "Dad" are likely to purchase non-perishable items, including diapers, online. Yes, there are shipping and handling charges, but online retailers such as Amazon often offer free shipping on orders over a certain price, and many parents will order things before they actually need them and try to "time" the arrival of their order to avoid incurring shipping charges. Furthermore, even when shipping charges are factored into the purchase of products online, those shipping charges are often less than the cost of fuel needed to fill the vehicle that the parent takes to the grocery store.

You seem to have misinterpreted my point. I was not suggesting a "rebranding" of GoodNites with a "now for daytime use as well," tag slapped on them; that'd defeat the point of having a product named GoodNites in the first place. What I was suggesting was adding a product to the GoodNites line, "Goodays" as JS1989 likes to call them, which would essentially be another set of prints, a different package, and maybe contain a little less padding for daytime use. I will agree with you that SOME people see through marketing, and it's often poor marketing that's seen through, but MOST people really don't see through marketing. Again, I know people in marketing, I know how they (usually) do a good job at making you want a product, and I know how they practically psychoanalyze consumers to figure out how to ensure that they (consumers) buy a product. Again, let me use soda as an example: Do you or does anyone you know drink Pepsi or Coke? If so, do you know a person who will only drink one or the other? In the states, most people will only drink one or the other--not both, and that's a direct result of marketing. Yes, people are going to see GoodNites and any offshoot thereof as diapers, you can't turn diapers into regular underwear anymore than you can turn a car into a truck; KCWW used to even brand GoodNites with the "Pull-Ups" logo on the packaging. What a company can do though, is make a product that's less embarrassing, or less "diaper-like," or that is otherwise perceived as being better than an alternative product, which is essentially how KCWW got GoodNites to sell in the first place. They didn't (and still don't) call them diapers, they're "disposable undergarments for night time use," and KCWW drills that into prospective customers heads. They don't look like traditional diapers, they don't open at the sides like modern Pull-Ups, they were branded as "Underpants," and are now branded as "Underwear," a name change that's also been given to the new Depend products to make people stop thinking about them as "diapers" long enough to buy them, even though they know that's what they are.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

They don't though. Increased rates of childhood and teenage obesity are going to mean they will eventually release a larger product. I recognise a genuine demand for an XXL-sized product that provides more protection than Depend's pull-ons (which are not marketed as a night-time use product, only the Depend Fitted Brief is, and that's often overkill for a person who only wets lightly).

Many people don't, you're right; I was giving you the arguement that the people who do believe that there isn't a need for a larger size of GoodNites use, and those people do exist, otherwise such a product would already be available. I agree with you, the continuing rise of childhood and teenage obesity are going to, and really have already, mandated the need for a larger product. You and I are in agreement on this, as I think many of the people who have posted in this thread are.

Basically you just repeated yourself three times there, in a wall-of-text too. I recommend reading up on how to communicate effectively in writing.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm currently dealing with severe allergies which I'm unable to take anything for due to other medical issues, and as a result, I admittedly may repeat something I previously typed because I can't easily go back and re-read it. As far as communicating effectively in writing goes, I've past multiple courses flawlessly from well-respected institutes of higher education, that say I can communicate in writing perfectly, but I'm not here to brag about my college, or even my high school grades.

Ooooh, I love a good conspiracy theory!

(let's totally overlook the fact your username outs you as a maxi-pad fetishist)

Funny, the theory wasn't entirely mine; I have a few female friends who know about my fetish; we talk frequently, and more than one of them has suggested that this is the case as well. Again, if you actually knew what people involved in marketing do, you'd know that this scenario is far more plausible than it likely seems.

On the subject of a daytime use GoodNites product: there's the problem of absorbption and fitting. You can either make it hold enough to last a whole day (realistically, about 6 hours' wearing) or make it easy to change frequently. A pull-ups style product would not be popular because you have to take your trousers off to put a new product on.

Catheters may be a better solution in the UK SomeThing, but in the US, Catheters can be a relatively expensive medical device to purchase, at least at present. (That may change soon though.) Just because one method is popular right now doesn't mean that it will be in the future; as I noted before, prior to the introduction of GoodNites, washing bedsheets regularly was a more common method of managing bedwetting than using diapers was. The absorption and fitting problems with daytime diapers could be worked around, either with additional SAP or improved leg elastics. A decent daytime use diaper would be made to last six hours, assuming that one has some sort of lunch break in their day at some time, it should be easy for one to change a pull-on style diaper once mid-day--either right before or right after lunch, and once upon arriving home. Realistically, we're talking about a total of three "GoodNites for daytime use" a day, one in the morning, one for the afternoon, one upon returning home, and then regular GoodNites for bedtime use; if the padding were slightly thinner and more SAP were used in the diaper, (this could still be done discreetly with the right style of clothing,) this could easily be accomplished. Although it would make the product more diaper-like, Easy-Open resealable sides, or something similar to them, would allow for such a daytime product to be as absorbent as it needs to, to be worn like traditional underwear, and to still function like a diaper. Again, in the US, diapers cost far less than catheters which can run upwards of $100 dollars; for a person with no medical insurance, that's obviously a huge expense. Desperate people who can't afford new catheters boil and reuse old ones, which is dangerous and is known to cause infections. Again, a daytime diaper that's similar to GoodNites might not be right for the UK market, but I believe that at present, it's right for the US market.

As an aside, I'm surprised that I feel compelled to make a point-by-point rebuttal to your posting. Usually I let people battle these issues amongst themselves and for P+G/KCWW to ignore them totally

(You know, if you want to make any impact you should know to contact directors and product development people directly rather than filling in anonymized feedback forms on their website).

Thank you for the rebuttal, I actually found it interesting, and I can understand where you're coming from on the daytime diapers, although I don't necessarily agree with you on whether or not they would be good for the US market; the UK market is another story entirely. I'm well aware that if I wanted to influence the design of a new product that I should attempt to directly contact a corporations directors and/or product development team rather than dealing with feedback forms that will ultimately be quantified and contribute little if anything to product development. If I thought that I had enough data in support of the need for an XXL size of GoodNites, I would gladly attempt to contact a marketing director or V.P. of product development and pitch the idea to them. Thank you for a detailed, insightful response to my initial post.

[Leilin]

To be clear, I was referring only to SomeThing's most recent post. Apologies for the lack of clarity in that comment. Pretty much everything else stands.

Partial loss of control?

In what situation, pray tell, will you see "partial loss of control" in a teen and in what situation would the flat-out awful absorption rate of the Goodnites be of any use for that?

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

To be clear, I was referring only to SomeThing's most recent post. Apologies for the lack of clarity in that comment. Pretty much everything else stands.

Apology accepted; I should also apologize for being somewhat "jumpy" with my initial reply, and for not asking for clarification from the get-go. Simply put, I'm sorry for overreacting to your initial reply.

Partial loss of control?

In what situation, pray tell, will you see "partial loss of control" in a teen and in what situation would the flat-out awful absorption rate of the Goodnites be of any use for that?

I can think of at least two situations in which you would see a partial loss of control in a child/teen.

Situation 1: After an accident and/or surgery. The accident could be sports-related, vehicular, or something else entirely, and it could also lead to the aforementioned need for surgery. While it's true that some accidents paralyze a person permanently, and full-out adult diapers may be needed in such a situation, some accidents only cause temporary nerve damage. Similarly, some surgeries require more recovery time than 1) Insurance is willing to cover, and 2) A hospital is willing to provided inpatient treatment for. In the latter situation, partial loss of bladder control/temporary incontinence is the type of thing that many hospitals will not keep a patient under observation for; they'll discharge said patient, send them home, and tell them to avoid certain types of activities for a specific duration of time, and to return to the hospital of an unforeseen complication arises. Some hospitals may provide diapers to the patient, or they may direct said patient to a medical supply store; it depends on the patient's insurance. However, these patients don't necessarily need a traditional adult diaper, they need what's essentially a "just in case" form of protection, so that if they don't, or can't make it to the toilet in time, they still have something between them and their furniture/floor/clothing. A product such as the one that I proposed could especially benefit low-income families (often the ones to receive the least attention in the current US medical system,) if it were to qualify for FSAs (Flexible Spending Accounts) the same way that GoodNites do.

Situation 2: When a child/teen or even a young adult is suffering from the flu or a flu-like illness. This might actually be the most common use for such a product. A child/teen who is usually continent may have partial loss of continence when stricken with a flu-like illness. As a child/teen, there were many times when I personally experienced a partial loss of continence/control with a flu-like illness, and several occasions, I had to choose what I wanted in the toilet, and what I wanted to have hit the floor, especially in situations where I was literally urinating, defecating, and vomiting at the same time. In the latter portion of this example, a day-time use product would make the clean-up of such a situation much simpler. There's a good chance that once one has finished vomiting, they'll still have to urinate and/or defecate further. The sides of GoodNites can be torn, just as the sides of a daytime use product would be torn, and one's clothing, would still be protected, as would one's furniture and/or floor. After one has vomited, they could then use the toilet as they normally would, dispose of the soiled product, clean up, and change into a clean product for the duration of the illness, and repeat as needed. I realize that GoodNites aren't intended for loss of fecal continence, but even in this situation, loss of urinary continence is far more common than loss of fecal continence.

I realize that flu-shots exist, but some people are allergic to them, and there have been occasions where the strain of the flu that the shot is designed to immunize one against is not the strain of the flu that afflicts most people. Depending on the severity of the virus, one can be free of it and still have side-effects for several days after they're no longer contagious and have returned to school in the case of children/teens. Again, such a product would be useful in such a situation, until one has fully healed.

Furthermore, there's no reason why hospitals couldn't or wouldn't use such a product on their premises as well if the aforementioned product existed. In fact, it's not uncommon for hospitals to adopt products that are distributed at retail for use within the hospital itself. There may be some products which hospitals receive special variations of, in addition to the product that's distributed at retail, (Tylenol comes to mind,) but if a hospital can use a product that's mass-produced for retail use, they will. The only difference may be the packaging and method in which a specific product is shipped to the aforementioned hospitals. In the case of a day-time use product, it would likely be delivered in "cases" rather than bags, and some hospitals may or may not order specific variations to the graphics on such a product. Most hospitals would likely keep the standard designs, but some may request a special order with no designs or the hospital's name to obscure who their suppliers are.

Finally, I have never experienced an "awful absorption rate" with GoodNites, and if the absorption rate were truly "aweful," parents wouldn't be purchasing the product and KCWW would either redesign or discontinue it. The reports of leaks in the newly released GoodNites are on par with the level of reports received in 2009, 2008, 2007, and so on; every time a product like GoodNites is updated, there's a chance that a manufacturing flaw could cause defects in the first batch that reaches shelves; a month later the flaw will be fixed and the product will work correctly again. Furthermore, everytime a change is made that benefits 99% of the people using a particular product, there will be 1% of the people using said product who will be at a disadvantage as a result of the aforementioned change. At least KCWW responds to their customers who have a problem with their products. The same cannot be said for P&G, which seems to be ignoring parents who have complained that helping their children into UnderJams has caused the sides to tear, and who have complained about the new Pampers Dry-Max leaving a severe form of diaper rash. (The latter example has actually resulted in a lawsuit.) An XXL size is the next logical step for GoodNites, for reasons which have already been stated. A day-time use product may be the next logical step after that. Such a product should of course be test-marketed to ensure that it will sell and that it works as it's supposed to. If the test marketing is successful, then the product should go into widespread mass production. I hope this clarifies my position.

[Leilin]

In both situations, where you are looking at an adult-sized person unable to make it to the toilet in time, you are looking at a flood.

Flooding a pull-up is usually a bad, bad idea.

But yes. Very very clarified. I just disagree. >_>