The Economy'S Latest Casualty: America'S Baby Bottoms (Advertising Age)

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

From the September 5, 2011 Advertising Age publication:

SOURCE: Link

Baby bottoms in the U.S. look to be in worse shape than ever, and the economy -- or inattentive parents -- may be to blame.

Sales of diaper-rash cream are up, rising for the third straight year on a unit basis, even though the number of babies has kept declining over that period. Data suggest that babies are getting diaper rash more often because parents are changing their diapers less.

The number of babies ages 2 and under in the U.S. fell about 3% to 8.1 million last year, based on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which tracks the number of live births. Yet SymphonyIRI data show unit sales of disposable diapers fell 9% in the 52 weeks ended Aug. 7, three times as fast as the population of infants. At the same time, unit sales of baby ointments and creams rose 2.8%, despite fewer babies.

Diaper rash doesn't rise to the level of concern that the CDC tracks cases, so sales of diaper-rash cream are one of the better barometers for tracking its frequency. And the trend of diaper-ointment sales rising even as diaper sales decline has been going on since 2009, according to SymphonyIRI data from Deutsche Bank. The disconnect between fewer diapers and more rash cream has intensified in the past year.

But it's accepted pediatric wisdom that less frequent diaper changes are linked to diaper rash. For example, at AskDrSears.com, a site run by a pediatrician and his wife, a pediatric nurse, the top two tips for preventing diaper rash are "1. Change diapers frequently" and "2. Change poopy diapers right away."

Yet, it's easy to see why parents would be more reluctant to do so. Unemployment has been persistently high, and diapering, with costs estimated at $1,500 annually, is one of the biggest line items on the new baby ledger.

For its part, Pampers marketer Procter & Gamble is having none of the blame-the-parents theory. A spokesman said in an email that the company hasn't identified a trend in the U.S. toward people changing diapers less often, though it has observed parents trying to potty train their youngsters earlier to save money.

As a possible guide for parental quality benchmarking, P&G research finds U.S. babies get their diapers changed on average 6.3 times daily. That's more than the normally fastidious Germans (5.06 times daily) or the French (5.15) and way more than the Russians (3.84), but not quite so attentive as the Japanese (6.45).

I figured that some of you might find this interesting. The original link also contains a chart that shows how often diapers are changed daily in different countries, and is worth reading.

[LILJIM]

With people living longer now too= older folks in diapers with creams too.

[dmavn]

That is what I was thinking as well. With a spastic sphincter I use barrier cream at every change whether I really need it or not, and I am sure there are quit a few of the older generation that do as well.

[LuvsGurl]

Less money = less frequent diaper changes = more rash. Seems a logical progression to me.

Though I have also read reports on several parenting websites that some of these new "super capacity" diapers being marketed aren't doing a very good job at rapidly absorbing and neutralizing urine. SAP gives thin diapers exceptional capacity but it is slow to absorb, use too much of it and urine stays next to the skin for too long, increasing chances of irritation.

I've never understood the trend towards thinner diapers for infants/toddlers in the first place. It's not like they can really walk properly anyways, and the ones that can toddle around fall down so often you'd think some extra padding on their behind would be appreciated.

[Floaty_Boy]

I've never understood the trend towards thinner diapers for infants/toddlers in the first place. It's not like they can really walk properly anyways, and the ones that can toddle around fall down so often you'd think some extra padding on their behind would be appreciated.

I'd read somewhere once (can't remember where) that diapers aren't sold to babies, they're sold to parents, and marketing research showed that parents (and grandparents, and aunts, and uncles, and darn near everybody else) didn't want to be reminded about diapers and bodily wastes (and the associated shame, apparently).

Kind of makes sense. I remember being a diaper-obsessed kid and looking at pictures in magazines and catalogs of diaper-aged kids, and unless it was an ad for disposable diapers, there was nothing resembling a diaper anywhere around. Even when it was obvious the kid would have to be wearing a diaper, it would have some kind of cloth cover over it to hide it.

Looking at it in that way, I can kinda see how the push has been toward less "diaper-y" diapers. Thinner. Quieter. Cloth-like. I personally hate the trend!

--Floaty

[LuvsGurl]

It was really a rhetorical query to get people thinking.

If you do some more reading you'll realize that part of the push has been diaper manufacturers wanting to keep kids in diapers longer. Which is why we get all these pull-ups and disposable "training pants" and jean diapers, and etc.

If the kid can't tell the difference between a diaper (which they are supposed to wet/mess in) and underwear (which they are not supposed to wet/mess in) they have a much harder time learning the toileting process. A thin, cloth covered, stylized diaper with colorful designs and prints looks and feels a lot like regular underwear. This is even more true if you can pull it on/off. It's all meant to make the toilet training process take longer, which makes the diaper companies more money. It's all part of the reason why one in twenty kids is still in pullups when they begin kindergarten.

[toddmdl]

It was really a rhetorical query to get people thinking.

If you do some more reading you'll realize that part of the push has been diaper manufacturers wanting to keep kids in diapers longer. Which is why we get all these pull-ups and disposable "training pants" and jean diapers, and etc.

If the kid can't tell the difference between a diaper (which they are supposed to wet/mess in) and underwear (which they are not supposed to wet/mess in) they have a much harder time learning the toileting process. A thin, cloth covered, stylized diaper with colorful designs and prints looks and feels a lot like regular underwear. This is even more true if you can pull it on/off. It's all meant to make the toilet training process take longer, which makes the diaper companies more money. It's all part of the reason why one in twenty kids is still in pullups when they begin kindergarten.

A conspiracy?? I probably would agree with the idea that the diaper companies are trying to confuse the kids and prolong the toilet training process. My bias creeps in here, especially since I'm not a parent. I don't think a plot by the diaper companies to try to prolong toilet training is really a bad thing. It's good business and it doesn't affect most kids one way or the other anyway.

[LuvsGurl]

I don't think it's hurting the kids any. IMO society is pushing kids to grow up way too fast as it is, anything to slow that down helps. We've just got to remember this is all a plan to make more profit for the diaper companies.

[KrisNdiapers]

I agree with the conspiracy, thats why adult products ten years down the line are changing. People who need the products dont recieve the benefits of baby diapers because they already are a garanteed customer. Not relative but the doggy diapers are still made with thick plastic backing.

[babykeiff]

Since the introduction and wide usage of disposable diapers on children, the toilet training age has increased. - the reasons...

• A disposable diaper is designed to be thin, comfortable, ultra absorbent.

• The child does not get the feedback / reminder that the diaper is wet.

• Since there is no reminder that the diaper is wet, the child forgets that it is wet / has wet.

• This is in the diaper manufactures interest - to delay toilet training, extend diaper usage, increase diaper sales.

Cloth diapers are bulky, cold/wet/droop/uncomfortable when wet. The child gets instant feedback of wetting, and constant reminder.

The main drive for a child to toilet train is to stay comfortable - and this drive does not exist while in disposable diapers.

Diaper manufactures are aware of this - produce diapers that 'lock away' the wetness, stay comfortable, look like underwear, fit the average child up to 12 -14 years old (dry nights etc). That is an average of 14k diapers at a cost of .40c per diaper = $5k approx. (see end of post for figures) per child.

The cost in delaying toilet training is numerous, and is related to self worth, confidence and ability to control ones environment. Every child has a development progress, where each milestone is built on mastering the previous milestone. IE a child will learn to walk once it has learnt to stand / balance. If the child is constantly placed in a small playpen where the need for it to move to get a toy etc is not there, it will not learn to walk or balance. Correspondingly, if a child is still in diapers while going to first grade, it is normal for the child, once wet / uncomfortable to look for soothing / comfort from a parental figure (as it did as an infant in order to get its diaper changed etc), As a result, the cognitive mind will learn (via direct response) that it is better to socialize with an adult / dominant personality. This correlates to that this child will have a difficult time making friends, and will only be friendly with someone who is dominant to him/herself. This places this child as a subordinate, not only in childhood, but normally throughout life, cause key social skills are learnt and mastered through first interactions (in kindergarten / first grade.) and are originally learnt by copying its peers - parents etc before school, and now teachers since it is in school - teacher / nurse pseudo replaces parents etc as diaper changer / pseudo comforter etc. However, if a child is not diaper dependent / wearing pull-ups etc when s/he enters school environment, s/he does not see the teacher/nurse as a pseudo parent but as another mature adult. The child learns / is taught respect, but can easily make friends etc since the child does not have an emotional need to have a pseudo parent in a friend, and will treat each friend as a subordinate / equal as long as that person shows some

attention towards the child (similar to the emotional dynamic the child has for its plushies). There is no longer a need (in the child) to look for a dominant person, which makes the child the dominant person, or the submissive personality as needed / chosen by the child.

It is pure financial greed that the diaper companies create this type of society.

Maths:

6 x 4 years = 8760 +

4 x 2 years = 2620 +

1 x 7 years = 2555

= 13955

[Yvhuce]

Maths:

6 x 4 years = 8760 +

4 x 2 years = 2620 +

1 x 7 years = 2555

= 13955

You should explain your math rather than randomly putting it in. Either that, or you're really bad at math. 6 x 4 = 24, 4 x 2 = 8, and 1 x 7 = 7. Either way, random math is confusing.

[babykeiff]

You should explain your math rather than randomly putting it in. Either that, or you're really bad at math. 6 x 4 = 24, 4 x 2 = 8, and 1 x 7 = 7. Either way, random math is confusing.

Yvhuce,

I thought, in context of my post, that the source of my mathematics were obvious. I also placed the maths at the end of my post as the arithmetic is the lest important section of the post. For you, I will simplify....

From the age of newborn to the age of 4 years of age, an average child will use on average, 6 diapers per day. This, in mathematical terms is 6 multiplied by 4 multiplied by 364.25 where 6 is the count of diapers used per day, 4 is the count of years and 364.25 is the count of days per year according to the Gregorian calendar. The following two sums relate to the diminishing average per year, where

4 is the count of diapers / poull-ups used per child on average per year, and 2 is the count of years between the age of 4 and 6. The last sum relates to 1 drynite or similar related product being used by a child between the ages of 6 and 13 years of age.

If you dispute my figures, please read my post to realise where you may have missed the relevant information. You are correct in ....

6x4 = 24 and 4x2 = 8 and 1x7 = 7, but as I stated in my post.

6 x 4 years = 8760 +

4 x 2 years = 2620 +

1 x 7 years = 2555

= 13955

where years equates 365 approx.