Every Variation Of Goodnites For Boys (Posted On Adisc)

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

I wasn't sure if the person who posted this is a member here as well, but I found it rather intriguing. This guy has, as far as I can tell, every variation of GoodNites (for boys) produced after 2003.

Link to ADISC post.

I'm posting this here since I wasn't sure whether to stick it in the DL forum of the Just Diapers forum, so please feel free to move it if I posted it in the wrong location. I'm also posting this here because it's something I think some members may find interesting.

What's most impressive is that this guy actually has not only every GoodNites product for Boys, but every "accidental variant" as well. The 2010 GoodNites with the white sides were/are an error--someone at the factory didn't switch to the new "softer" side panels, and accidentally ran the new designs with the old side panels yielding these as a result. (Oops.) Likewise the solid blue sides were intended for the 2011 designs, but someone seems to have just run the old designs with the new side panels, again leading to a rather unique variant.

Now if only someone would do this for the girls designs, then there would be photos of every design of GoodNites for every gender.

[daddy-jonny]

i miss the old white ones, way thicker, softer, and better.

[AutieAB]

Despite their intention to make them as much 'not diapers' as possible, is it just me or do the more recent ones (blue sides in particular) actually look more like a diaper or toddler pull-up than the earlier ones? The look a lot more like this than this.

While we're on the subject, do they still make the boxers ones? They were fun but I haven't seen them in ages...

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Despite their intention to make them as much 'not diapers' as possible, is it just me or do the more recent ones (blue sides in particular) actually look more like a diaper or toddler pull-up than the earlier ones? The look a lot more like this than this.

I'd have to say that the answer to your question is half "yes" and half "no." GoodNites most resembled "not diapers/underwear" when they were plain white, because briefs are usually a solid color, and that's often plain white. Although current GoodNites do look more like diapers or Huggies Pull-Ups then underwear, it's not because of the blue side panels, but because of the designs/prints on the actual diapers. The blue side panels would be fine if the diaper itself was almost entirely solid blue.

If Kimberly-Clark really wanted to make GoodNites "not diapers," they drop the designs/prints or at least drastically redesign them. (That also goes for P&G with UnderJams.) GoodNites for boys should come in solid colors. The only "graphics" on them should be a faux-fly, faux-tag, and a waistband that runs the full length of the (not) diaper. The L/XL size should have white as a constant "non-changing" color with gray graphics for the aforementioned features on one design, and the S/M size should have one design that's inverted (gray diaper with white graphics,) in keeping with the "underwear" look. Additionally, a "wildcard" color could rotate each year, so one year Kimberly-Clark could do solid blue GoodNites with the aforementioned graphics for both sizes. The next year they could use a color like yellow and so on.

Underwear for girls is a bit more decorated by default, but not nearly as decorated as what GoodNites look like. Again, the only "graphics" should be a faux-tag, a waistband that runs the length of the diaper, and maybe a faux-panty gusset or small design at the front of the diaper like you see on the front of panties. Again, solid colors should be the norm. Again, white and grey should be the constant colors, with a "wildcard" that could be pink one year, purple the next, and so on.

Although these designs would make GoodNites look far more like actual underwear, Kimberly-Clark would likely consider them "too clinical," as would P&G. Both companies design their overnight (not) diapers to look more like diapers then underwear that many children wear. I wore plain white briefs as a bedwetter growing up, and I know that's what I'd want my GoodNites to look like if I were still a bedwetter growing up.

While we're on the subject, do they still make the boxers ones? They were fun but I haven't seen them in ages...

The Sleep Shorts (for girls) were discontinued after the 2008 run, and remaining stock was phased out throughout 2009. The Boxers (for boys) were discontinued in 2009 and remaining stock was phased out/depleted throughout 2010. You might still find these buried on the back of a shelf in some stores. It's not uncommon for them to stay there until someone finds them and buys them. I remember picking up a bunch of these on clearance for about $5.00 when I knew they were being discontinued. My local supermarket loved me--they'd been trying to unload the things for ages. Kimberly-Clark dropped any reference to the boxers from their website in 2010, and although you may find them online, it's all surplus stock. These didn't sell well and their higher cost compared to standard GoodNites combined with a tighter fit and "Jumbo package only" offerings didn't exactly help make them a success. I'm hoping that whatever Kimberly-Clark tries next for GoodNites is a bit more successful.

[Reina Klauser]

Hmm... If it were a collection of the girls' products, I'd pay money to see it.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

Hmm... If it were a collection of the girls' products, I'd pay money to see it.

If nothing else, I could probably display a decent portion of the packaging from 2007 onward, although the diapers themselves might be another story. I still have quite a few notable "gaps" in my GoodNites collection, although I'm specifically missing the following "for girls" products:

1. Anything from 2004-2006 at all.

2. The S/M design variant from 2008.

3. The S/M design variant from 2009.

4. The S/M prints from 2011, (I should have those soon though.)

Most of what's in that ADSIC set is stuff that I have though, although I'm largely missing the same things for boys as I am for girls. (The design variants from 2008/2009, and most products from 2004-2006.)

[sarah_ab]

Hmm... If it were a collection of the girls' products, I'd pay money to see it.

sorry this just comes off sounding really wrong... but i'm sure (really hoping/guessing) that you don't mean it that way!!!

and umm in regards to prints designs.... pull ups are marketed towards toilet trianing age kids, and children who still bed wet, and often those are kids who are younger... take a look at the underwear sold to children say under the age of 7.. they are ALL designs.. superheros and cartoon characters and cars and trucks etc...etc.... its actually harder to find solid color underwear for kids than it is to find designs...

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

sorry this just comes off sounding really wrong... but i'm sure (really hoping/guessing) that you don't mean it that way!!!

I honestly didn't see anything remotely controversial with the wording of that post until you pointed it out, Sarah. Although I see where you're coming from, I think that realistically, the wording is perfectly clear and non-controversial. The sentence in question reads as follows:

"Hmm... If it were a collection of the girls' products, I'd pay money to see it."

Okay, if we examine that a little more closely for a moment, it's quite easy to see what the author of the post was saying. Let's look at the bolded text first, because that's obviously meant to add emphasis to that specific word. The word "girls" is pluralized, additionally the placement of the apostrophe tells us that it's a plural-possessive. "Girls'" (bolded to emphasize apostrophe placement) means "of the girls," or in a more literal translation, "for girls," and can also mean "belonging to more then one girl, or many girls." In the case of this particular sentence, common sense should tell the reader that the intended context of the word "girls'" is "for girls." Another interpretation could also mean "used by girls," since these are "the girls' products," although that context (which is the one that I believe you were pointing out Sarah) is more then likely unintended.

Expanding on the context of the wording though, the larger sentence refers to a collection "of the girls' products," which by definition would be a collection of products for many girls. Putting the entire sentence in the context of the discussion as a whole further makes it obvious that the author was saying that if a collection of GoodNites for use by girls were posted, the author would pay to see it. It could be argued that the sentence should have been written as "Hmm... If it were a collection of products for girls', I'd pay money to see it," although that seems like needless nitpicking. Additionally, if the sentence had been written as "Hmm... If it were a collection of girls' products, I'd pay money to see it," then I could see why someone might ask for clarification as to what was said. Without the word "the" in the sentence, it's easier to misinterpret the context as meaning products used by, rather then products intended for more than one girl. The use of "the" in the sentence however implies that the author is referring to GoodNites products intended for girls. Again, I understand what you're getting at Sarah, but I don't think it should be too difficult for people to figure out the context that the post was meant to be read in. Of course, just wording "girls" as plural and not possessive would likely have removed any issue pertaining to context as well.

and umm in regards to prints designs.... pull ups are marketed towards toilet trianing age kids, and children who still bed wet, and often those are kids who are younger... take a look at the underwear sold to children say under the age of 7.. they are ALL designs.. superheros and cartoon characters and cars and trucks etc...etc.... its actually harder to find solid color underwear for kids than it is to find designs...

Pull-Ups (emphasis added,) that is, the product manufactured by KCWW and sold under the "Huggies" brand, are indeed marketed towards children of toilet training age. KCWW claims that Huggies Pull-Ups are intended for children up to four years of age. Similar products such as Pampers Easy Ups are intended for the same age group. However, pull-on diapers for sleep wetters/bed wetters on the other hand, are marketed to children and teenagers between the ages of four and 15. (Realistically, we all know that they're capable of fitting adults because of when teenagers tend to stop physically growing.) Although a portion of the (cheap in every sense of the word) underwear sold to children, particularly girls under the age of seven is covered in designs, a good number of parents opt for plain underwear, (usually found in a department store with a name like "Hanes" or "Fruit of the Loom" on it,) which is readily available in the nearest department store. The primary reason that parents frequently opt for plain underwear is specifically because "designs are babyish" and "something you'd see on diapers."

It's also worth pointing out that underwear for girls will always be more intricate then underwear for boys, for the simple fact that all underwear for females is more intricate/colorful then underwear for males. Thus, if KCWW wants to make GoodNites "more underwear like," they should be avoiding designs, which are generally considered "babyish" and "something that one would find on a diaper." However, avoiding designs and sticking with plain white would cause GoodNites and similar products to have a "clinical" look, which is why the plain white designs were dropped in the first place. I could even understand KCWW keeping some "prints/designs" on the S/M size, if only for the fact that the majority of children wearing that size would fall into the demographic of children who might wear underwear with designs on it, provided that their parents couldn't afford/weren't interested in plain underwear. However, the L/XL size is largely marketed to older children/tweens/teens, and by the time a person is in the age range for the L/XL size, they usually view underwear with designs on it as "babyish," unless they also share in this fetish at some capacity. Thus, if the L/XL size are going to continue to be marketed as "not diapers," the traditional designs on them have to go. The designs for boys would be most "underwear-like" if they utilized predominantly solid colors, a faux "fly," a waistband, faux tag, and not much else. The designs for girls could keep some type of design, since female underwear as a whole tends to have a more intricate design then male underwear as noted above, but any prints/designs/graphics should be minimized to containing a minimalist design on the center area of the diaper, and not much else other then faux underwear markings. Again, it's not uncommon to find underwear for ladies that may have a floral design on it, while underwear for men is traditionally solid, and this holds true for older children/tweens/teens as well.

Of course, I have to admit that the camo designs (for boys) appear to be a step in the right direction. There is underwear for older children/teens and even adults that uses camo designs, because they're considered a "mature" style. Still, I would think that KCWW would attempt to market GoodNites with more "underwear-like" solids as the primary line, and bring out prints/graphics as part of a "designer series" of GoodNites, since they seem to be selling everything else in "designer" format now. Huggies have "designer" diapers that look like blue jeans, camo, and now Santa Clause. U by Kotex, a KCWW product has a designer series of pads and tampons available. Wait long enough and I'm sure they'll release designer Kleenex tissues if they haven't already. Personally, I've had mixed feelings about the "designer" concept, although I have to admit that I'm surprised "designer GoodNites" haven't been released yet. (And when I say mixed feelings, I mean that I think designer pads and diapers are cute and make some level of sense, while designer tampons, consisting only of designer applicators, which are never seen by anyone, are flat out stupid. At least designer pads might be seen by a woman's partner and could blend in with underwear, and designer diapers are great for children who can't keep their clothes on.)

I should some this up by stating that I still believe somewhere between a plain white diaper and a diaper with designs on it is the "not a diaper" that KCWW is looking to make GoodNites.