RIP Kleenex Mansize

[philehidiot]

Wow,11 posts in and Nazis already mentioned.

The thread is over,its been Godwinned.

A true Godwin would be comparing someone participating in the thread to the Nazis, this is more a pseudo-Godwin.

[Saracen]

What size tissue people prefer to use isn't really the issue though, is it? It is the product being specifically labelled 'Mansize', and to conflate the 2 points is a bit of a strawman.

I, like you, also never really gave things like this much thought previously – but this actual topic came up with my 10-year-old Daughter only a few months back. We were at the in-laws and I asked her to pass me a tissue. She picked up the box and asked why they were called mansize, and jokingly said that she couldn’t use them. I told her that they were called mansize because they were larger and men traditionally tend to be larger than women. She pointed out that she’s the tallest in her class. She also pointed out that her Mother (my Wife) is taller than most of the men that we know, which is true (she’s just shy of 6 foot). I said it just an old-fashioned way of saying large. She said they should just say large. And I think she was right.

And on a wider point – I hear a lot of people say, as you did, that ‘These days everything is 'something-ist', or words to those effect. Leaving aside the hyperbole (Is it really ‘Everything’?), what I tend to find is that the majority of people that make that claim are usually male, usually white, usually able-bodied and usually straight – the very people who I suspect are least likely to suffer from subtle or overt forms of discrimination on a regular basis. So, when people like that (and I have no way of knowing if that includes you) decry efforts to examine and re-interpret what is and isn’t acceptable in modern society as further evidence of victimisation by the ‘far left’, I am reminded of the famous Mandy Rice-Davies misquote; "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

I certainly wouldn't put this down to the far left. I would, given the amount of real problems in the country and/or world put it down to someone that needs to get a life.

Also, with an obviously intelligent, if precocious, 10-year old able to think of that question, she might benefit from a quick lesson in statistics, averages and outriders in a population.

Seriously.

If she's bright enough to ask, then properly explained, she's certainly bright enough to understand.

[Unique]

they aren't sexist, but I don't know how the advertising standards agency hasn't sued them as they definitely aren't man sized, not even a midget sized man

[TooNice]

At the same time I recall that Dove released a shower gel/foam product line for ladies to promote body positive thinking, yet I can't imagine they would rename it if some man would call in and call it sexist

There is that.

I also agree with philehidiot about the likely reason they used "man size". Now, do men really secrete so much more mucus compare to women to justify needing the extra size, or a men's face typically that much larger than a women's to need the extra surface, I am not entirely sure. But it is fact that men are on average bigger than women, so for many things, things are sized differently for men and women for that reason. We have shoes sized for men and women (as well as kids) don't we? In fact, the unit itself is different for men, women and kids (to be fair, I think it is pretty silly that UK/US sizing for shoes is so that a 7 for a man isn't the same as a 7 for a woman).

But of course it doesn't mean that women can't buy "man sized" tissue.. just like women with larger feet may find themselves needing to shop in the men's isle when buying winter sport boots. Or I, a guy with unusually small feet need to buy snowboard boots for lady's because they don't make men size that fit me. I.. do complain about that (mostly because there size isn't the only thing that differentiates between men and women snowboard boots due to other physiological differences), but I am not screaming bloody sexism.

I do think that sexism and gender issues are real, but there is also a lot of barking at the wrong trees, and this, I feel, is one of them.

[scaryjim]

Then me and majority of my close environment are re-enforcing it ... Might as well walk around with 'sexism re-inforcer' on my forehead.

I think it would've been a problem if and when I would've bought it proudly because of the 'man' status of it. ...

Who buys it isn't the problem. The fact that you - and to be fair the vast majority of people - don't even notice that everyday items are needlessly gendered is a problem. Society is so entrenched in its make-believe differences it's unbelievable.

Don't confuse correlation with causation - in either direction. Also don't confuse the fact that something is a certain way, with the idea that something has to be a certain way.

EDIT: for cross-post:

... In fact, the unit itself is different for men, women and kids ...

That's true in the US, but not in the UK (or Europe). Most "women"'s shoe ranges don't go up as large as men's, but the sizes are equivalent - if I can find a women's size 9, I can wear them.

[Zak33]

And I always thought it was a sly dig at men being such wusses with man 'flu that they needed bigger tissues!

?

me too

I thought it was a Man FLu Wuus thing.....

[TooNice]

That's true in the US, but not in the UK (or Europe). Most "women"'s shoe ranges don't go up as large as men's, but the sizes are equivalent - if I can find a women's size 9, I can wear them.

I stand corrected. Haven't bought any shoe wear in the UK in years, and I have seen some chart where the UK follow the US (in separating the gender) but just one size smaller, but I'll write it off as an mistake based on further Googling.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A true Godwin would be comparing someone participating in the thread to the Nazis, this is more a pseudo-Godwin.

But your the one mentioning them,not anyone else. The worst thing is you are complaining about outrage and getting as outraged about the people getting outraged! It was like in the other thread,where you got outraged about one set of students due to a clickbait story,and it turned out the side you were not outraged with,threw a hissy fit since they didn't get 100% what they wanted,got outraged and cried to the press about it.

The press loving outrage then prints stories like this as they get lots more traffic,and they "hey presto!" more money. They are just the worst when it comes to this.



Nobody I knows cares the tissues are called "man sized" and neither do they care if it isn't. Its a pack of tissues. These companies can manufacture the "outrage" to gain more attention but only to do those who care. I am as likely or not like to buy a Kleenex product due to this.



No doubt Kleenex is loosing sales to much cheaper rivals,so need to make some "news" to sell their products. I suspect they couldn't give a flying monkies who they "outrage" as long as they sell more tissues,which probably going by the sound of the outrage,it will be needed.

[opel80uk]

I certainly wouldn't put this down to the far left. I would, given the amount of real problems in the country and/or world put it down to someone that needs to get a life.

Also, with an obviously intelligent, if precocious, 10-year old able to think of that question, she might benefit from a quick lesson in statistics, averages and outriders in a population.

Seriously.

If she's bright enough to ask, then properly explained, she's certainly bright enough to understand.

Genuine question - How would a lesson in statistics, averages and outriders in a population, help a 10 year old understand a box of tissues being labelled man size, rather than large? It’s literally a square or rectangle piece of tissue paper – how can that be gender specific? I think the issue for a lot of people is that there is no justification for labelling a box of tissues, or a sandwich, or a chocolate bar mansize. In those specific contexts, It’s just stupid terminology. And more importantly, and the bit I don’t really get, is how does it being changed from man-size to X-Large or whatever, negatively affect anyone is any way whatsoever?

It may seem, and it may even be, relatively unimportant in the bigger scheme of things (and certainly wouldn’t be anywhere near to being my hill to die on), but would all the things you complain about - on here and in your non-online life, be considered a ‘real’ problem? Eventually, if we all took that attitude, unless we were complaining about a terminal illness, world hunger or the end of civilisation as we know it, everyone would just be told to 'get a life' when they expressed dissatisfaction with something, as a means to shutting them down.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/kimb...factories.html

Kimberly-Clark just announced plans to slash about 13% of its workforce
Kimberly-Clark just announced plans to slash about 13% of its workforce
9:21 AM ET Tue, 23 Jan 2018 | 00:43

Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Huggies diapers and Kleenex tissues, announced Tuesday it will cut about 13 percent of its workforce globally, or at least 5,000 jobs, in a bid to reduce costs as sales wane.

The company plans to shutter or sell 10 of its 91 production factories worldwide.

In all, it is anticipating more than $2 billion in cost cuts by 2021. About $1.5 billion will come from reducing costs within its business. An added $500 million to $550 million will come from the efforts to streamline its manufacturing supply chain and overhead.

For years, consumer companies have enjoyed what has been widely considered to be overly optimistic stock prices. Now, the names are grappling with the reality of a new landscape.

These companies must find growth to match up with investors' expectations, but are faced with changing shopping habits and competitive pressures.

Making matters worse, retailers are cutting prices in a fight for market share. Retailers like Target and Costco need to attract shoppers to their stores rather than having consumers buy their staples online. Meantime, retailers like Walmart, Aldi and Lidl — all known for low prices — continue to open new stores and increase their influence.

Procter & Gamble on Tuesday acknowledged that discounting aimed at boosting its Gillette razor business had eaten into its sales. As one of the biggest consumer products companies, P&G's prices often set a bar for its competitors.

P&G, with its Pampers brand, and Kimberly-Clark, with its Huggies, are fierce competitors in the diaper aisle.

Adding to the pressure, Amazon has launched a private-label diaper business. Diapers are a good example of a product shoppers tend to refill on a routine basis. Increasingly, shoppers see this as a category that is more convenient to buy online.

Kimberly-Clark is also considering exiting or divesting some of its low-margin businesses concentrated in the consumer tissue segment, which comprise roughly 1 percent of its net sales.

Kimberly-Clark would join a number of its consumer peers like Unilever and Nestle that have looked to shed underperforming businesses as scrutiny intensifies.

"The changes we are making will improve our underlying profitability, provide more flexibility to invest in growth opportunities and help us compete even more effectively," Chief Executive Officer Thomas Falk said in prepared remarks.

Shares of Kimberly-Clark were up less than 1 percent midmorning Tuesday.

For the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017, Kimberly-Clark reported net income of $1.75 per share, compared with $1.40 one year ago. After excluding items, the company earned $1.57 per share.

Net sales climbed 1 percent, to $4.6 billion, while North American sales dropped 2 percent.

Analysts expected the company to earn $1.54 per share, on revenue of $4.6 billion, according to Thomson Reuters.

Selling prices fell 4 percent in the latest period, Kimberly-Clark said, which consisted of greater promotional activity in most categories.

Net sales in fiscal 2018 are expected to increase 1 to 2 percent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/reut...osts-bite.html

July 24 (Reuters) - Kimberly-Clark Corp on Tuesday trimmed its full-year profit forecast as the maker of Huggies diapers and Kleenex tissues faced higher raw material costs and a stronger dollar.

The company also missed its quarterly sales estimates due to weakness in personal care business, sending its shares down 2.6 percent to $102.66 in premarket trading.

Packaged goods companies worldwide are not only facing higher freight and commodities costs but is also reeling under a stagnant consumer demand, forcing them to cut prices. Earlier this year, Kimberly-Clark said it would consider exiting some lower-margin businesses, mainly in the consumer tissue segment, which is battling higher pulp costs and competition from private label manufacturers.

"We continue to remain concerned about long-term structural headwinds, including higher private label penetration and Kimberly-Clark's limited pricing power," Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog said in a note.

Sales in Kimberly-Clark's personal care business, the biggest contributor to overall sales, dipped 1 percent to $2.26 billion in the second quarter ended June 30.

"Our second quarter results reflect a challenging environment, particularly with commodity inflation," Chief Executive Officer Thomas Falk said in a statement.

The Dallas-based company expects 2018 adjusted earnings per share of $6.60 to $6.80, down from a prior estimate of $6.90 to $7.20.

The company said it expects 2018 input expenses to rise by $675 million to $775 million compared with a prior forecast of between $400 million and $550 million.

"Given these headwinds, we will continue to aggressively manage costs and evaluate further opportunities to increase net selling prices," Falk said.

Quarterly net sales rose 1 percent to $4.60 billion, but missed analysts' average expectation of $4.62 billion, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Net income attributable to Kimberly-Clark fell to $455 million from $531 million a year ago.

Excluding one-time items, the company earned $1.59 per share, edging past analysts' expectations of $1.57. (Reporting by Aishwarya Venugopal in Bengaluru; Editing by Arun Koyyur and Sai Sachin Ravikumar)

So,there you have it. Kimberley-Clark are have financial difficulties and lagging sales worldwide as cheaper rivals,declining birthrates and rising costs are affecting sales and profits.

Hence,a bit of rebranding to potentially get more noise about their brands,is quite useful.

[philehidiot]

complaining about outrage and getting as outraged about the people getting outraged!

Stop spinning my head.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Stop spinning my head.

Sorry!

But as you see Kimberly-Clark is actually thinking of getting out of making tissues,so the timing of all of this is rather interesting!!

[TooNice]

And more importantly, and the bit I don’t really get, is how does it being changed from man-size to X-Large or whatever, negatively affect anyone is any way whatsoever?

It doesn't, I suspect that I am not the only one who never really cared about what it was called before OR after, but just find the whole thing a bit silly, perhaps hypocritical, but not really deserving too much of my attention. It would be a massively different story if women (or men) are actually not allowed to items not targeted towards them, but that isn't the case. The marketing folks like to target different demographics, and gender is one of the first and most basic things they go for. The irony is that, sometime the "for men" stuff get priced at a premium for the same stuff as the lady's version. A friend who worked at a certain cosmetic company basically told me that one of the product for men is actually the same as the one sold for women, except that the bottle is smaller, and therefore you get less value per ml. Needless to say, I just ignored the "for men" version, but haven't made a fuss over it.

[philehidiot]

Sorry!

But as you see Kimberly-Clark is actually thinking of getting out of making tissues,so the timing of all of this is rather interesting!!

It is indeed.

An interesting way of stirring up brand awareness and tryin to secure a new source of customers.

Just a correction about my outrage - I'm not getting annoyed at people wanting to change things, I get annoyed when they mess about with stuff like this so they can feel like they've achieved something with little effort, rather than putting in the work. It's that whole "virtue signalling" rubbish and half arsed, feel good activism I despise.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It is indeed.

An interesting way of stirring up brand awareness and tryin to secure a new source of customers.

Just a correction about my outrage - I'm not getting annoyed at people wanting to change things, I get annoyed when they mess about with stuff like this so they can feel like they've achieved something with little effort, rather than putting in the work. It's that whole "virtue signalling" rubbish and half arsed, feel good activism I despise.

Well it works wonders - look at some of the stuff the tabloids make a big hissy fit over,and its the nature of social media where it acts like an echo chamber of sorts.

[philehidiot]

It doesn't, I suspect that I am not the only one who never really cared about what it was called before OR after, but just find the whole thing a bit silly, perhaps hypocritical, but not really deserving too much of my attention. It would be a massively different story if women (or men) are actually not allowed to items not targeted towards them, but that isn't the case. The marketing folks like to target different demographics, and gender is one of the first and most basic things they go for. The irony is that, sometime the "for men" stuff get priced at a premium for the same stuff as the lady's version. A friend who worked at a certain cosmetic company basically told me that one of the product for men is actually the same as the one sold for women, except that the bottle is smaller, and therefore you get less value per ml. Needless to say, I just ignored the "for men" version, but haven't made a fuss over it.

Depends on which products you look at. Razors tend to be a similar / identical product with different colours and women's are more expensive. When people whine about this my response is quite simple - if the product is the same and the only difference is the labelling then just buy the cheaper one. The other thing is that when they are looking at these things, they often willfully ignore value added stuff like an additional "free trial" product in the package which you obviously pay for. Most of the studies into this that I've seen are attempting to find what they want to find and as a result are about as reliable as a drug addict's bowel habit.