POLITICAL ISSUE #306 MISLEADING CONSUMER PRODUCT INFORMATION

BACKGROUND EXAMPLE - THE "DOUBLE ROLL" TOILET PAPER CONTROVERSY

This page presents a recent personal experience with potentially misleading consumer product information. The issue here is not whether the information in this example was intentionally misleading. We already employ far too many lawyers in our overly litigious society. The issue is whether average citizens would find the product information confusing and misleading. If the answer to the second question is yes then we need to devise solutions that will minimize the extent of misleading information in the American market place.

For some time my wife has been complaining about the apparent shrinking size of toilet paper rolls and the resulting requirement for more frequent replacement. This spring she was delighted to find the new Kleenex DOUBLE ROLL with 560 sheets. However over the last two months this double roll has undergone two configuration changes and two pricing changes.

Please review the following picture starting at the BOTTOM and moving to the top. Then please continue with the text that follows the picture.

Successive "DOUBLE ROLL" Options

We liked the original 560 sheet "Double Roll" in the bottom picture which provided a large size roll at a good value ($3.39/2240 sheets = $1.51/1000 sheets). Last month a "Cottonelle" Double Roll appeared in the stores. This roll also had 560 sheets for the same price, but the roll was slightly smaller and not as firm (i.e. apparently less tightly wound). This month (July '96), the latest Cottonelle "Double Rolls" appeared. These "double rolls" only had 340 sheets and were both visually smaller and also much more compressible (less tightly wound). They were "special" priced $2.29 for the four pack which I calculate is about 11% more per sheet than the former 560 sheet "Double Roll" four pack. Finally this week (7/15/96) the "special" introductory price has been rescinded and the downsized Cottonelle "Double Roll" was priced at $3.09/1360 or $2.27/1000 sheets. Unless my math is in error this is about 50% more per sheet than the original double roll.

From my viewpoint this process involved two aspects that I find confusing and potentially misleading.

1) If the current regular roll is about 280 sheets then a double roll is 560 sheets as originally presented not 340 sheets as later downsized. Calling this new roll a "roll and a half" seems more accurate.

2) The sequence of marketing a double roll and then quickly making three product/pricing changes creates the potential for confusion. When the final result is apparently a significant price increase, the unfortunate ( and maybe unjustified) impression is that the whole process was surreptitiously orchestrated to achieve that objective. I am a subscriber to Consumer Reports. They do an excellent job of helping us make informed purchasing decisions, but this apparent shell game may even be too fast for their quick eyes.

The issue here goes beyond consumer frustration. Clear and accurate information is an essential link in the process of a free market. Ideally we would like to minimize regulations on free market activity, yet manufacturers need to provide clear product information or the public will be compelled to require such information to preserve the free market function.

Please RETURN TO ISSUE 306 OPTION MENU

and cast your VOTE on the importance of this issue.