Core77

Design flaw. I bought some of these things and immediately upon opening i thought "Wow, someone's gonna eat this".

Yes, this is part of design. While working at a design firm recently we were creating a product which had the potential to be toxic if eaten. Upon rendering out one potential design, I had the sudden realization "I just designed a toxic lollypop". It looked like candy, and I knew that kids would probably see it the same way.

So we tossed the concept and made sure that our other concepts took this into consideration. Tide should have taken more consideration of this

I don't understand why this problem has not been associated with dishwashing detergent packs. Is it more prevalent for kids to play in the laundry room than kitchen? Are people with dishwasher better parents? What's going on?

This truly GARBAGE. KIDS are eating this package cause it looks like a toy. It looks like a TOY because P&G know that people are NAIVE and can be lured in with colors and packaging-With no regard as to weather it's actually a better product or not. P&G's solution to children eating their colorful bleach packet: Mass produce a heavy duty plastic container that's harder to get into-that isn't compostable... Shut 'em down!

This is why people ought to just keep castille soap, borax, and sodium percarbonate on hand. Works better than that horrible slurry of petrochemical detergents, dyes, and perfumes, and it won't poison your kids or pets to boot.

I think it was called when this was previously posted:

"degruch February 26, 2012 6:29 PM
Well, they look delicious...toddlers around the world will love them. Toxic?"

Someone saw this coming **wink**

Proctor & Gamble (and anyone else who copied them) = idiots.

I've always wondered why something like this hasn't been made to replace those single serve plastic creamer containers you see at restaurants. So instead of opening two or three of them and pouring in a tablespoons worth of creamer at a time, you could just drop them in and let the entire thing dissolve and disperse the cream.

Kind of like dropping in a cube of sugar instead of opening a packet of sugar.

I didn't see the original post about these. When I first saw the pod though I thought it was a candy.

A child proof lid is a half-way solution. Why not just put the container out of reach of children?

Parents will inevitably forget to close the lid on occasion or spill them onto the floor where one may lay in waiting under an appliance ready to be gobbled up by a passing child.

I've heard of the same thing happening with 'Finish Dishwashing Tablets'. Apparently the solution was simple. Keep them out of reach of children.

On the other hand Tide could always make them look like black licorice. Problem solved.

I think the blame is on both sides.

For one, Tide made the container WAY too much like a candy container, they should make it in an opaque container, just as laundry detergent. As well as improving the lid.

However, its partly the parents fault. Ever taken a look at any prescription drugs? They all look like tiny tasty candy! With anything that is and could be dangerous or confusing to a child, you must pay extra attention to, this is part of parenting.

Alternatively, they could sell the product in larger quantities, i.e in a large bottle, thus reducing excessive packaging and embodied energy cost associated with this extra packaging.... In other words the existing product.
I realise this debate was covered in the last thread, however these types of products really annoy me.
Stop being lazy. Buy in bulk. Save the world!!

I like the idea of dissolving containers too. However, staff may have to fill the condiment's bowl by hand, or you may have previous customers handling them and replacing them, surely this must result in germs harboring on the product lining.

It's always someone else's fault. I'll bet money it says right on there, KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.

Try taking responsibility and stop blaming P&G. If you believe any corporation wants children to eat a toxic product, you need to have your head examined.

Dante Sigona:
I have yet to find a compostable packaging material that even begins to approach the performance characteristics of plastic. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. If it truly is inferior, the market will make that decision.

Yeah I found out the hard way that this isn't candy, but then to my delight I realized I could wash my clothes too! :)

Seriously though. I think it's a nice design. The pods are attractive, and so is the new packaging. I do hope the packaging keeps children out. My kid likes to dig into the drawers where we keep cleaners and all things toxic, when she has the rare opportunity. Fortunately, we watch her and the rest of the time the doors stay locked. I think it's a shame if concern of safety would hurt a nice design. The two factors can live together.

I'm surprised that none of the responses mention the real problem.

Stop making poisonous detergent.

The pods look like candy. So do iPod nanos. I think as a general rule parents should keep any type of laundry detergent in an accessible place.

Adding a child proof lid highlights the insanity of this product at its core. The "pods" were designed to look appealing, as if one of the design goals was when you saw it you wanted to lick it, but the pods themselves don't even need to be visible at the point of sale.
The container (child proof or not) is a container that holds toxins, so should have always been child proof, and finally, as these re little containers of something why are the little containers not foul tasting to the tongue, so they do not get bitten?

Yes these should be kept out of the reach of children, and yes it probably says that on the package, but that's a difficult message to reconcile with making the product visually appealing. Perhaps if "Keep out of the reach of children" had to be written with the attention commanding impact as "Smoking may cause cancer" consumers would have more respect for the dangers associated with cleaning products.

that the blame is on the designer is obvious to any ui/ue/ux professionals. how would you react if the "delete" button was a big, round, green button with a happy face, and the "save" button is small, square, in the top left corner, and has an "x" on a red background? is it the user's fault if they frequently delete their work? would you advise people who get confused to read the instructions more carefully next time, and to work harder on ignoring multiple modalities of sensory cues that - by custom and by design - make it simpler and easier to recognize objects and their function by heir form?

@Tom Mc

We're talking about the packaging to laundry detergent. You don't need high performance characteristics. You need something that'll hold some powder, liquid, or tablets for a few months to a couple of years on a shelf indoors. Non-biodegradable thermoplastics are severe overkill for that task. Once the package contents are spent, the package is chucked. It's beyond ludicrous (frankly, abysmally stupid) to use a material that so grossly outlives the useful life of a *disposable* product.

There's one glaring problem with the declaration that the market should decide what product is better. Go to any big box mart. Tell me how many cleaning products use packaging designed for composting. If you're so lucky as to find any at all, tell me how well represented they are in that store's advertising compared to brands that don't use compostable packaging.

That "market" you reference just isn't there. It doesn't exist. Let's ignore the possibility of people mindlessly buying whatever advertisers tell them to buy and just focus on logistics. Consumers *do not* have full control over what they consume when the retailers that provide the goods are the ones choosing what to stock and the suppliers don't even bother trying to be environmentally and ethically sound in the first place.

The responsibility to do good thus ultimately falls upon designers and manufacturers conjuring up the goods people take for granted. Personally, I'd say Dante Sigona's little rant was spot-on.

I dont think there is a flaw in the product.
For me the flaw lies in the PACKAGING and BRANDING COMMUNICATION.

It almost replicates a chocolate container or a packet of twix on the right.
(http://www.candywarehouse.com/candy-type/bulk-wrapped-candy/bulk-candy-bags/products/mandm-mars-mini-candy-bars-assortment-52-ounce-bag/)

If a child is used to see this kind of graphic and packaging on the products he eats/buys, of course he would consider similar to be the same.

One of the solution I can think of, is a minimal unbranded packaging for Cigarette (http://www.good.is/post/good-design-daily-are-unbranded-cigarettes-too-ugly-to-smoke/)

I suppose packaging and parenting could both be "blamed". I would think that common sense would dictate that ANY possibly toxic item be kept well out of the reach of children, whether they are packaged in this way or not. I love the new pods and personally feel they do a better job cleaning my clothes and I certainly enjoy the convenience. Most parents know kids will put anything in their mouths, so why would anyone have these where kids could get to them? Personal responsibility please.