As an advanced practitioner of dish-washing I occasionally have to buy a bottle of liquid dish-washing soap. My preference in the past was an emerald-green syrup manufactured by Colgate-Palmolive. I like it because the color allows me to see clearly the amount of soap I am applying to the sponge, thus avoiding soap waste, one of the common sins of amateur dish-washing.
Two days ago I didn't see any green liquid in stock. So I bought a blue container, thinking the blue came from the liquid inside. Alas, only the container was blue and the soap is nearly invisible when applied to my sponge. My normal paranoia made me think that perhaps manufacturers are eliminating dark-colored dish-washing liquids because they want to encourage wasteful use of the product. However, I have no proof of this ....... yet.
In any event, this unpleasant shock led me to explore the Colgate-Palmolive dish-washing liquid site. I found that they have mastered the art of multiplying products unnecessarily, one of the most characteristic tactics of modern production and design. I will limit this analysis to those dish-washing liquids marketed under the trademark of Palmolive for hand dish-washing.
There seem to be six distinct "functional" types; one, the "Original," two, "Antibacterial," three, "Aroma Sensations," four, "Dry Skin," five, "Oxy Plus," and six, "Pure+." It exhausts me to list the sub-categories within these. For example, Aroma Sensations are Lavender, Green Apple and Tropical Blossom. Oxy Plus has one "Power Degreaser," one "Odor Eliminator" and one with "Bleach Alternative." The funniest category is "Pure +." It boasts "You'll love it for everything it doesn't have.... no unnecessary chemicals... no heavy fragrances... non-irritating dyes." Delving further I found yet another variation, "Ultra Baby" which claims, believe it or not, to have "no unnecessary ingredients." Still further one comes across even more variations but I am too numbed to mention them.
The section in which they show the ingredients and their purpose is most interesting. The cleaning agents are mostly the same and are outnumbered by the ingredients which play a supporting role in controlling thickness, stability and consistency.
I defy anyone to defend this wasteful proliferation of what should be a simple form of soap. The only defense I anticipate is that it gives consumers what they want. I say that a society which wants this sort of variety in its cleaning substances has lost touch with reality and is fussing , or should I say "washing," itself into historical oblivion.
From my point of view the designer of a soap product should be going in exactly the opposite direction. The most commendable product would be one which not only washes dishes but also washes the hands, the body and the hair. Omnisoap! And why not have it wash the laundry as well? Of course, such a product would represent a threat to the economy worse than communism and terrorism. It would undermine the very foundation of contemporary capitalism. For that reason it can only remain a treasonous fantasy.
Two days ago I didn't see any green liquid in stock. So I bought a blue container, thinking the blue came from the liquid inside. Alas, only the container was blue and the soap is nearly invisible when applied to my sponge. My normal paranoia made me think that perhaps manufacturers are eliminating dark-colored dish-washing liquids because they want to encourage wasteful use of the product. However, I have no proof of this ....... yet.
In any event, this unpleasant shock led me to explore the Colgate-Palmolive dish-washing liquid site. I found that they have mastered the art of multiplying products unnecessarily, one of the most characteristic tactics of modern production and design. I will limit this analysis to those dish-washing liquids marketed under the trademark of Palmolive for hand dish-washing.
There seem to be six distinct "functional" types; one, the "Original," two, "Antibacterial," three, "Aroma Sensations," four, "Dry Skin," five, "Oxy Plus," and six, "Pure+." It exhausts me to list the sub-categories within these. For example, Aroma Sensations are Lavender, Green Apple and Tropical Blossom. Oxy Plus has one "Power Degreaser," one "Odor Eliminator" and one with "Bleach Alternative." The funniest category is "Pure +." It boasts "You'll love it for everything it doesn't have.... no unnecessary chemicals... no heavy fragrances... non-irritating dyes." Delving further I found yet another variation, "Ultra Baby" which claims, believe it or not, to have "no unnecessary ingredients." Still further one comes across even more variations but I am too numbed to mention them.
The section in which they show the ingredients and their purpose is most interesting. The cleaning agents are mostly the same and are outnumbered by the ingredients which play a supporting role in controlling thickness, stability and consistency.
I defy anyone to defend this wasteful proliferation of what should be a simple form of soap. The only defense I anticipate is that it gives consumers what they want. I say that a society which wants this sort of variety in its cleaning substances has lost touch with reality and is fussing , or should I say "washing," itself into historical oblivion.
From my point of view the designer of a soap product should be going in exactly the opposite direction. The most commendable product would be one which not only washes dishes but also washes the hands, the body and the hair. Omnisoap! And why not have it wash the laundry as well? Of course, such a product would represent a threat to the economy worse than communism and terrorism. It would undermine the very foundation of contemporary capitalism. For that reason it can only remain a treasonous fantasy.
No comments:
Post a Comment