Saturday, May 24, 2008

Dad tip #35: There's something to be said for brand loyalty in diapers

We've heard that parents of boys prefer Huggies while parents of girls prefer Pampers. For whatever reason, the design of the diapers supposedly favors pee and poo containment by gender and anatomy.

However, we've been using Pampers almost exclusively since day one. The hospital diapers were Pampers and we received a whole bunch of Pampers at the baby shower. We also received a couple of packs of Huggies that served us just fine, but we just preferred the Pampers. (By default, that also indicates that we prefer Sesame Street characters to Winnie the Pooh.)

We've also received some leftover Luvs diapers from a coworker after his child outgrew them. He did the smart thing and didn't fall into the "baby vanity sizing" trap. For the record, I think Luvs displayed Blue's Clues characters and again, Sesame Street reigns supreme.

Recently, in an effort to be more cost-minded, we tried a box of BJ's brand diapers. I think the brand is actually Berkley & Jensen; and in case you're wondering, the graphics on the diapers are generic yellow ducks. They're actually kind of cute.

Well, what we've found is that the BJ's diapers have some sort of strange funneling effect that drives large quantities of pee and poo up the front. In particularly large poo-splosions, the sack is even more covered in poo than "usual". And my wife has also been the victim of two instances where urine has shot up the front of our sons outfit when he's multi-tasking by eating and peeing at the same time in his high chair.

In a quick Googling of BJ's diapers, I found that the reviews are generally quite positive. I stumbled across a very thorough review complete with diagrams at the Paternity Chronicles. The review was very positive but the stay-at-home dad/blogger amended the article with incidents of leakage that were hypothetically caused by user error.

So back to brand loyalty ... long story short, we're probably going to go back to exclusively using Pampers because we've had a much better ratio of hazmat containment vs. accidental leakage.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Dad tip #32: Think about explaining stuff to your kid in the future

So, my wife and I have this pseudo-game where we'll ask the other person a question -- in a voice meant to mimic that of our son when he's old enough to speak -- about a topic that you wouldn't ordinarily think about discussing with a child. For example, out of my mouth (in a bizarre falsetto) might come: "Mommy, what's 'Beating hookers?!'"

But in reality, kids are curious and will inevitably ask questions. And I am notriously bad at this pseudo-game as my inevitable first response, when my wife asks me a question, is "Ask you mother."

However, I was watching the news this morning in London and the very British newscaster began speaking about how there are some Playboy licensed products appearing in stores next to Winnie the Pooh licensed products in some stores and how that may give children a sense that Playboy is a safe and trusted brand in the same way that Winnie the Pooh is without really understanding what Playboy really is.

Then, the segment went on to quote a school teacher in the UK who claimed that she banned all Playboy products from her class room and that when students would ask about them, she would explain to them what Playboy is. I believe she said her students were approximately ten years old.

THAT'S what got me thinking. Holy crap, I better start thinking about how I'm going to explain stuff. I already know that I'm going to need to watch what I say and that I'm a bit of a ways off from having to tackle the tough topics, but it couldn't hurt for me to start thinking about proper responses other than "Ask your mother."

So, I'm neither supporting nor condemning Playboy; however, I do find it suspect that Playboy bunny-emblemed merchandise can be found next to Winnie the Pooh. Winnie wants honey (or hunny), but not the kind that Playboy offers.

I think.

Labels: ,