There are two kinds of companies I really like. One that ignores the competition entirely. And one that picks a fight. Method, and their new laundry detergent line, is a great example of the latter.
The new Method laundry product eschews the standard awkward, heavy, messy jug for a svelte, light, one-handed, easily stored, pump-powered dispenser bottle. It’s so much better.
They claim it works better too, but I’m not concerned about that for this post. Even if it works just the same, the form factor is a huge win.
I’ve run out of laundry detergent so many times because I haven’t felt like lugging home one of those big jugs when I was at the store (I often walk home and one of these jugs weighs nearly as much as everything else I’m buying). I’m always like “I’ll get it another time” and then it’s too late. But the new Method bottle is just like a bottle of water. There’s no barrier to carry.
The pump dispenser is perfect fit for laundry detergent. My pour spout detergent bottles almost always leak, drip, or get dirty from dust and grime that is attracted to the gooey viscous liquid. The pump ends all that. Four pumps for a normal load and you’re good to go.
Yes, there are more important problems in the world than laundry detergent, but I’m still glad Method picked a fight and kicked ass. This is a wonderfully designed product with a form factor has been taken for granted for too long. Good for them.
A
on 11 Mar 10I love that band! http://www.jugfreeamerica.net/
Daniel
on 11 Mar 10The pour spout on a normal laundry detergent jug is probably one of the most flawed designs I have ever encountered. Every time I pour, it not only manages to drip down the side of the container, but also pools up in the lip and subsequently pours out of two spots at the same time. It’s infuriating.
Ari J. Rochmann
on 11 Mar 10I can’t say enough good things about Method’s products. The scents, form factors, and general design that goes into every product is excellent.
Martin
on 11 Mar 10Not sure if you have these in the states; but in the UK we’ve had liquitabs for quite a number of years that takes the thinking even further: http://www.persil.com/formatcapsules.aspx and tablets for at least a decade and a bit: http://www.persil.com/FormatTablets.aspx
Gollum
on 11 Mar 10What’s the per-unit price? Price per ounce or price per load? I don’t mind buying bulk if I save money (one reason I shop at Costco a lot).
Also does this lead to more packaging and thus poor environmentally?
theD
on 11 Mar 10Love how you have to install software, “The Coupon Printer” to print the coupons! However, it does come with an uninstaller.
mac
on 11 Mar 10The example works well to illustrate the idea of “picking a fight”, yet the design is debatable: for example such a dispenser has a much greater environmental impact (production, disposal…) than a simple just-one-material plastic jug, so it would be a no-go for any environmental concerned person.
Incidentally, at least in Europe, there are plenty of “drop safe” jugs, which basically borrow the design of oil jugs to make drops to fall back in the main container.
Better yet, in various countries you can now go to the supermarket and refill your very own container with detergent that you pay on a weight basis. :)
JF
on 11 Mar 10Gollum – the tall bottle is for 50 loads which replaces a big jug.
Anonymous Coward
on 11 Mar 10so it would be a no-go for any environmental concerned person.
From their site:
“Our patent-pending smartclean technology™ cuts out the excess water that dilutes most leading detergents. in fact, our product uses drastically less water, 36% less plastic and requires 33% less energy and oil to produce than widely available 2x detergent.* and, the unique precision-dosing pump means no overdosing and no drips, so you truly get the loads that you pay for. all that, and it comes in a compact, recyclable bottle made from 50% recycled plastic (PCR for those in the know).”
Mark
on 11 Mar 10So it seems that spraying a stream of detergent into a washer container would only just change the potential mess of pouring to that of splatter due to the force of the output.
Or did they account for that?
Ed
on 11 Mar 10The net efficiency gain in transporting these types of products would in itself be a great benefit.
A Guy From South America
on 11 Mar 10That detergent won’t be a hit in south america or africa and many other countries. It would be considered a waste to generate a small bottle. In the U.S., of course it’s good because everything is BIG, starting from cars, software, etc. So seeing something that is small is an immediate impact. You should take this into a ‘world view’ context and it would definitely be a failure in my opinion.
JF
on 11 Mar 10You should take this into a ‘world view’ context and it would definitely be a failure in my opinion.
Context isn’t about what’s going on everywhere, it’s what’s going on right in front of you. And in context, this is a huge step in the right direction right here. It’s also a step in the direction you like too since you suggest everything is too big in the US. So I would expect you would applaud the move since you think big is wasteful.
Bruce
on 11 Mar 10It would be considered a waste to generate a small bottle.
It would be better to generate a big bottle? It’s concentrated, so it requires a smaller bottle, less energy to make, less energy to ship, etc. Not sure why that would be a failure anywhere.
Jason Klug
on 11 Mar 10As far as waste is concerned, the only relevant metric is how it’s used in a “real world” situation: packaging per load of laundry. It’s like buying a car based on miles per gallon (relevant when paying for fuel, but less meaningful when trying to measure day-to-day consumption) instead of gallons per mile (from which you can make real judgments about how much fuel you’ll use in a given week).
The “potency” of the detergent itself means this product has less packaging per load of laundry, so how is that not a net positive for packaging efficiency?
Sure, it could be even MORE efficient if they put that potent detergent in a jug-sized container, but then the marketability is lessened for all the reasons listed above. It doesn’t do any good if no one buys the product.
Jochen
on 11 Mar 10Judging by the little insight I have into metalwork this feels tremendously wasteful. If that’s the case, there really is no excuse.
If I’m wrong (and I know I might very well be): Kudos, this looks really, really clever. But, as Jason said, there are more important problems in the world and we should really do our best not to add to them while creating more convenient solutions to less important problems.
When it comes to packaging big packages aren’t the problem, more packaging material is – and the content to packaging ratio is actually getting worse by using smaller packages. Resorting to harder to produce packaging material obviously doesn’t help either. Environmentalists really should applaud big packaging (though not the excess that often goes along with it).
Mark
on 11 Mar 10I like the caplet idea someone mentioned above. Seems like the win for all considerations.
Trevor
on 12 Mar 10When it comes to packaging big packages aren’t the problem, more packaging material is – and the content to packaging ratio is actually getting worse by using smaller packages.
Is it not a plus if you take the same content (in this case detergent, enough for x number of loads) and give it less packaging?
David Andersen
on 12 Mar 10Perhaps the packagists (who seem impervious to weighing trade offs or fathoming that their priorities are not everyone’s priorities, nor should they be) could convince Method to sell their product in large barrels at the coop into which they can dip a 5 gallon bucket and carry it home.
JF
on 12 Mar 10David: That comment made my day.
Jochen
on 12 Mar 10Perhaps the cynics can elaborate on why someones priorities – in contrast to ideas, design or mostly anything else – should be off-limits to criticism? Then again mockery (which was quite funny, I admit) already dragged lil topic out on the yard and blasted its head off. Moving on.
Jake
on 12 Mar 10What were we arguing about again? Maybe you should add 37Signals IDs to blog comments as well.
Brad Pauly
on 12 Mar 10I applaud Method for this. As someone that is also in this business I can tell you that it isn’t easy convincing people that smaller is better. We live in a super-sized world (ok, at least a super-sized USA) and even if a smaller amount of one product is as good as, or better than, a larger amount of another, people tend to think they are getting more bang for their buck when they aren’t. Many national brand detergents contain ingredients that don’t even help clean your clothes (i.e. sudsing agents).
There are surely more important problems, however, I would encourage everyone to think about where all that water, and the detergent you put in it, goes every time you do a load of laundry.
mac
on 12 Mar 10@Anonymous Coward
The sentences you quoted are from their website and the comparison is “calculated on a per-load basis compared to the leading national brand”. I have no reason not to believe they made an effort to reduce waste, but surely a meaningful comparison should at least:
1. Be done by a third-party that discloses all the data needed to replicate the tests. 2. Be done not again the “leading national brand” but against other brands that claims to be green.
Again: no reason to believe the company did sincerely make an effort to be “greener than the leading national brand”, and I am all for it… yet this is a disposable mechanical device which has “by design” an higher environmental cost in both its production and disposal processes than a simple container like a jug (assuming all other factors such material and capacity being the same).
So maybe the typical consumer who normally purchase the “leading national brand” and that has a uninformed preference for “green stuff” could pick this brand instead. And that is good, and I am all happy about it. :)
Yet – if in the USA you have the same range of choice we have in EU – the informed environmental concerned consumer will most likely pick another brand with a more eco-friendly design. Typically one that offer the possiblity to reuse rather than recycle the container. [Reuse wins hands down on recycle]
Happy washing! mac
DL
on 12 Mar 10Wow! I’m amazed at the number of people who care so much about the minutia of enviro-care. I’m equally amazed that so many people see big as bad or small as bad. It’s all bad!!!
I suppose it’s a fun debate but, really? WTF? Go write some code or sell something people.
BTW, I can’t wait to try it so that I can be wasteful and enviro-friendly all at the same time. I’m going to buy two so that I can reuse one and recycle the other that way I feel good about doing both. :D
Ellen
on 15 Mar 10When I was living in Australia I always bought laundry detergent refill packs to refill my big bottles. These were advertised as creating much less waste for landfills, and I have been surprised not to see anyone offering them in the US.
Example: http://www.colgate.com.au/app/PDP/2xUltraConcentrate/AU/cold-power-2xultra-detergent-liquid-and-powder.cvsp and click to the seventh product image, “Cold Power 2x Ultra Concentrate”.
Martin Edic
on 15 Mar 10One big problem: I went to Target to buy this stuff because of this post but did not buy it for one reason. It costs twice as much per load as anything else on the shelf. And when you look at it the packaging difference is not really that significant, especially when you consider that these containers are easily recyclable. Sorry but a 2X difference in cost does not work for me. That big Method container goes for $15. The All jug I ended up with did more loads and cost $8. As for the size difference, I’d like to see a weight comparison of the two containers when emptied. I bet it’s not that significant. This is marketing.
David Andersen
on 15 Mar 10@ Martin – Method is definitely one of the more expensive detergents. Per Consumer Reports there are several higher rated detergents that cost 13-25 cents per load, compared to Method’s 30 cents. FYI, All is not rated very high, however.
Mr.Crazy Chimp [PSDChimp]
on 15 Mar 10It is actually true I believe: picking a fight makes you think on a more competition level, but I wonder if it doesn’t blur a company focus.
After all, you will be trying to win, not to deliver the best service/product. You can start making sacrifices just to “come up on time” and “beat that company down” when you should be focusing on your own product/service.
But on the other hand, if you pick a fight, it brings marketing. It brings new ideas on the table. After all, man are fighting machines, and when times are hard, we rise.
So picking a fight might get you 50% of the way in some cases. It may work, but just for specific cases…
But what the hell do I know. I’m just a crazy chimp!
Mr.Crazy Chimp
Sean McCann
on 16 Mar 10Just picked one of these up at Safeway for less than $8 Canadian. i’ve done one load of laundry with it so far and it’s been great! It actually fits in my laundry storage cupboard and doesn’t make a mess!
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Mar 10rrr
Joshua
on 16 Mar 10I think making a more convient or smaller bottle is the wrong direction. That its, it is a solution to a problem—the inconvenience of detergent—but it over looks the larger interaction with the machine.
If there is going to be a redesign of detergent, why does the user have to add detergent for each load at all? Why not just have the user load a canister of detergent and let the machine dictate how much to use (a refill approach). Then the user only has to add a new canister when it runs out. Such a solution eliminates the need for the container to function both as a storage and transport device simultaneously.
Think of the benefits if a “refill” approach was used but one where there would be less mess, no over use of detergent, and one less step for the user to take when washing a load. Not to mention that packaging could be made for just containing the detergent.
淘宝网
on 17 Mar 10Think of the benefits if a “refill” approach was used but one where there would be less mess, no over use of detergent, and one less step for the user to take when washing a load. Not to mention that packaging could be made for just containing the detergent.淘宝网
Rebecca
on 18 Mar 10I love Method, but I love Dropps even more. No mess, no spills, eco-friendly. Big fan.
Dafyd
on 18 Mar 10Liquid tabs or powder tabs pls. Haven’t used huge jug ever.
This discussion is closed.