Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that Pampers are not bring that generous?

42 replies

startwig1982 · 05/10/2011 20:29

I've just seen their advert for one pack of pampers=one life saving vaccine of tetanus. Turns out the vaccine costs 4.4p....
I know they're doing some good but really? 4.4p from a company that earns millions? Poor.

OP posts:
Original poster
startwig1982 · 05/10/2011 20:30

*being
Sorry!

OP posts:
Conkertree · 05/10/2011 20:38

Yup I agree. Especially when you see the Naked shampoo lot give 25p from each bottle to Oxfam.

ScaredBear · 05/10/2011 20:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MissPenteuth · 05/10/2011 20:48

As a percentage of profit it's not great but Pampers must sell millions of packs of nappies, so millions of vaccines means potentially millions of lives saved. Better than nothing, as ScaredBear says.

Kayano · 05/10/2011 20:53

I think proctor and gamble are generally awful. 'proud sponsors of mums and vaccines' while all the time refusing to give up animal testing. Proud sponsors of themselves more like

Original poster
startwig1982 · 05/10/2011 21:10

They should do 1 pack=10 vaccines, at the very least. It just annoys me that people with so much money do so little.

OP posts:
PeppaPigandGeorge · 05/10/2011 22:09

Well, how many vaccines do huggies give per pack? If they gave 10 vaccines, should it be 50? How many is enough? And the advert does only refer to sponsoring vaccination, no claim that they don't test on animals, so I don't get the connection, Kayano, other than general P&G bashing.

Use terry towelling if it bothers you that much.

I presume from the question that you have a set percentage of your income deducted at source and given to charity (not just the odd direct debit for odd pounds a month)??

Tomorrowslookingfine · 05/10/2011 22:22

Obviously more would be better, but its better than nothing IMHO

PomBearAtTheGatesOfDawn · 05/10/2011 23:24

It's fairly simple to just donate the cost of however many vaccines you'd like. Several charities run vaccination programs.

MindtheGappp · 05/10/2011 23:36

I don't think Pampers is a particularly profitable brand. 4.4p will actually be a very significant proportion of profits.

Every time I buy Iams for my dog, I think of all this little pooches in Ohio who have tested the products. I gather that food for humans is taste-tested too.

Most people who criticise P&G for animal testing have no clue about their policies or procedures. P&G have actually been the leaders in reducing animal testing industry-wide.

SurprisEs · 05/10/2011 23:36

I wonder how many of us give a percentage of our monthly earnings to charity? I know I don't, I know moat people don't. I admire the ones that do it, even if the amount is small. Better than what I'm doing.

smelli · 05/10/2011 23:38

If you bought Lidl nappies you could save 4p a nappy and send the rest to charity yourself.

MindtheGappp · 05/10/2011 23:54

P&G employees give a humungous amount to charity. Those who work in the US get the very hard sell to give something like 5% to United Way.

WiiUndead · 06/10/2011 00:38

4.4p is a ridiculously tiny amount considering a box sells for at least £10.00. Why can't it be 5 vaccines, or 10 vaccines? I doubt that would dent their profits too much. Tell them if they are worried about the cost they can stop sending me all kinds of shit when I am already loyal to their brand

setara · 06/10/2011 08:41

Thats what get me if i Buy a pack of 24 the its one vaccine, but if i buy a box of 87 its still one bloody vaccine it should be at least 4, I'm sure Pampers can spare 18p from a £12 box of nappies

biddysmama · 06/10/2011 08:45

I hate that advert, my 9 year old asks why we dont buy them to"save babies lives" instead of using cloth

MindtheGappp · 09/10/2011 13:17

What do you think the profits on a £10 box of Pampers is, Wii?

MindtheGappp · 09/10/2011 13:53

To answer my own question, I estimate that the pre-tax profit on a £10 box of Pampers to be no more than 50p. Share holder dividend will be about 20p before tax. A proportion of this profit is going toward a Clean Drinking Water programme

4.4p out of this is actually quite significant. Do you give 10% of your income to charity?

AchtungBaby · 09/10/2011 14:03

I think that it would be a lot higher than 50p MindtheGappp. Mind you, I CBA reading their annual report in an effort to find out.

I can see your point OP, but I agree with other posters that at least it is something, and it also raises awareness of the need for £ for vaccinations in the developing world.

MindtheGappp · 09/10/2011 14:05

No, it's not going to be far off 50p, or 5% of Net Outside Sales.

MindtheGappp · 09/10/2011 14:06

And you are not going to read about profit margins of individual brands in their company literature, but Pampers will be average for the company, given its volume.

Brand profits are top secret info, and not even the advertising agencies know what they are.

AchtungBaby · 09/10/2011 14:23

Okay, I think you're right MindtheGapp - it would probably be pretty hard to find out. Also, you use technical terms like Net Outside Sales that I haven't heard before Smile.

pootlebug · 09/10/2011 14:31

Let's have a quick look at some numbers, shall we? Unsurprisingly there isn't information on P&G's financials about the profitability of the Pampers brand, but there is some data relating to 'Baby Care and Family Care', under which the Pampers brand sits. The net profit (i.e. after tax) for the last financial year was 1,978 on revenue of 15,606 - so 12.7%. So £1.27 on a £10 pack of nappies. The 4.5p it costs per vaccination will be tax deductible as a charitable donation, so will only really cost them just over 3p (they paid tax as a company at an average 28.7% tax rate in the same year).

The point about 'how many people give 2.5% of their income to charity' or whatever isn't really a fair comparison....most people giving a proportion of their income to charity do so without any publicity whatsoever, whereas this is a key feature of their current advertising campaign - expressly designed to make people choose pampers because of the charitable donation.

I suspect that P&G believe that the net benefit to P&G via advertising and people's perception of the company is more than they are actually spending....otherwise they wouldn't bother. But maybe I'm just a cynic.

AchtungBaby · 09/10/2011 14:35

Excellent detective work pootlebug.

MindtheGappp · 09/10/2011 14:39

What are these numbers based on? There are no units attached.

12% is way higher than other P&G categories, which is more in the region of 5% of NOS. As a $2 billion dollar brand, a brand like Pampers is going to drive the average profit. At 12% it is going to skew it unrealistically.

Bottom line, however, is that P&G is doing something. You might say it is not enough, but they don't have to do anything. Given that P&G US employees give a mandatory 5% of their income to charity, they are already a very generous company. Their community initiatives in the UK are also outstanding. There is no reason to whinge. If you think tetanus vaccines are a good thing to support, go support them. Don't complain that others aren't doing enough.