I will not name this parent now, although I do have permission to publish these images. I am hoping that the parent will come here to tell a story in his/her own words. In all honesty, it's too painful to look at this image and write about it. Can you imagine what that child went through? Will one of the kind sponsored reviews mommy bloggers give us an explanation for these burns? Because in a propaganda piece titled "The Truth Behind Pampers Dry Max" the avid and altruistic (!) Tiffany Snedaker is 100% for the brand, touting loudly that this is the safest product ever, developed for over 5 years.
She goes on, explaining sycophantically, how Pampers made a mistake introducing a new product in the old package, because no, it was not fair. But hey, give Pampers a break, they meant no harm. She goes on, describing how the "evil" Facebook group criticizing Pampers was born, and how her own son had diaper rash once a long time ago, which was not from the diaper...
And again the witty reader wonders: "Why are these incidents called diaper rashes if they are not caused by the diapers?" Because they happen inside the diaper? They appear out of nowhere, like UFOs, they have no explanation whatsoever... or if they do, it is NEVER the diaper. Is it just me, or does the following sound extremely dazed and incoherent?
"I’m not 100% sure how the diaper rash occurred, but it could have been many things."
You see, unlike Tiffany Snedaker, who likes to invoke the mighty 100% every time she expresses an idea, Pampers know exactly how and why many diaper rashes occur. They also know that the "new and improved" diaper is thinner not because this is a break-through, but because it saves a few cents per diaper in production costs - as if their diapers were not already expensive enough. The proof that they are simply saving on materials? Well, in her generous description of the new Dry Max diapers, Kate Marsh Lord gives us all the details:
"Like me, some people have wondered how can a diaper that is 20% thinner and looks so different be made of the same material. I mean, Pampers made a big deal about how new and different Dry Max is from previous diapers. But, as I understand it, the thing that makes Dry Max so different is the process of making the diaper. The new technology uses less “pulp” – making the diaper thinner – and slightly more absorbent gel (like 5%) that is carefully placed strategically where babies need it most."
Another way to throw dust in your eyes is to invoke the good old charity donations:
Additionally, they have an excellent record of giving to charities including Unicef. I won't saddle you down with all the good deeds they do on a daily basis, but it should be noted there is a plethora of them.
This quote comes from Stephanie Manner Wagner, who is either not too bright or she seriously believes that her readers are that ignorant. I must admit I would not have given her credit before of knowing what a plethora was. Given all this, I expect she figures it is probably part of her baby she has not looked up on Wikipedia. "My baby's plethora is just happy as a clam with Dry Max on it." Good God.
Think about it for a moment: is Pampers really giving to charities out of altruism, or is it because they need a tax deduction? Add to this free PR, brand enforcement and free advertising, and POOF. And don't forget: it's YOUR money they use. YOU pay that extra dollar they will donate, because Pampers are 1 dollar more expensive than brands with similar quality that don't make such claims. No pro Pampers thoughts from Renee Bigner yet.
And, while the US "burns" waiting for the CPSC to do their own tests for once, on products sent by parents and not provided by Pampers (as we all hope); P&G aims at the European market, where finally parents complain about their products as well. In the UK, BBCWatchdog reports that they have recently received dozens of complaints about Pampers' range of Active Fit nappies. Apparently, in UK, P&G launched the new Pampers in the same package as their older product too. The only clue that the nappies have changed was a small purple leaflet tucked inside the pack, asking for feedback.
Now I don't know about you, but as I see it, there's something terribly stinky in those diapers, and that's not baby poop!Corporate PR & Corporate Communications
By Editorial Team5 min read
Procter & Gamble Public Relations: Put a Pampers on Your Crappy PR
By Editorial Team5 min read
I will not name this parent now, although I do have permission to publish these images. I am hoping that the parent will come here to tell a story in his/her own words. In all honesty, it's too painful to look at this image and write about it. Can you imagine what that child went through? Will one of the kind sponsored reviews mommy bloggers give us an explanation for these burns? Because in a propaganda piece titled "The Truth Behind Pampers Dry Max" the avid and altruistic (!) Tiffany Snedaker is 100% for the brand, touting loudly that this is the safest product ever, developed for over 5 years.
She goes on, explaining sycophantically, how Pampers made a mistake introducing a new product in the old package, because no, it was not fair. But hey, give Pampers a break, they meant no harm. She goes on, describing how the "evil" Facebook group criticizing Pampers was born, and how her own son had diaper rash once a long time ago, which was not from the diaper...
And again the witty reader wonders: "Why are these incidents called diaper rashes if they are not caused by the diapers?" Because they happen inside the diaper? They appear out of nowhere, like UFOs, they have no explanation whatsoever... or if they do, it is NEVER the diaper. Is it just me, or does the following sound extremely dazed and incoherent?
"I’m not 100% sure how the diaper rash occurred, but it could have been many things."
You see, unlike Tiffany Snedaker, who likes to invoke the mighty 100% every time she expresses an idea, Pampers know exactly how and why many diaper rashes occur. They also know that the "new and improved" diaper is thinner not because this is a break-through, but because it saves a few cents per diaper in production costs - as if their diapers were not already expensive enough. The proof that they are simply saving on materials? Well, in her generous description of the new Dry Max diapers, Kate Marsh Lord gives us all the details:
"Like me, some people have wondered how can a diaper that is 20% thinner and looks so different be made of the same material. I mean, Pampers made a big deal about how new and different Dry Max is from previous diapers. But, as I understand it, the thing that makes Dry Max so different is the process of making the diaper. The new technology uses less “pulp” – making the diaper thinner – and slightly more absorbent gel (like 5%) that is carefully placed strategically where babies need it most."
Another way to throw dust in your eyes is to invoke the good old charity donations:
Additionally, they have an excellent record of giving to charities including Unicef. I won't saddle you down with all the good deeds they do on a daily basis, but it should be noted there is a plethora of them.
This quote comes from Stephanie Manner Wagner, who is either not too bright or she seriously believes that her readers are that ignorant. I must admit I would not have given her credit before of knowing what a plethora was. Given all this, I expect she figures it is probably part of her baby she has not looked up on Wikipedia. "My baby's plethora is just happy as a clam with Dry Max on it." Good God.
Think about it for a moment: is Pampers really giving to charities out of altruism, or is it because they need a tax deduction? Add to this free PR, brand enforcement and free advertising, and POOF. And don't forget: it's YOUR money they use. YOU pay that extra dollar they will donate, because Pampers are 1 dollar more expensive than brands with similar quality that don't make such claims. No pro Pampers thoughts from Renee Bigner yet.
And, while the US "burns" waiting for the CPSC to do their own tests for once, on products sent by parents and not provided by Pampers (as we all hope); P&G aims at the European market, where finally parents complain about their products as well. In the UK, BBCWatchdog reports that they have recently received dozens of complaints about Pampers' range of Active Fit nappies. Apparently, in UK, P&G launched the new Pampers in the same package as their older product too. The only clue that the nappies have changed was a small purple leaflet tucked inside the pack, asking for feedback.
Now I don't know about you, but as I see it, there's something terribly stinky in those diapers, and that's not baby poop!Written by
Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces reporting, research, and analysis across thirty verticals — communications, reputation, AI visibility, public affairs, media systems, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era. Publishing since 2009.
Other news
See all
Editorial Team · 05/26/2026
The 20 Best Technology PR Campaigns of 2026 — The New Playbook
The greatest campaigns of all time built categories, the best technology PR campaigns of 2026 are doing something more nuanced: They are building trust in an era of skepticism. AI fatigue, privacy concerns, and platform distrust have changed the rules. Visibility alone is no longer enough. Credibility is everything.
Editorial Team · 05/26/2026
AI Visibility as a Board-Level Metric
The first time a CEO asks a chief communications officer "do we show up in ChatGPT," the conversation that follows reveals more about the comms function than the question itself. The question is increasingly being asked. The answers vary in quality, in part because the discipline
Editorial Team · 05/26/2026
Cannabis Communications in the Schedule III Era
The DEA's Schedule III reclassification is the most consequential federal cannabis policy event since the modern legal industry began. The communications work that follows from it is correspondingly material.
Never Miss a Headline
Daily PR headlines, weekly long-form analysis, and our proprietary research drops — straight to your inbox.