Monday, 12 July 2010

Selected Opinions Expressed by Colleagues 2010

“Wow 2 years on -2008-2010 - and P&G still haven’t answered a letter!!
Is this standard P&G company policy? “
U.S.A, Dental Hygienist July 2010

“Is it possible that a multinational such as P&G cannot see the shortfalls of the Superflosstm cardboard box packaging and after 2 years still cannot respond to a letter written in July 2008 “
British Dental Hygienist July 2010

“One must ask what sort of a company is P&G when they can overlook the hygiene problem concerning the Oral B Superflosstm cardboard box packaging unchanged in 30 years, and at the same time ignore the various queries put to them since July 2008.”
Australian Dental Hygienist July 2010

“As one of the major sponsors for IFDH meetings, - Canada July 2007 / Glasgow July 2010- it is surprising that P&G are unable to respond on an important issue concerning cross infection relating to the packaging of one of their products. It is even more surprising that they cannot respond to letters and numerous reminder faxes after 2 years!”
Canadian Dental Hygienist July 2010

“Looks to me like the dental floss packaging isn't the only thing they should be reviewing: their whole public relations policy is a sham if they won't respond to the very real concerns that members of the [hygienist] profession have about this product."

American Dental Hygienist July 2010

“Has anyone from P&G ever tried to pull out one thread from the Oral B cardboard box Superflosstm packaging. Maybe they should try it. It could be an enlightening experience”

Italian Dental Hygienist July 2010

"2 years and no response? Perhaps the CEO is working too hard - he should get rid of some of his workload - all those other directorships for example..."
British Dental Hygienist July 2010

“Maybe P&G do not employ enough staff to cope with all the queries, two years seems rather a long time to wait for an answer for a letter posted in 2008!”
Canadian Dental Hygienist July 2010

“What exactly do P&G Members on the Board of Governance do for their annual fees.”

New Zealand Dental Therapist July 2010

P&G state in their “Purpose, Values & Principles” under the section “Trust”
“We respect our P&G colleagues, customers and consumers and treat them as We want to be treated”
Yet P&G still have to acknowledge a letter from July 2008 !

American Dental Hygienist July 2010

“So how often does P&G review the packaging and labelling of products such as Oral B Superflosstm
Swiss Dental Hygienist July 2010

“Cannot believe that P&G cannot see the Oral B Superflosstm cardboard box packaging problem. It is so obvious ! “”

Swedish Dental Hygienist July 2010

“By today’s standards Oral B Superflosstm cardboard box packaging cannot be considered hygienic either for the dental office or for home and family use.”

Dutch Dental Hygienist July 2010

No comments:

Post a Comment