Consider this innocuous pack of Reach Flossers…

It’s an everyday dental hygiene product sold in Australia and New Zealand.

Doesn’t seem much to look at, right?

Not quite!

A simple product like this can help us unpack the value of end-to-end product, service and experience design. And it can show the wider universe of questions that an end-to-end design perspective introduces.

I like using a simple, everyday product for this purpose because they serve as an easier-to-understand proxy for larger and more complex products and services. In a period of design narrowing, it’s important to remember why we strive for an end-to-end view.

Let’s start with the purchase process, which was pretty simple.

I happened upon the pack of Reach flossers (aka floss picks or dental floss picks) as one of several brands sitting on the shelf in a local supermarket. They also sell in pharmacies, though this specific brand is not as popular there.

Why this flosser?

Because of Covid and other interruptions, supplies of other dental flossers have been variable. I bought this specific pack as the next best option compared to an item I always buy. Yet, for a popular and professional backed product, they’re riddled with strange design choices. This included ’small’ design issues with packaging, usability and durability, but also ‘big’ end-to-end design issues with engagement and waste.

On the surface, there’s really nothing to distinguish Reach from other brands. Aside perhaps from the large number of items in the pack (a volume value play) and the proposed 3-way cleaning features. It’s hard not to be unsettled by the Uncanny Valley of product representation. Some strange graphic design choices there. At a price point of $6.00 AUD, they’re 8 cents per pick, which is a bit cheaper than other options.

Buying the flossers depends on the shopping experience of the store, so it’s mostly outside the control of those offering this product. However, once we take the flosser home, use falls back into the remit of the designer. Ironically, to a product you’re supposed to access, the first serious obstacle is getting open the packet!

I consider myself hearty and hale, but the ultra-thick cardboard and plastic encasement is sealed with no pre-cut lines to make for easy access. I ended up resorting to a craft knife, which seemed extreme.

Once I liberated the flossers, I was left holding a separate case, with a handful of useless packaging. In this era of plastic waste, it’s unsettling to have so much discarded material before even using the product.

The picks use an odd style of floss material, or the size of the cord isn’t quite right. Either way, it gets stuck in smaller gaps in the teeth.

Because the floss is so thick, it takes more pressure to ease the device between teeth and down into the gumline. The overpressure results in a sudden ‘snap-down’ effect where the floss bruises or even tears the gum. It’s the first product I’ve used where I felt like I did more damage than good.

Considering these flossers are dental equipment, taste is a part of the experience. In this case, due to the plastic choices, the flossers aren’t very appetising, exuding a harsh chemical flavour.

The supposed gum-gap cleaner is made of a hard plastic tip with little Christmas-tree like flanges. It’s very different from the soft-bristle interdental devices meant to brush between gums. I tried it once and found it was far too sharp and uncomfortable for its proposed purpose. But it also wasn’t strong enough to scrape away plaque at the gumline, like a plastic dental pick might operate.

The tongue-scraper grooves are supposed to help clear debris and biofilm off the tongue. But on use, it seems like they’re oriented the wrong way. They require an awkward side-pulling action, rather than pulling the flosser down along the thin shaft.

Either direction is optimistic, given the narrow and fragile shaft. The flossers are weak. They feel like they might snap if held by the lower handle. Those with grip and pinch strength issues might also struggle to hold the device. I found a review online that spoke to this issue, the user noting in frustration:

“Made of cheap plastic which keeps bending when you're trying to floss..used 2 only...rest 48 straight in the bin. The packaging looks great though.” (Chemist Warehouse).

So it seems I wasn’t the only one who noticed these issues. The thing is, these everyday usability issues aren’t the complete picture. Let’s zoom outward, expanding our focus from core use to the wider end-to-end experience.

Expanding our view…

We’ve covered the pre-purchase decision making, the purchase, the opening and use, but what about the flosser’s end-of-life?

Don’t take this as any form of medical advice, but it isn’t recommended to use floss or flossers more than once, because of the risk of reintroducing germs into the gumline. So, the product is finished after a single use. It’s a disposable thing.

The blister pack, which I think is only the outer plastic shell, is the only piece listed as recyclable. So, the disposal phase of the experience is pretty tragic, with both wrapping and flosser being disposed in the trash. It’s probably an unintentional second-life use, but the box that contains the flossers is actually quite strong. I’ve found it handy for keeping hold of all the little bits of dental gear. In theory, a roll of floss uses less material, though it’s still disposable. But it’s harder to use than floss with a handle.

Digging deeper, into the underside of the experience, some interesting facts appear. Reach was a sub-brand of the original Du Pont Chemicals. However, after a series of buy-outs, it now seems to be owned by Dr Fresh, which was bought out by High Ridge Brands LLC, a conglomerate personal healthcare brand owner. It’s hard to find anything on Reach as a sub-brand, or on High Ridge Brands as the ultimate owner. For such a physical product, it’s practically vapourware.

I couldn’t find an annual report, so I can only suspect it is a sell-by-volume business model, focusing on making a fractional cent per item. This could still be quite a big end-market play, when you consider the size of the dental floss industry, courtesy of the Future Market Insights Blog, which notes:

“The Global Dental Floss Industry is expected to reach a value of US $626.41 million in 2022, and it is now undergoing a significant transformation. Anticipations point to a remarkable compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8% between 2022 and 2032, which would catapult the sector to an astounding US $1.35 billion by 2032.” (FMI Blog)

This is a large market for a few bits of plastic and string

Reach flossers aren’t the only product in the category. A quick search offers a host of competitors all focused on giving better value; both in packaging, usability and post-use disposal. A sample of observed features from competitors includes:

Thin dental flossers suitable for tight spaces
Floss made of silk
Biodegradable packages
Bamboo handles
Durable handle with replaceable heads
Bigger and stronger handles
Better dental picks at the end of the flosser
Cleaning agents embedded in the string or handle

The entire product range feels like easy pickings for anyone looking to innovate or disrupt an everyday use-case. But there’s a sting in this tale (or is that pinch in the gum?). If we expand beyond core use and end of life, shifting instead to the wider engagement, we see that flossing is a non-trivial health issue. There’s a mutual benefit to be had here, not just the commercial gain to a product maker, but the genuine improvement of an actual health problem.

Solving end-to-end and top-to-bottom design problems

Assuming we brush our teeth, flossing seems like a choice. That could be why three-quarters of Australians don’t floss–according to a 2023 report by the Australian Dental Association (ADA). Dr Angie Nilsson, from the ADA, shows why:

“Some of it is just an awareness, oral health literacy, around what's required. Brushing for two minutes, twice a day, is the most important thing that you could be doing out of your oral hygiene routine, but that only actually improves 60 percent of the plaque removal. Flossing as well is really important, because that's going to remove that other 40 percent.” (SBS)

This is a dental health disaster that extends far beyond the mouth. Further along in Dr Nilsson’s explanation:

“A lot of people aren't aware that the mouth is connected to the rest of the body. And it's mainly though a number of small blood vessels. And the bacteria can travel into the blood stream and lodge into other regions of the body. Neglecting your oral health means that there is a large number of these bad germs, increasing the risk of developing diseases in your mouth and worsening conditions in the rest of your body.” (SBS)

Again, this isn’t medical advice, but the ADA’s comments suggest that poor dental health (including flossing) can lead to serious inflammation throughout the body. So good, ecologically sensitive products are part of the solution. But how could a flossing product, supporting a key moment in daily health, do more?

I don’t have simple answers offhand, but I know how I’d find out.

Both by improving the core use, but also by extending the view out beyond the core use case into the back-of-house planning and design, the in-use support, end of life and the learning cycle back into planning and design.

This expansion in view creates so many extra and interesting questions:

Why don’t people brush and/or floss as often as they should?
How do people talk and think about flossing?
How is Reach, the organisation offering the product, feeding learnings-from-use back into their design and development cycle?
How could the product better engage people, be easier to use and take a stronger position in the market.

To answer these questions, I’d extend out an understanding of flossing, flossers and wider dental habits. This would mean going to where the action is; in people’s bathrooms, gyms, offices or anywhere else they deal with their teeth. I’d explore online conversation, videos and urban myths about dental health. I’d extend an understanding of the full end-to-end experience of ‘back of house’ planning, designing, producing and delivering processes, as well as the product-provider’s learning loop.

I’d help Reach build a better product, by solving crucial deal-breaker problems in core use, while still stepping back to look at opportunities that have been bypassed. An obvious low-hanging piece of fruit of this sort of analysis would be easier-to-open and less wasteful packaging.

The solid plastic box inside the blister pack is easily durable enough to be its own case.

To be fair to Reach, the organisation seems to be moving in interesting directions. I found a new product that seems to offer a compromise on waste; a flosser pick with a reusable handle and replacement flosser heads for each use. However, I haven’t tried it yet, so I can’t tell if it’s a real step-change or just a band-aid solution.

But the bigger opportunity? Clearly, far too many people aren’t brushing enough–it should be twice a day. But many people aren’t flossing at all, missing out on a 40% improvement on plaque removal. I’d like to know why. Figure out why people don’t floss and make that experience better and you’d have a winning product.

That’s the benefit of quality end-to-end product, service and experience design. It deals both with detailed problems of experience and interaction, as well as the end-to-end, big-picture opportunities that could change an entire market.

And now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to see if I can find myself a better flosser.

I think my gums will appreciate it.