Mapa Spontex: nobody wants to talk about sponges — so you watch the gesture instead of asking about the preference

Context

Mapa Spontex: nobody wants to talk about sponges — so you watch the gesture instead of asking about the preference

The context is documented. Spontex designed the first cellulose sponge in 1932; Mapa Spontex, today a subsidiary of Newell Brands, brings together the Spontex, Mapa and Calypso brands for household care as well as professional ranges, and markets its products in more than 80 countries.

The difficulty specific to these categories is neither technical nor competitive: it is motivational. Nobody wants to talk about sponges. Cleaning is an activity people perform rather than enjoy, and methods based on stated preference produce polite, empty answers there. The only reliable material is the gesture: what people actually do, in what order, with what, and what they do to avoid doing it. The conclusions and the client's proprietary data are not disclosed.

Old and technical categories: Spontex designed the first cellulose sponge in 1932. Since then Mapa Spontex — today a Newell Brands subsidiary — has developed cleaning and hand-protection ranges under the Spontex, Mapa and Calypso brands, present in more than 80 countries, alongside professional lines.

These categories are technical: materials, abrasiveness, absorption, durability, ergonomics. They are also old, and therefore familiar, which makes innovation both possible and hard to get noticed.

An activity people perform: Cleaning is not among the activities people choose. It is done out of obligation, often in constrained time, sometimes with a sense of unevenly shared load within the household. That reality conditions everything else.

A replenishment purchase: These products are bought out of habit, often at the end of a shopping trip, with no real comparison. The brand acts less as an argument than as a marker: it saves having to choose.

Several categories, one methodological problem: The brief covers several category sprints. That repetition changes the nature of the work: what has to remain with the company is not only a set of concepts but a reusable way of working.

Getting material on a subject nobody declares an interest in: The likely challenge was to produce concepts grounded in a real understanding of usage, in categories where declarative methods yield little. Asking about preference on an object nobody thinks about produces conforming answers with no directional value.

Watching the gesture rather than the opinion: The usable material lies in execution: in which order surfaces are cleaned, what gets postponed, what is done hastily, what is kept when it should be thrown away, what is used instead of the intended tool.

Co-creating without asking people to invent: Co-creation only has value if it places participants in a situation they master. Asking someone to imagine a new sponge does not work; asking them to show how they clean, then react to concrete propositions, does.

Making the output actionable: The brief insists on actionable concepts. In an industrial category constrained by materials, tooling and price, that means qualifying feasibility during the sprint, not after it.

Turning method into an asset: Several successive sprints require a method that transfers from one category to the next. A method that only works with its designer holds no lasting value for the company.

The price constraint: These products sell at low prices and compare easily, including against private label. The space for added value is narrow and has to be justified by a benefit perceptible in use.

The sprints were framed around questions of this kind:

In a low-involvement category, the question 'what do you expect from a sponge?' does not produce information. It produces politeness.

Strategic challenge

The questions that structured the work

Research and work conducted

What the engagement covered

• The replacement question is particularly productive. The moment someone finally decides to throw a sponge away reveals quality criteria nobody can articulate in the abstract.
• The approach applied rests on one principle: in a low-involvement category, you observe execution and avoidance rather than preference.
• A subject with no declared interest: Preference-based methods produce polite answers. Access to information has to be built differently.
• A socially loaded chore: The division of household tasks is a sensitive subject within a home. It shapes usage and has to be approached carefully.
• A tight price constraint: Low prices, easy comparison, strong private label presence: the space for added value is narrow.
• Material and tooling constraints: Abrasives, cellulose, microfibre, moulds: industrial costs and lead times limit the range of feasible concepts.
• A purchase without comparison: Replenishment happens out of habit. An innovation has to be noticed without the buyer setting out to compare.
• Repetition across categories: A format designed for a single category does not transfer. The method has to be conceived as reusable from the first sprint.

Deliverables

Objects teams can use beyond the engagement

• Documentation of how the task actually unfolds, beyond the moment the product is used.
• A record of workarounds, avoidances and repurposed uses.
• A co-creation format based on demonstration and reaction rather than invention.
• Ideation frameworks adapted to each category addressed.
• Concepts qualified against material, tooling and price constraints.
• A documented method, reusable by the teams on subsequent categories.

Key learnings

What this case makes clear

• In a low-involvement category, asking about preference produces politeness, not information.
• What people do to avoid a task is more instructive than what they say they expect from the tool.
• The moment of replacement reveals quality criteria nobody can articulate in the abstract.
• Co-creation succeeds when it asks for a capability participants already have.
• A concept not qualified against industrial constraints is not actionable.
• Across successive sprints, the transferable method is worth as much as the concepts produced.

For comparable organisations

Where this approach is useful

This case will speak to organisations showing at least one of the following characteristics: A low-involvement category where declarative research yields little. A product whose use is an obligation rather than a pleasure. A replenishment purchase with no real comparison. A tight price constraint against private label. Industrial constraints that invalidate appealing concepts late in the process. A need to innovate regularly across several categories. These situations recur in home care, hygiene, stationery, hardware, batteries and every product people rebuy without thinking about it.