Hi Sleepless,
I’m glad to hear that things are still going well for you.
Memory foams in general will soften much more in the first few weeks of use than later on when the softening “curve” is more gradual so after about 90 days or so the “initial” softening will be over and then the more gradual process will continue. If you are still in good shape by this time … then things will be looking even better 
I believe that any changes in memory foams used by the major manufacturers (in the case of Sealy supplied by Carpenter) are being driven by several factors … not all of which have anything to do with the durability of the foam itself but more to do with market share, branding, marketing, and perception.
All of these are a combination of financial pressures and consumer perceptions and trends in combination with the need for each of the majors to differentiate themselves from the others in spite of the fact that they all use similar materials and methods. There are very few “secrets” in the industry that stay secret for long. The differentiation is based on what their marketing research believes will sell and the story they can create to improve consumer perception of their brand. Many of the changes from one model to the next or one year to the next have less to to with using better materials and more with using materials that can be attached to a different story.
Most of the real changes are incremental. The customers of the foam suppliers (and other suppliers) are the mattress manufacturers. The value they provide is in their ability to improve the profit of the manufacturers. They provide materials and “stories” that are the basis of value as defined by manufacturers. The customers of the major manufacturers are the stores that sell their brand. The value they provide is based on their ability to improve the profit of the stores that sell them. They pass on and refine the stories that are attached to the materials in the products they sell and turn them into “mattress stories” that are “unique” to their mattresses and brand. The customers of the outlets that sell mattresses are the consumers. This is the step where stories are “amped up” to compete with actual quality and value and are used to sell products to consumers. Most of the manufacturers that sell to stores will also spend a great deal of time teaching the stores which stories should be used to sell their mattress and how to avoid and discourage meaningful comparisons based on the material or construction itself.
When there are more steps between the manufacturers of the “raw materials” and the consumer … stories and perception has to replace real value (from a consumer perspective) as there are more layers of “customers” along the chain that need to make a profit. Mattresses are one of several “methods” to sell foam for example from the perspective of a foam manufacturer. This is the basic reason that minor incremental changes are marketed as being “revolutionary” advances by major companies which need the perception of value to sell mattresses more than they need actual consumer value based on quality, performance, and durability. If they competed on actual value … they would lose all their market share to smaller manufacturers who have a shorter supply line with less “customers” along the journey towards the final consumer.
The major trends in memory foams are also related to a gradually growing perception of the weaknesses of memory foams in general which includes issues of of durability, supportive qualities, and thermal properties. They also include the growing awareness that other materials can be just as pressure relieving as memory foam so the “feel” and “name” of memory foam needs to be connected to a “perception” of pressure relief rather than pressure relief itself. As other segments of the market that manufacture materials that don’t have these weaknesses increase market share, then the producers of other materials will make changes in their stories that are designed to create the consumer belief that what they produce is “just as good” or “better than” the materials they are competing with. While these stories are often based on incremental changes, some of which are small improvements in quality and some of which are primarily improvements in profit margins regardless of quality, they are completely exaggerated through marketing stories in order to make up for the length of their supply chain and improve brand perception. The “competitors” of memory foam comfort layers include latex, polyfoam (to a lesser degree), natural fibers, microcoils, buckling column gels, and to a lesser degree water. Memory foam needs a competitive story to “compete” with each of these materials just like each of these materials needs a story to “compete” with each other an memory foam. The stories are designed to cater to and create perception and discourage meaningful comparisons much more than fact.
So the “cool memory foam” stories and the “natural memory foam” stories and the “supportive memory foam” stories and the “durable memory foam” stories are being introduced by using various production and manufacturing methods to help memory foam compete with other materials that are and will continue to be inherently cooler, more natural, more supportive, and more durable.
Some of the incremental changes that are behind these “new” stories are primarily meant to sell to customers along the supply chain in the belief (and fact) that consumers at the end of the chain will continue to believe and buy stories instead of real value. Branding stories work much better in an atmosphere of confusion and conflicting claims than they do in a market of education, knowledge, and fact. They are mostly “perception” based rather than real changes that produce higher quality or higher value materials.
The incremental changes that are “behind” the stories include …
Using lower density foams on the top of a mattress which are by nature more breathable and have a faster response which can translate into a “softer feeling” in certain circumstances … even though they are less durable.
Another is to use various “gel” formulations which in theory helps memory foam to sleep cooler because of the thermal conduction qualities of the gel (just like rocks or kitchen counters feel cool to the touch because they draw heat from the body). Because they are also very dense, they create the story of denser “more supportive” memory foam even though the base foam used can be less dense (lower quality) to get to the same density of the final product. The theory (and story) sounds great … the actual real life results seem to be mixed at best. These have been used for several years by many manufacturers although the awareness of them has increased because of Serta’s marketing efforts with the iComfort.
Various fabrication methods are being used including holes in the foam itself, various combinations of “air channels” under or in the foam, and various types of foam “inserts” are being used both to build a “cooler” story and a “more supportive” story. Again … most of these are dubious or small incremental changes at best meant to create competitive stories rather than competitive quality and consumer value.
Different foam combinations or “mixtures” of several foams are being introduced into memory foam (and other foams) in order to “move” the perceived qualities of the foam towards other competing materials. These combinations can add certain qualities to memory foam but there is always a tradeoff for this “benefit” which is not part of the marketing story.
Various temperature regulating tickings are also being developed and used which can make a difference to foams or construction methods which tend to sleep hot. Even various quiltings such as wool are being used in spite of (or because of) the fact that they can change the thermal and performance properties of the memory foam.
Different foam formulations are being developed and used to allow for the creation of more “open celled” memory foam that allows for greater air circulation or faster response. The difficulty here is that the actual “memory” of memory foam depends in part on restricted air flow within the material. These formulations are more breathable but they also speed up the foam recovery and make it less “memory foam like” which now has to have a story that competes with other materials that respond more quickly to changes in position.
Alternative polyols are also being introduced in a weak but seemingly successful attempt to portray memory foams (and polyfoams) as being “natural” or “green” when in fact they only replace a small part of the petrochemicals used in regular polyfoam. Polyfoam and memory foam will never be truly “green” or “natural” no matter what the source of the chemicals that are used in their manufacture.
Various different foam “combinations” are being used as well either through fabricated layering or through actual pouring mixtures used in foam manufacturing to change its qualities and make memory foam a little more resilient or less “dead” feeling. In effect they are trying to make memory foam more like other foams while retaining (or gaining) the market share of memory foam itself.
All of these are efforts to compete for the perceptions of consumers and to reduce the cost of materials in most cases more than they are about actual improvements in performance.
So the simple answer to your question is that the current models by Sealy and other major manufacturers certainly have much different stories than “previous versions”. Some of these stories are exaggerations of incremental improvements in materials. Some of them represent lower cost, quality, or durability with a “benefit” story attached to them. Some of them represent efforts to “redefine” competitors successes with new stories about old materials or methods to gain market share. Most of them however are based on the primary need to maintain branding differentiation and market share based on brand perception rather than factual information about the materials and manufacturing methods used.
Independent manufacturers with “less mouths to feed” tend to focus more on materials, quality, construction, and final value to consumers. Larger manufacturers tend to focus more on what stories can offset the disadvantages of their supply chain and the perceived advantages of their competitors at the expense of real information about the quality and performance of the materials and methods they use. There is “just enough” truth in them to protect or increase market share … at the cost of “the rest of the story”.
Phoenix
