2001-01-05
I left for Detroit, a 300 km drive from Cleveland, around 08:00 h on
2001-01-03 and returned early yesterday evening 2000-01-04. Before I left,
while eating Breakfast, I happened to catch a report on the NBC Today Show.
It was all about the practice of reducing the contents of packaging, but
still charging the same price. A few months back, I mentioned seeing potato
chip bags reduced in size from 396 g to 325 g. Yet the size of the bag is
the same and filled with more air. a spokes woman for some agency claimed
it wasn't deceptive marketing as all the packaging states the contents and
you are paying for what you get. But, lets face it, most Americans don't
look at the contents declaration.
I was not surprised when nobody mentioned that this practise is done with
the governments blessing. When a product goes from 396 g to 325 g, a
reduction of 18 % with no change in price, that is equivalent to holding the
contents the same and raising the price 18 %. But, a price raise shows up
as inflation. And an inflation rate of 18 % does not look good. Downsizing
does not show up in inflation statistics. Thus, the government propaganda
can publish low inflation data. I wonder what the true inflation rate would
be if downsizing was factored in.
I now wonder since this made the media's attention what will become of it!!!
Another interesting titbit: a year or so ago, the BWMA got all excited and
issued a Metrickery Award to a British candy company for doing the same
thing. If I remember correctly, they reduced something from 454 g (1 lb) to
400 g. But, this issue now being noticed in the US, is being done in ounces
and pounds. I used t he gram equivalents of the ounce sizes in the example
above. But, the fact is the downsizing is being done in ounces. Would the
BWMA be as eager to issue a reward to American companies that are downsizing
their ounces? Or will they continue their hypocritical practice and insist
only metric products are downsized? Should someone contact them and find
out?
Howard,
I have never seen a 5 L soft drink bottle? The largest I've seen is 3 L.
Is this a new size in your area? That would have to be drunk fast, or the
drink will go flat.
Gl�ckliches Neues Jahr!
Happy New Year!
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt�mlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Howard Ressel
Sent: Thursday, 2001-01-04 08:22
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:10220] Pringles potato chips going metric -Reply
I read that more companies are now downsizing contents of packages
and keeping the price the same, especially with rising costs. This
practice, although not illegal is somewhat deceptive. It also means that no
mater what units, English or metric, companies will continue to use
irrational sizes on packages. So when you see a 440 g package of
product it may be a soft conversion or just a downsizing of a rational 450
g package.
We all know about the .5 L coke bottles. It seams that the size itself may
have originated from Coke HQ but each bottler labels it the way they see
fit. In NY its clearly labeled .5 L, in Florida it was labeled
16.9 oz. (primary
labels on the carton, I didn't scrutinize the legal label on the
bottles). I
wonder if some bottlers labeled the 2 L bottles as 67.6 oz. at first and
gradually migrated to 2 L as it became more acceptable to the public
anybody remember?
Howard Ressel, Metric Manager
New York State Department of Transportation, Region 4
>>> "James J. Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/04/01 02:13am >>>
I think Procter & Gamble is definitely carrying out a metrication program.
The 855 g, 2 kg and 3 kg packages of Tide detergent tablets are still being
sold at the local Fred Meyer store.
Tonight I not only saw the Tide packages, but also a new batch of
Pringles
potato chips. The single cans have English/Spanish labels with the
contents
given as: 170 g (6 oz.). The "170 g" has the proper spacing and is
printed
in a more bold, ~25% larger font than the ounce declaration. The double
packs are in the NAFTA trilingual format, and their contents are
also listed
in the BOLD SI (wombat) format. Judging from what I'm seeing, I'd say
that
P&G is in the process of getting Americans used to seeing (eventually)
SI-only labeling.
Jason
