USMA 10873: >Kilopascal wrote in USMA 10868: > >>We discussed this practice before, but I think it needs resurrecting. If >>pricing per pound is preferred to pricing per kilogram because pricing per >>pound looks cheaper, then pricing per hundred grams (hectogram) should >>appear even more desirable. 99 ¢/lb would work out to 22 ¢/100 g. In >>addition when you price or buy by the hundred grams, you are in a sense >>getting "100" of something, instead of just "1". Since we are talking about >>the psychology of pricing, one can see that the hundred gram method is the >>best way to go. >> >>So, why isn't done? Has anyone brought this to the attention of the >>managers? > > > A good question and I don't know the answer. I have pointed that out to >many shop keepers with only one successs, and he went bankrupt shortly >afterward. > >This stubbornness is similar to the failure of most members of this list to >use the USMA message number that is in the heading of every message. I >have wasted a lot of time scanning my archives to find a message that >somebody referred to without stating the number of the message in question. > > >Joseph B. Reid >17 Glebe Road West >Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
