One sees fish and other sea food priced and advertised in 100 g units in Canada. So are the "bulk" bins priced in 100 g units. Produce and other meats are advertised by the pound, but priced by the kilogram (occassionally to the 0.001 of a dollar) at the check-out. Grocers have had the option of using the 100 g measure for all foods since the beginning of conversion, but have only used it in very specific situations as I suggested above. The official argument against the "kilo" is that the customers prefer the pound. The unofficial arguement is that it makes prices seem to large. The unofficial arguement against the 100 g unit is that a 1 cent increase per 100 g = 4.5 cents per pound (or 10c/kg) and the public wouldn't stand for it. Answer: price by the tenth of a cent and use the 100 g measure. We buy gasoline priced by the tenth of a cent per litre so why not fruit, vegetable, and meat. A 0.1 c/100 g increase = 0.45 c/lb = 1 c/kg. Why not price apples at 21.8 c/100 g rather than 99 c/lb? But then again... they usually boost the prices of prepacked items such as milk, eggs, bread, and canned goods by a penny here and there. The price of fruit goes up a tens of cents per pound or kilogram during the winter months and usually doesn't come done nearly a much as it went up the following summer. The first store here in Saskatoon that decides to use kilogram or 100 g prices will receive 100% of my business. There are only 3 national chains here (Safeway, Superstore/Loblaws, and IGA) and none of them are willing to give up the pound prices without enforced legislation. greg Saskatoon SK Canada >>> "Dennis Brownridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2001-03-25 15:16:33 >>> All the supermarkets I've seen unit-price packaged goods by the "ounce," meaning both avoirdupois ounce (28.4 g) and fluid ounce (29.6 mL). For most liquids, the difference between the two "ounces" is slight. Clearly retailers use the "ounce" because (1) they can use the same "unit" for all products, whether sold by mass or volume, and (2) the unit is so ridiculously small that it makes prices seem cheap, since almost nothing comes in packages of 1 oz or less. Unit prices vary from about 4 cents/oz for bulk grains and pasta to 90 cents/oz for overprocessed, heavily hyped stuff (where you are paying mostly for the box and advertising). Only a few spices and liqueurs are over 1 $/oz. But I very rarely see any shoppers smart enough to look at unit prices anyway. (You can tell when they do, because the numerals are usually so small that you have to get up real close to read them.) Loose goods are invariably priced by the pound, which makes them difficult to compare with the packaged goods, unless you enjoy multiplying and dividing by 16 in your head. Obviously, the simplest and most honest thing to do would be to price everything by the kilogram and liter, and the great majority of things people buy are >1 kg or L. But as we have discussed before, that will never happen unless the Government forces it to happen, because it would be immediately obvious how overpriced some foods are. Retailers will resist metrication of unit prices tooth and nail because it will make prices sound higher--even if they use an awkward 100 g or 100 mL as the unit. (Hectogram and deciliter would be somewhat simpler to express, but they are not legal here). The stated purpose of the FPLA is to allow consumers to make rational comparisons, but in that respect it has clearly been a failure. > -----Original Message----- > From: kilopascal > Louis, > > You're talking sense! The people who write the articles don't think along > sensible lines. The fact that one can not buy milk by the ounce, and most > people if asked could not even tell you how many ounces there are in a > gallon, 3 litres or 3 quarts is not even considered. It is done this way > because marketers want the consuming public to think they are helping the > consumer by giving them a means to compare prices. But, the units chosen > are unrealistic or difficult to manipulate, so out of frustration, the > consumer does not bother to compare. Thus, no one knows what > product is the > better price value. > > The marketer doesn't want the consumer to know. He doesn't want the > consumer to be able to easily figure out unit pricing. He wants it to be > difficult so the consumer gets frustrated and gives up. He wants the > consumer to believe that what he tells him/her is true. Since the consumer > has decided not to compare for himself, because he can't, he believes the > marketer and buys the product unknowing whether he was cheated or not. > > And that has got to be the oldest scam, or at least one of them. > > John > > >
