Lots of room for xxx9 or xx99 when pricing by the kg. I think the grocers' associations could 'fix' this in short order if they wanted to. Cluttering up their flyers with 'per pound', 'per ounce,' 'per kilogram' etc. is a way of throwing sand in the eyes of the shopper. D. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph B. Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: April 7, 2002 09:40 Subject: [USMA:19309] Re: Opponents of metrication
>Chris wrote in USMA 19305: > > it's interesting that opposition to metrication (which didn't >>exist to any perceptible degree prior to 1994) has only occurred since >>the requirement to sell loose goods by the kg. We have been happily >>using metric for many other years in other respects. But I believe >>that the latest changes would have happened overnight if the kilo were >>smaller than the pound. The real opposition to metric in this case is >>the fact that they have to show unit prices which appear higher. I'm >>convinced opposition would have melted away overnight if the metric >>prices had appeared less. (c.f. the lack of complaints about spending >>public funds changing US speed limit signs when the national limit was >>removed, vs. the outcry against changing signs to metric.) >> >>Chris > > >It was the same in Canada. Opposition to metric only became vocal when the >retail scales were changed to kilograms because customers might feel >embarassed if they were expected to ask for a metric quantity which they >did not understand. However, proposals that goods might be sold by 100 >grams went nowhere. That may have been due to the conviction among >retailers that all prices should end in nine, or better yet, end in >ninety-nine. That would not have left enough flexibility for the pricing >of most vegetables. > >Joseph B.Reid >17 Glebe Road West >Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071 >
