Hi Carl: In the long run it might prove futile; as I feel mere changing the lables may help only for the time being; BUT in the long run we must think of lableing the 740 ml bottle as 750 ml (allowing to adding a line that New Bottles shall be marketed as soon as possible). I am not sure, if this unsolicited suggestion shall mean anything to US industry! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21736] RE: incrementalism >Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:42:36 -0600 > >Actually, I was about to write in and ask about P&G's labeling. I noticed >that they list metric first, even for some packages in (apparently) hard >FFU. I saw something listed as 740 mL (25 fl. oz.). Is this a precursor >to >moving all products to metric sizes? After all, it is easier to change >labeling than bottling machinery. Do they use these same sizes (and >labels) >in products sold in other countries? Are other companies following their >lead? > >It seems to me that we are making considerable, if slow, progress in >metricating consumer products, at least for volume quantities. Any word on >when FPLA will be amended? > >Carl > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Nat Hager III >Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 12:33 PM >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:21636] incrementalism > > >Have to laugh at P&G's incremental approach. 2 years ago I say Downy >fabric >softener on the shelf labled something like: > >64 fl oz (2 Qt) 1.89L > >A year ago it was: > >1.8 L (1.9 Qt) 60 fl oz > >Now I notice it as: > >1.8 L (60 fl oz) > >Come on, let's get rid of the parenthesis stuff and be done with it! (Oops >- >but there's unammended FPLA in the way!) > >Nat _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
