On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:27:20 Jim Elwell wrote: >At 7 November 2002, 09:04 AM, Ma Be wrote: >>First of all, there should be a *LEGAL* deterrent developed to PREVENT the >>use of "weird" sizes, like 227, 28, 29, 454... (you get the picture), >>simply because: >> >>1) These are crappy imperial sizes in disguise. >>2) Such absurd sizes can only confuse consumers >>3) Such stupid values are obviously totally irrational for package sizing >>in a metric world >>4) These values are significant natural deterrents to per unit calculations. > >Marcus, you just make American metrication all that much harder to achieve >when you promote this type of thinking. It's bad enough to want the >government to mandate metric, but now you want the government to mandate >what size of packages can be used.
Absolutely! Why? If one opens the door to such ridiculous sizes it won't be long till others follow suit, and when they do and people finally complain about the stupidity of such mediocre sizes the argument will finally pop: "well, let me then label these with what they really are, nice 1 qt, 20 oz, 12 oz, 1 lb, etc." Therefore, this is **utterly unacceptable** a danger/risk to run! (Sorry...) > >This is indefensible from several standpoints: > No, it's NOT, and for the following counter-reasons: >(1) it hardly will pass constitutional muster -- even if Congress can >mandate which units to use, that does not mean it can mandate "rational" >package sizes > Firstly, we're dealing with *EU's PARLIAMENT* here, NOT US Congress! US manufacturers would need to comply with *EU's rules* if they want to sell their products there, just like everybody else would also have to comply with US rules when selling products in US territory! This is just fair and how things should be: **respect** OTHER countries trade rules (for a change!... ;-) ) just like others respect yours! >(2) ignores the myriad of issues that might cause a manufacturer to want to >use odd sizes, ranging from using existing machinery and tooling, Lame excuses! No machinery that I know of prevents manufacturers to *round* off values to rational amounts. Example: instead of packaging something with 454 g, package it with 400 g (or whatever value that would turn out to be in crappy lb/oz combination), no big deal! We see this done ALL the time here in Canada. The same applies to tools. Tools CAN accommodate a myriad of sizes when used. If not, then it's really time to change them to *smarter*, more flexible ones (an expense they'd be supposed to incur anyways!...). > to >maximizing capacity of existing cases, cartons, pallets, and containers, Lame, again! One can still use the same containers even, but with rational values, 200 would fit 227 containers, 900 would fit 946 mL cartons, 500 mL would fit 568 mL cans and the list could go on and on and on. Again, there is PLENTY of precedence for this kind of procedure. I could go to my supermarket tomorrow and make a complete list of ALL such "tricks" the current manufacturers are pursuing on this side of the border. > to >dealing with weight and volume restrictions imposed externally by modes of >transport and transporters. > Again, if you fill containers with less you'd be addressing such requirements. No big deal! Again, the burden of proof of the difficulties here should lie squarely on you to provide, my friend. I'm certain that one can ALWAYS find a viable solution to potential odd cases that would fit with preconceived rational sizes. Please consult the German legislation for you to convince yourself that adopting that approach would NOT, I repeat, cause ANY restrictions to US packaging manufacturers. >(3) ignores that the world does not necessarily fit into nice, neat little >packages, and sometimes odd sizes might simply be most appropriate. Another VERY lame excuse (perhaps the lamest of them all!). ALL products that I see from a metric country like Brazil, for instance, come in RATIONAL sizes. There is not a SINGLE ONE that is not (that I can recall)! Therefore, it IS ALWAYS possible to come up with slightly different sizes (from the imperial's perspective of what constitutes 'appropriate') that would end up being rational metric values. > It's >not like God designed the universe in kilograms and liters so that >everything comes in "rational" sizes. > 'course not, but the German approach would offer PLENTY, P-L-E-N-T-Y of choices of sizes that would be appropriate, adequate, and economical. Let me just give you a simple example on mass, for instance. Acceptable values according to German laws: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 750, 800, 900, 1 kg! I dare you to prove to us that you would absolutely unquestionably require ANY package size for mass to deviate from any of the above values!!! >(4) Will add increased costs (additional engineering and design, obsoleting >existing tooling, etc.) to achieve "rational" sizes where, in many cases, >having such sizes provides NO benefit whatsoever This is the same old cliche, rhetoric one continues to hear (exactly the kind of stuff TABD folks have been using against EU's authorities). But the truth of the matter is it does NOT survive a closer scrutiny! I know this for a *fact*, Jim, as I already worked in the packaging industry and am quite familiar with processes, machines and what not for such purposes! Fillers, for instance, are nowadays, controled by NC machines via computers. All it takes is a simple change in "tapes" or software, something very inexpensive to do. So, no 'engineering, design, obsolescence of tools' required! Even if one talks about things like size of microwaves, fridges, and the likes, the changes involved are very minute in today's world of computers, NC machines, etc. Again, we're in the 3rd millennium, Jim. Technology has evolved to such an extent that making such changes are no longer the big deal they used to be!!! And THAT is an undeniable fact! > (Well, that is not >entirely true: if the 50,000 items in a grocery store were all in rational >sizes, some of you would sleep easier. That hardly justifies using >government to force your fetishes onto the rest of us.) > This is not a matter of 'forcing our fetishes onto the rest of you', but to create a base/infrastructure for rational trading, Jim. Enough of excuses, if one does not want to be part of the solution, at least do not be part of the problem! >(5) removes flexibility in marketing and promotion and product design (yea, >I know many of you think such things are used ONLY for fooling the >consumer, but that is a mighty simplistic view that I disagree with) > The range of values that are available as per the German model can hardly be seen as 'inflexible', Jim! Please, give us a break, my friend! What's wrong with marketing 1 L containers (or 900 mL), as opposed to 1 qt ones??? What's the difference? >(6) presumes that consumers are stupid, which I think is an elitist position > This has nothing to do with such presumption at all, Jim. This has to do with facilitating the lives of consumers. If supermarkets, for instance, cannot provide consumers with per unit calcs, for instance, at least with rational sizes it shouldn't be too difficult for one to do what's necessary to compare products when sizes are rational! >(7) And, last but not least, if you REALLY want to get a lot of Americans >on the ANTI-metric bandwagon, tell them that you intend not only to force >them to use metric, you intend to force them to buy toothpaste and salsa in >ONLY your pre-defined "rational" sizes. > Europeans shouldn't care less if domestic US consumers would be bothered by buying 100 mL toothpaste tubes as opposed to 3 oz ones!!! Or 500 g boxes of cereal, instead of 1 lb ones, or 600 mL of salsa, instead of 20 fl.oz., etc. Besides, I can bet my neck that most *in the US* won't care less provided the *values* look rational. What you defend, Jim, is unfortunately indefensible from *your own perspective*! Why? Oh, well, you would really piss them off if they start seeing 227 g, 454 g, 341 mL and the likes ONLY! YOUR suggestion/approach to the problem would *certainly* cause that indeed. If I were a consumer living in the US I most probably would if I saw metrication in labels leading to nothing but things like 20 fl.oz. (591 mL) or 591 mL exclusively! Therefore, it's YOUR point of not metricating to rational values that would bring extreme danger to our cause! Let's face it, what sort of "metrication" would this be, a one that only cosmetically changes *labels* to include metric values??? You can't have the cake and eat it, too, Jim! >I would far rather support mandated "unit pricing" and let manufacturers >use whatever package sizes they want, than to mandate so-called "rational" >package sizes. > Unit pricing is a worthy cause indeed, you can count me in for this one. But making regulations German-style would NOT cause the demise of the US industry if ever chosen, that's for sure! >You can dream about the day that the world comes in rational metric >packages. But, until we manage to metricate the USA, please keep your >dreams to yourselves, or you will just make our job that much harder. >... ??? Oh... and you would consider just adopting metric-only labels of the sort I described above to be a step forward? Honestly? Nah, I don't think so, my dear friend! A change in labels resulting from a *pure* metric-only labeling perspective can actually be an irritant to US consumers. Instead of helping our cause, it will actually be totally detrimental to it. Take the case of the very successful 2-L bottles of pop. Why do you think this size ended up being accepted (and popular!) by consumers in the US in the end? I can bet my neck that perhaps THE main reason was the fact that the NUMBER ITSELF was a rational, nice '2'!!! ;-) With respect, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
