On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:39:28 Carl Sorenson wrote: >Jim is right, Marcus. > >I bought a frozen pizza once that was labeled "22.05 OZ (625 g)". I really >don't think they were trying to make it 625 g exactly. They just made the >pizza how they thought best and labeled it the way they always have. People >don't really care whether a package says 454 g or 450 g. They usually look >at the per-unit cost on the shelf tag, if anything. > ?? What exactly is Jim 'right' about, Carl? Sorry, I don't follow you.
But let's tackle each argument of yours in order, please. There may indeed be cases when the end result of the production of certain products, like pizza, turn out to be somewhat "irrational. These however, are the *exception* and NOT the rule. However, for these the rule could still be used by simply stating/labeling '600 g'! I don't know of any piece of legislation anywhere that would condemn companies for "erring" on the plus side!... ;-) On the other hand one should be suspicious of things like that, especially when the result is so close to a rational value in imperial! (Food for thought...) >There are several reasons a company might want to have irrational sizes on >labels: >1. If the company simply put less product in a package, their products will >be smaller than competitors'. Companies compete on several aspects, Carl, size being one of them. The smart consumer who is price sensitive (like me!!...) will find the unit price and give preference to a cheaper product when perceived quality and everything else is the same. On the positive side though, if his package was smaller he would have a potential advantage in that his price (in absolute terms) could be lower than his competitors' with larger package sizes! He could capitalize on this advantage. >2. They would need to review their pricing scheme, since the product is now >a different size. Companies' 'pricing schemes' are usually all computerized, Carl. It doesn't take much for such piece of information to be reassessed appropriately. Sorry, but this aspect's relevancy is very modest, to say the least. >3. Changing sizes means that they are changing their product line. Not necessarily. If the change was from, say, 454 to 400 g, actually very little is involved in such change, especially if packages do not suffer any change in format and/or size. >4. By using more packaging (not filling containers completely), they >increase costs and reduce profitability. > Debatable, especially in light of very minute changes like I just described above. On the other hand, the introduction of rationality in package sizes could provide potential significant operational advantages to the company. Such "intangibles" may more than offset any potential losses due to this type of factor. Besides, isn't this one of our main "selling points", that metric would significantly improve companies operational lives??? >It is hard enough just trying to change the FPLA. The change we are trying >to make is to *allow* more. We are removing restrictions, not adding them, >and it is still taking time. Of course. But please remember that exposing consumers to metric-only labels that used to be labeled like, say, 1 qt, 2 qt, 1 lb, 20 fl.oz., to 946 mL, 1.89 L, 454 g and 591 mL would piss them off (and with some reason!). We want NOT to alienate consumers, but to bring them on board with this transition (unless you really wanted to sabbotage the whole process from the start!... :-S). > We want to make metrication possible (by >removing FFU requirements) and desirable. Precisely! Now, tell me *truthfully* if soft metricating labels would *really* accomplish that??? Especially, if the "old" ifp number is **no longer there**! That's the fundamental question, Carl. I can see hesitation on the part of authorities even merely on this aspect alone. In other words, to me, as a consumer, I'd have serious reservations about this FPLA change IF it's not followed by keeping rationality in package sizes! In other words, one stands a much better chance of getting consumers on board if companies change their labels to 400 g (or 500 g) as opposed to seeing 454 g labels! > With international market >pressure, companies want freedom to label in metric only. They don't want >someone telling them how to run their multi-billion dollar manufacturing >operation. > ? Noone would be 'telling them how to run their multi-billion dollar' industry, Carl. There is PLENTY (enough, anyways) of flexibility in the German proposal that would satisfy all players concerned, with the added irresistible advantage that the consumer ALSO wins with it!!! The examples of Germany and Brazil are strong enough to prove to anyone that rational metric package sizes CAN and DO work seamlessly. >When metric-only labels are introduced, companies will slowly begin making >rational sizes in due time. As I mentioned many months before, I have no qualms with soft metrication *provided* it's VERY-SHORT-lived, say, less than 6 months or so. > The marketplace will change, but very slowly. Sigh... I keep hearing this kind of excuse for far too long! It's unbelievable that in this day and age one would still even hear it, let alone, see it being used as excuse against progress. What we REALLY need is a slightly higher dosage of good will on the part of industries. A little planning and effort would accomplish much if the will is there. >I like the idea of a major push to metricate immediately, but that will not >happen in the U.S. any time soon because people don't want that. There is >not enough support, and if people get the impression that we are telling >them what to do, they won't like it. >... Well... Tough luck, pal. The world has been 'telling' the US to "shape up" for decades now! We're just tired of hearing that they would change and nothing really happens. On the contrary they keep pestering us to postpone progress and postpone progress and postpone progress!... Enough is enough is enough! As a consumer I already put a stop to this nonsense. I don't buy "ifp" products, period! To the heck with them... ;-) Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
