On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:03:29 Carl Sorenson wrote: >Marcus: >>?? What exactly is Jim 'right' about, Carl? Sorry, I don't follow you. > >What I was saying is that the pizza was labeled with a non-rational FFU >value. No one cares! No one is protesting, no one is complaining about the >difficult 22.05 ounces. No one really cares if the net contents label is >even or not. It doesn't hurt the customary system to have 22.05 ounces on a >label, just like it won't hurt metrication to have 454 g on a label. > I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken, Carl. It WILL 'hurt' and I have data to back it up! Why? Simple, if packages start coming with such stupid sizes, depending on who is bringing them to the market, this may have the effect of getting others to do the same!
So, actually this DOES and IS happening. It happened with sizes of TVs in my home country, tyre sizes for bikes, etc. Perhaps you were not around when I shared the story of So Good soya milk with our group. They used to market a nice, decent 2-L carton of their product. However, they changed that to stupid 1.89 L because *others* were doing it and there were economies of scale to gain by switching. Therefore, don't come to me saying that this is irrelevant, because it isn't, my friend. >>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. > >Changing pricing schemes and product lines *is* an issue to companies. They >have reports and records tracking sales and comparing factory outputs and >things. If they change the package size, they have to pay attention to it. >Besides, it will suddenly be a different size than the competitors' >products. > ? That's not what I said, Carl. When changes are of minor nature the impact is NOT significant! Trust me, I worked for a packaging company, I know what I'm saying. Costing is *totally* automated for these industries. Data collected are naturally fed into costing systems and impacts can be assessed by the simple press of a button even PRIOR to its taking place! Nobody is denying that changes in sizes do have impact, but that was NOT what I was saying, again, I repeat. When all there is to change is the feeding of the quantity into the machine, and when such quantity amount is insignificantly different from the previous value the cost impact is quite minor. >>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!). > >Nonsense, for the reason I explained above. People don't get mad about >nonrational package sizes. They have better things to do with their time. > Oh, yes, they do! And I'm JUST ONE of them! I do get peeved by these things and I avoid products with such labels like the plague. These are the precise things we ALL, here, should pay attention to, because it's what proves whether a company has REALLY metricated or not. When it comes to American companies it may even be safe to say that it's our ONLY recourse to get them to "pay attention" (those co's that evidently don't listen to our package labeling complaints!). I.e. let's NOT buy products with rational ifp labels when there are alternatives that have rational metric sizes. I'm willing to even pay a premium for that (and I do! I buy cat food from Sheeba because they come in nice round 100 g as opposed to other cans that come with 156 g or 3 oz, whatever other nonsense there is!). >>? Noone would be 'telling them how to run their multi-billion dollar' >>industry, Carl. > >Sure you are. > No, I'm not! They DO have a *choice*, just pick a size among the allowable ones and move on! Again, I vehemently say, there can be no REASONABLE REASON W-H-A-T-S-O-E-V-E-R for insisting on 85 g cans, for instance, when you have 75 or 100 as choices especially when they'd allow you to keep package formats and your manufacturing line intact! >>unless you really wanted to sabbotage the whole process from the start!... > >You've got to be kidding me. > No, of course I'm not, Carl! I'm sick and tired of companies that change labels to things like 156 g and do nothing but that alone! They are NOT helping the public in any way, they're just making cosmetic changes because there are label laws that tell them to do so! Internally, it's "business as usual" , oz here, ounce there, pound here, pound there... If this is not sabbotage I don't know what it is! This is evidently different when you're "stuck" with certain "sizes" because there is an infra-structure based on that *specific* value, like railroads. In that case, fine, soft metrication will have to do, at least till there can be solutions to "upgrade" the network to something decent later on. >>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. > >American companies do not want mandates about metrication. Giving >timetables without industry cooperation would be unnecessary government >meddling. We need to give them reasons to support changes, not be wary of >them. > But we DO 'give reasons' to them, Carl. They just don't wanna listen!!! How many of us here keep on reporting on this very phenomenon over and over and over again?! By golly. I keep hammering construction people, for example, with tonnes and tonnes of these examples with *crystal clear undeniable proof* of how much better their businesses, lives, everything... would be if they adopted rational metric parameters. Does it change anything? Unfortunately not, and those who may be sympathetic come with the insidious old cliche of "oh, well, we'll change when others do, or when everybody else does". In the end, nothing ends up happening! Then what???... >The marketplace will change, but very slowly. American companies are not >willing to be forced into it. With dual labeling allowed, as it must be, it >will be many years before ounces are gone. > That's the problem, right there. Only with directives like 80/181 can we, consumers, have some reassurance that it WILL and piece of mind that our environment will not be littered by *garbage* like 454 g, 85 g, 20 oz and other idiocies. I do NOT (and canNOT) compromise on that, EVER! Especially because I know *for a fact* that doing otherwise WILL cause metric to shrink and disappear. As I said earlier, it happened with TV sizes, tire pressure, etc, in my birth country, surfing (the sport) statistics and other things (I recently led a vociferous campaign with our own surfing sites in Brazil on this very issue. Thank goodness I was able to get over 80% of them or so onboard! With the added advantage that I could be quite nasty towards the idiot foot since there IS a very strong cultural perception in my home country that such units belong in a museum!). Make no mistake about it, Carl. Open a small door and there will be flood gates of water. Don't we ever learn the lessons of history???... Besides, the facts speak for themselves, Carl, like that example I gave of a shopping magazine on an airplane to the US. Despite the fact that I knew there were quite a few products that were "metrically designed and built" advertised therein I was given the impression that I was living under a sea of ifp industries! So... A resounding NO! Metric labeling PRESENCE is **paramount** to our cause! Even allowing metric-only in the US will NOT persuade anyone to switch, trust me, it won't. But at least it will protect **OUR** markets in **OUR** environment from trash I don't wanna see, period!!! >>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... ;-) > >I'm glad you found a constructive way to make your wishes known. The main >thing that corporations look at is the bottom line. Unfortunately, Carl, you're naive, my friend! No, it isn't. I wish it were, because if it were indeed there would be absolutely no question *whatsoever* that ALL should switch EVEN in spite of a sea of ifp out there. A simple example would be carpet pricing, but since this e-mail is already too big, I'll leave the basics of why I'm advancing this example for you to figure that out for yourself! ;-) > Keep in mind that >several hundred million Americans don't pay much attention to labeling laws >or ifp vs. metric. Well, if that is true, then why so much fuss about resisting metric-only labels? Why would American businesses spend millions of $ lobbying the EU to postpone 80/181? Please answer me these questions if you can. > With such a huge base of consumers and voters who are >not trying to metricate the domestic marketplace, it will take time. > Sure, I never denied that. But don't be naive in believing that it will take place if the metric world stops putting pressure on them about it! Without metric world's pressure there is no incentive for them to change. We can talk of the wonders of the SI all we want and show unequivocal examples of savings and all that, but this alone will NOT do the trick. Inertia, my friend, is one of the worst enemies of progress in this area. >>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. > >When trying to catalyze social change, it is important to see the world as >it is, not just as it should be or as it would be if you were in charge. >... There are different types of people in the world, Carl. Those who bark, those who are quiet, and those who go and bite ya!... Only pro-activeness can turn the world around! Cordially, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
