On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:27:52   
 Louis JOURDAN wrote:
...
>>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...)
>
>Why, indeed! At my breakfast this morning I had delicious orange 
>marmalade produced by "Bonne Maman" (is it possible to be a more 
>typical French company?) from a 370 g jar. This size is perfectly 
>convenient: with our family's consumption, a jar lasts about a 
>fortnight, i.e. matches its conservation time once opened. A 500 g 
>size would last too long, and I would have to renew too often a 250 g 
>one.
>
I'm glad you brought this example to the table, Louis.  We need to demistify this 
business of "convenient" sizes for once and for all.  How many people, realistically, 
would use the same argument as yours?  Very few, I'm sure.

What's convenient for one may be inconvenient for others.  And even if one can show 
that on average 1 oz is "perfect" for drink shoot-ups, so what?  What difference would 
it make if you increased it to a "near perfect" 30 mL???  Big deal!  We cannot base a 
society's entire economic function on "conveniences" that are simply a nightmare from 
an operational point-of-view!  Unless there's absolute MUST for one to do so, why not 
try to have the cake and eat it, too, especially when it's *feasible*, within one's 
reach?
...
>>'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!
>
>It cannot be a "German rule": it would breach EU regulations on 
>Common Market.

What I was saying is that the model that Germany follows is an ideal one from the 
perspective of package sizes.  Simply because they're ALL rational and they lend 
itself very nicely for unit pricing calcs (exactly one of the very things you want or 
value, Louis).

I do realize however, that our fight is not that one in particular.  Indeed, the 
directive is more important.

> As far as I know, there is no intention from European 
>authorities to consider such a proposal. The Bonne Maman 370 g of 
>orange marmalade is perfectly legal in Germany.
>
Perhaps, any German here could verify that?  What's the scope of application of that 
German proposal that was published here?  Can anybody answer us that, please? 
>
>I say it again: what counts is the specific price (price per unit of 
>mass or volume). Do not consider all consumers as idiots: most of 
>them (of us...) are educated. At least on this matter...
>...
I hope you were not taking that I meant that...  Unit pricing is a separate battle, 
Louis.  A one which I wholeheartedly concur with, BTW.

Marcus


____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus!
Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus 

Reply via email to