2002-11-10 I agree with Marcus. I also understand a business' right to change package sizes to what ever is economical for them. But, why are the hidden FFU sizes the supposed economical ones? If one is going to downsize, then why chose 1.89 L over say 1.9 L? Why is 454 g preferred over 450 g, etc.? How exactly are these irrational metric sizes more economical then rational or semi-rational metric ones?
Since Marcus lives in Canada, and Canada is a supposed metric country, then companies should be sensitive to that market and choose sizes that are rational or semi-rational metric. They don't have to be perfect round numbers like 500 g or 1 L, but what is being proved here when 454 g or 946 mL is picked? If that is the way the US wants to market products, fine, but stop it at the border. When you sell in a metric country you size your product to either rational or semi-rational metric sizes. That is the way it should be. It is almost as if some companies are trying to subtly introduce FFU into metric markets by picking hidden FFU sizes. Thus making them the standard. Especially if both FFU and SI appears on the label. What do you think goes through a shoppers mind if they see something like 8 ounces (227 g). What numbering scheme seems more appealing? The 8 of course. It seems easier or simpler. Now, what seems simpler 250 g or 8.8 ounces. The 250 is actually more simpler. The reason is, one can easily manipulate simple numbers like 8 or 250, but 227 and 8.8 are not that easy. Consumers will shy away from any system that promotes non-rational numbers. And if it is the metric numbers that are made to appear as strange and goofy, then it will be the metric system that will appear as goofy to. Consumers will associate metrication as going from sensible numbers to odd and goofy ones. That is why we need to support rational sizing along with metrication. We have to show and prove to people that metric will in fact be easier. And if we can't, our entire efforts are a waste of time. Our whole argument about FFU vs. SI is that as long as there are two measurement systems, businesses will suffer as they will have to do everything twice. One way for the US market and another way for the rest of the world. But, this has not happened. Some US manufacturers do standardize on SI for all markets, but many don't. Many make FFU for all markets. I don't think there is one company that does it both ways. If they are an FFU based company they will attempt to sell their FFU products world-wide until they are told they can't. And if a few markets do make an issue, the American Company(ies) just drop(s) out of that market. Only when all foreign markets make an issue of American products not conforming to SI, then and only then US companies may see it as a serious matter. And if they chose to ignore the situation that may cause serious damage to their bottom line, if those markets are important to them. I read yesterday in the newspaper that McDonalds was leaving "un-named" middle eastern and South American countries. I say good. That will remove from those markets the so-called quarter pounder from the these markets as well. I personally see very little if any efforts on the US part to get the population metric ready or tolerant of metric. My only hope is with a strong EU, and with it a world, who will follow the EU and eventually ban US non-metric products from all markets unless US companies become SI friendly. Only when the cost burden is forced back on the US, maybe US companies take notice and realize this is a serious issue. And if then they chose not to act, it will be their funeral. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-11-09 23:07 Subject: [USMA:23206] Re: Package sizes > 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.
