At 10 November 2002, 11:45 AM, kilopascal wrote:
No one claimed they are more economical or rational.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?
My claim is that (a) businesses know best what package sizes are most economical, and that includes considering a lot more than the contents of the package, and (b) businesses know best what their customers want. If enough customers really prefer 2 L over 1.89 L, then business will start providing it, taking into account the costs of the changeover.
My argument is NOT against rational sizes, but against MANDATED rational sizes.
Most companies are *intensely* sensitive to the markets they serve. Of course, "market" means "consumers," not someone's vision of what the market "should" be.Since Marcus lives in Canada, and Canada is a supposedly metric country, then companies should be sensitive to that market and choose sizes that are rational or semi-rational metric.
If CONSUMERS in Canada refused to buy non-rational packages, companies would switch ASAP, or pull out of the market, whichever their MBAs told them was the most profitable path.
That this has not happened tells me that most Canadians don't care about metric anymore than most Americans do. And so companies take the only logical path, which is to produce and distribute the product in the most cost-effective fashion possible. So colloquial units and packaging persist, since the bulk of the market is in the USA, not in Canada.
Couldn't have anything to do with saving money by using the same package in both the US and Canada, now could it?It is almost as if some companies are trying to subtly introduce FFU into metric markets by picking hidden FFU sizes.
I couldn't agree more with this. Except add "some" before "US companies" since some US companies already take metric seriously.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.
And which part of the US are you referring to? Whose job is it to get the "population" ready for anything?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.
Gosh, sounds like the free market to me!
Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
