There is also the distribution cost, which is often quite similar for a smaller package as it is for a larger package. In other words, if the package is half the size the distribution cost does not necessarily go down by half. For that reason neither will the price. Downsizing the package is a classing marketeering maneuver to hide a price increase that might otherwise be needed. Carleton > I don't know if they have unit pricing in Europe but this would have been the > answer. I always check unit prices and buy a bigger size if the price per unit > is cheaper. Here is where metric wins because all the units would be the same. > They get you when you try and compare lbs. of one item with unit price in oz. of > another. Who can convert between the two in the store? Certainly not I. Metric > unit pricing by the gram or kg would be so much easier. > > Sometimes also I prefer bo buy less and pay more since a larger size may never > get used up. If one buys something that spoils after time then a larger package > costs more since you end up wasting most of it. Its not uncommon to pay for that > privilege of buying a smaller less efficient package. One would have to audit > the company and find out if they indeed raise the price for smaller packages > even if the product costs as much per unit to package at a smaller size than the > larger. (ie. package costs and processing costs are the same no matter what size > they sell). > > Howard Ressel > Project Design Engineer, Region 4 > (585) 272-3372 > > >>> "Mighty Chimp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/30/03 10:07AM >>> > Han, > > It is common for smaller portions to be more expensive. One can buy a > litre of coke for 0.89 $ and 2 L for 1.29 $ at the same store. Quantity > is always cheaper. > > As for the 450 g being a pound, the BWMA wouldn't agree. To them that > would be downsizing. If it isn't 454 g, it isn't a pound. > > I see nothing wrong with items coming in sizes of 50 g increments. As > long as the last digit is a zero and there is nothing to the right of > the decimal marker, I see no problem. > > Euric > > PS. I see the euro went above 1.20 $US for the first time in history on > Friday. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Han Maenen > Sent: Saturday, 2003-11-29 08:31 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:27702] Rip-off: from 500 to 450 g for the same price >
> I was in the supermarket today and saw a nice rip off, targeted at > people > who live alone with 'special' one person portions. I bought a large pack > of > Lasagna, weighing 1000 g, for 5 euro. Then I saw the small pack for 3 > euro. > Buying this size is falling victim to cheating. Many people would think > that > it weighs 500 g. Not so. It is a double whammy. For the same price the > small > size has been downsized from 500 g to 450 g, as we know a very suspect > size. > Whether the downsizers really thought of English pounds is something we > will > never know. But you can see the rip-off: 900 g of lasagna in two one > person > packs costs 6 euros, a 1000 g pack costs 5 euro! > Never buy these 'special' one person portions! They are bad news, > whether > the cheating and downsizing is done in metric, imperial or hidden > imperial! > > Han > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 2003-11-27 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 2003-11-27 > >
