--- Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 31 October 2005, 01:45 PM, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > > Sometimes writing a manufacturer CAN have an > effect! > > > >But, given that he mentions about the ext "label > run", > >it doesn't sound like he's thinking of repackaging > the > >product in a hard metric size (which could also be > >expensive). It sounds like what he'll do is > consider > >adding the words (354 mL) next to the 12 fl. oz. on > >the label. > > I swear that Don Hillger must have a test to join > the USMA listserver > that I somehow managed to avoid. It only has one > question: > > "Are you a pessimist?" > > I write a note to a manufacturer, get a positive > response in one day > from the President, and all the USMA listserver > members do is point > out that it is not the ideal answer!
The beginning of your message to him was about how other manufacturers were packaging their goods in metric sizes. It wasn't merely that he had failed to include metric on the label. > > Seriously: small beverage manufacturers ALWAYS > design and have > printed their own labels. They often DO NOT have > custom bottles or > cans made -- the tooling costs can be very high. > > So Stephen Haley may choose to (a) buy a > metric-sized bottle when he > reprints his labels (designing them so they will > fit), or (b) use the > current bottle and fill it to 350 mL, or (c) just > add metric to the > label. Most of you just presume (c). It's just that (c) can do more harm than good because it perpetuates the belief that metrication means that people will end up having to use irrational sizes like 3.78 liter bottles and 454 g packages.
