Posting of "Unit Price" information is usually on *shelf labels*, only once, easily changed by grocers or other vendors as the marked price fluctuates.
The "Unit Price" is almost never on each of the many containers of a particular product clustered on a single shelf. It would be too costly to change every label of unit price every time the market price went up or down. EAM. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 11:50:49 -0400 >From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [USMA:50310] Fw: Interesting Customary Error -- Dove Body Wash >To: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric Association" ><[email protected]> > > The only way to do metrication correctly is to have > standard rounded sizes. This way there is no need > or the added cost of unit price labels that no one > looks at. What could happen in the future is that > those with cell phones or hand-held mini computers > can scan their own bar codes and enter or scan a > code for the store and get the unit price or total > price of any product of the same type plus any > discounts offered. Plus it may be able to compare > prices between stores for a true comparison of > prices. > > With this a person can choose the units, thus a > pro-metric person can get all of the information in > SI units. I would hope that computerization would > allow for customers to be able to request metric > amounts at the deli counter and pricing to be > displayed on your hand device in grams and > kilograms. Your hand device could list the price of > the products you are interested in in metric units > and even "talk" to the scale to display the mass in > grams or kilograms for your purchase. > > Even the GPS system for travel can make signs > obsolete and the in-car navigation system will allow > for a user to have all of his data displayed in SI > units, including the speed limit for the road > rounded to the nearest 10 km/h. Distances to > near-by towns or final destinations can be displayed > or spoken in metric only. Some of this may already > be done, but it can be expanded to all cars or > drivers. > > The same would be true for anything purchased, > whether it be gasoline, electricity, gas, water, > etc. Computerization should allow a pro-metric > person to have all of his data and billing in SI > only without ever having to be exposed to non-SI. > > There should be no automatic default set of units. > The systems should ask your choice and set that > as your default. > > Of course such systems would perpetuate non metric > forever (I can't see America ever changing unless > forced to under a dictatorship) but at least a > metric person would not be handicapped by exposure > to non-metric. > > > From: John M. Steele > Sent: Saturday, 2011-04-09 09:14 > To: Kilopascal > Subject: Re: [USMA:50310] Fw: Interesting Customary > Error -- Dove Body Wash > Unit prices have their own rounding rules. IF > conversion is done correctly, (per FPLA/UPLR) it is > insignificant, perhaps 1 digit in last place. When > a conversion is wrong, it is driven by the > conversion error. I was looking for a way to make > dual a nuisance to the grocer, then they wouldn't > love it so much. I don't entirely believe my own > argument, but a lawyer could make the argument. > Technically, considering just one declaration is > wrong, but the error should be minor. > > The UPC code itself is only an item number and > doesn't encode all that info; however, the item > number is an input to a database where it can all be > looked up. I assume grocers pay for the software. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric > Association <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, April 9, 2011 9:03:26 AM > Subject: [USMA:50310] Fw: Interesting Customary > Error -- Dove Body Wash > Interesting how a wrong choice of unit conversions > can effect the unit price shown on the labels. But > I'm wondering if anyone really notices or even > bothers to look at those labels. How many are > present and how many get changed when prices > change? They may not be that reliable and are often > ignored. > > Have you actually done a calculation of the price > you paid per both the metric and USC declarations > and compared them to the unit price label to see > which matches? Since the unit price labels would be > generated by the store, it is possible they could be > done per the metric amount and the store has the > option to print with a choice of units and choose to > display in USC. > > I would think that the machine that prints the unit > price label actually reads the bar code info > (nothing is typed in manually). The size > information would be encoded in the bar code and it > may be only the metric size and does the calculation > based on that size. The only way to know for sure > is to ask the manager (if he knows) how the unit > price label is actually generated in the first > place. > > If the bar codes are suppose to be universal and if > they do encode the size then it would stand to > reason that the metric size would be encoded. > > You can then compare the printed label to what you > actually calculated. > > http://www.ehow.com/how_7202174_interpret-bar-code-information.html > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Article_Number_%28EAN%29 > > I couldn't find anything that gives specific details > as to what is encoded in the bar codes of specific > consumer products. Maybe you may have better luck. > > > > >[USMA:50310] Fw: Interesting Customary Error -- Dove Body > Wash > > John M. Steele > Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:07:04 -0700 > > I return to belaboring the Dove Body Wash in lighting of the discussion on > amending FPLA to permissive-metric-only and the FMI position rant on the > subject. > > It is obvious that FMI advocates using only the Customary contents to > determine > unit pricing. The difference between 200 mL and 6.76 fl oz is pretty small; > however, the error to the mistaken 6.67 fl oz is about 1.3%, and causes the > unit > price to be overstated, making Dove look pricey compared to competitors. > > It also suggests that when net contents are dual, the only correct way to > determine unit price is for the label software to compare BOTH claims, > determine > the larger (just as inspectors would in net contents audits), and base the > unit > price on the larger claim.. Since FMI considers the present law so perfect > that > any change would be an abomination, perhaps they would endorse calculating > correct unit prices on that basis. > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 11:07:01 AM > Subject: Interesting Customary Error -- Dove Body Wash > > > We bought some other personal care product at Costco and the package included > a > small 200 mL bottle of Dove body wash. I happened to look at its net contents > label today. It is labeled 6.67 FL.OZ. / 200 mL. > > While I couldn't quite do it in my head, that didn't seem quite right. 200 mL > actually converts to 6.76 fl oz, actually a bit over, but they have to round > down. They apparently reversed two digits when making the label artwork. I > assume the 200 mL is the real fill. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3560 - > Release Date: 04/08/11
