Michigan has a voluntary unit pricing law. I Googled but can't find good details. Shelf-edge labels are permitted as an alternative to labels on every can, and those shelf edge labels may (but don't have to) include a unit price as well as an item price. Most large stores use the voluntary provision. However, they use it poorly vs the Uniform Unit Pricing model law. The biggest problem is that like items will be priced different ways (multiple units). For beverages, some may be price per ounce, others per quart. If they used metric, I could handle 100 mL vs 1 L, but I'm not so good at factors of 32 in my head.
________________________________ From: Remek Kocz <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 1:19:10 PM Subject: [USMA:50332] Re: Fw: Interesting Customary Error -- Dove Body Wash I think unit pricing on shelf labels in NY state is the law, so there obviously was some push for it at some point, suggesting that many consumers did want something like that or at least a consumer agency thought it would have been useful. Many people we know compare per unit pricing when shopping, including ourselves. Having moved from Michigan, which some 15 years ago didn't have such requirement, this was one of the nice things about NY state. Remek On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Kilopascal <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, I'm aware that the unit price labels appear on the shelf and not on the product. They may be easily changed but that doesn't mean they are a high priority and get done when a price changes unless the store computer automatically generates a new unit price label when prices change and the manager hires a person just to go around up-dating the labels. > >I personally don't look at the labels and I'm not even sure if the discount >stores I frequent bother with the labels. It may only be the pricier stores >that use them. Part of getting the same product cheaper is that the cost to >produce the labels is eliminated when the labels are not used. > >I'm just wondering what can be done to promote products like handheld >computers >that can be used in the stores to display prices and other information in SI >units to the user. I think that is the way to go instead of the nonsense of >labels. I don't expect the country to change, but I for one would like it so >I >can function completely in metric in the market even if I'm the only one. > > > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, 2011-04-09 12:34 >To: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]>; "John M. Steele" ><[email protected]>; "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > >Subject: Re: [USMA:50310] Fw: Interesting Customary Error -- Dove Body Wash > >> 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 >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3561 - Release Date: 04/09/11 >>
