You might be interested in a draft letter that I am about to send to a television retailer. Here is part of the letter; the rest is about their image in the community.
Dear Television Retailer, Recently, my wife and I went to buy a new television set. We had in mind a particular type of television and it had to be the right size to fit the space we had. As my eyesight is decreasing, I was also interested in the true size of the screen. As we browsed, a salesman approached us. I asked if he could tell me the size of the television screens that were on display. He began to tell me some numbers using the word, inch. I interrupted to ask if could he tell me the width and height of the screen in millimetres as this would give me not only the size of the screen but also the aspect ratio. I also tried to explain that I did not understand his use of the word inch, as I had not personally used this word for any measurement since the 1960s. I didn’t get far. The salesman went into an angry dissertation about the word, inch. No — to say "an angry dissertation" is too kind — the salesman was incandescent with rage because I had asked for the width and height of the screen in millimetres. To put my request into context it might be useful for you to know: 1 I am recognised as a world leader in metrication, the process that people use to upgrade from all of the millions of old pre-metric measuring words to modern metric system units. My clients include NASA, NIST, Google, and the Metric Associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. The United States Metric Association (USMA) recognises me as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist. I have also been approached for specific metrication advice by the governments of Australia, Ethiopia, Saint Lucia, the UK, and the USA. 2 I have been aware of the strange use of the word inch or " for television screens since just before the Melbourne Olympic Games in 1956 when, as a small boy, I helped my mother buy our first television set. At that time I learned that the strategy of television manufacturers and marketers was to specify the full wraparound of something called phosphor diagonally as the size of the screen. It was obvious to me that the sales staff were routinely lying to us so I took to carrying a tape measure with us when my mother and I went television shopping and I physically measured the diagonal of the screen that we could actually see. Eventually my mother bought a 21" television that I knew was a diagonally measured nineteen inch screen. With hindsight, I wonder whether this was really designed and made as a 500 millimetre screen that was 400 millimetres wide and 300 millimetres high — giving it an aspect ratio of 4:3. 3 I am also aware that in 2010 seven California counties and the California Division of Measurement Standards sued Sony, Panasonic, LG, Sharp, and Samsung over their inch based rounding* practices arguing that the devious behaviour of these companies was incompatible with consumer protection laws. As I recall the television manufacturers and marketers settled at the end of December 2010, agreeing to distribute $1 125 000 worth of televisions to schools and other public institutions throughout California and to pay court costs of $1 250 000. (* Rounding from a screen that was designed and built using millimetres!) At this point, my wife and I left the shop, more bemused than angry, went home to pick up a millimetres only tape measure, and then went to another shop where we measured and bought a new television for about $1000 that suited our needs and the space we had available. However, to be kind to you, I suppose that your strange behaviour might simply be a misunderstanding of the history of the metrication process. You may recall that the television manufacturers and the television retailers met with representatives of the Australian Metric Board in the mid-1970s. I know that at this meeting the manufacturing and retailing industry representatives and the board members reached a unanimous consensus agreement that in future all television and all computer screens in Australia would be specified in centimetres. I know this because I have been able to discuss this meeting with a person who was present at the meeting. As you know this centimetre based decision did not work. The television manufacturers and the television retailers soon reneged on their agreement and reverted to specifying screen sizes using inch or ". The unfortunate part of this saga is that the television manufacturers, the television retailers, and the representatives of the Metric Board were unaware of the cause of the failure. Following extensive research, I believe that the reason is quite simple: Metrication transitions have never been successful using centimetres. For a successful metrication transition centimetres have never worked. If you choose to use centimetres for a metric system transition you should allow at least 200 years for the change to take place. Consider some examples: 1 Clothing sizes were changed to centimetres from the 1790s — we still use size numbers and inches for this purpose. 2 Many attempts have been made to measure and fit shoes in centimetres since the early 1800s — we still use arbitrary size numbers for shoe sizes. 3 Many legal and medical authorities have tried to make us use centimetres for human height — many, perhaps most of us, still use feet, inches, and fractions of inches for our height. 4 The Kodak Company accidentally did a controlled experiment when they upgraded to the metric system in 1910. The film division chose millimetres for the transition and their upgrade was completed by 1912. The photographic paper division chose centimetres and they are still struggling with the change more than 100 years later; in 2011 you can routinely buy Kodak photographic papers specified in inches. 5 The medical community in the USA is still trying to change to the metric system using centimetres. There are so many measurement related medical errors in the hospitals of the USA that unnecessary deaths could be estimated at about 60 000 additional deaths per year. Go to http://www.aarp.org/health/doctors-hospitals/info-10-2010/preventable-medical-mistakes.html and http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9728&page=1 for details. 6 Software companies, such as Apple and Microsoft, have tried to use centimetres for word processing ever since word processors were invented. They have consistently failed. Apple is still trying to divide centimetres into halves and quarters while Microsoft continues to set default page margins in inches and quarter inches. The cost to word processor users is incredible: see http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/PageBordersInchesORmillimetres.pdf 7 The USA, as a nation, has tried to upgrade to the metric system since the 1790s — more than 200 years ago — using centimetres. They have failed so dismally that their multi-faceted measuring methods now cost the USA roughly 1.3 trillion dollars a year. To repeat a reference, see http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf And we can also add: 8 The attempt to upgrade the measurement of television and computer screens to simple and rational metric system sizes using centimetres did not work. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
