2001-01-14
Procter & Gamble, like any large company doesn't always march internally to
the same beat. I'm sure P&G does not have a metric policy per se, but the
choice of sizes might be the decision of a few pro-metric or pro-global
managers. This doesn't mean that those who decide the sizes are the same
ones that decide how the package is to be labelled. This might be part of
the marketing group, who might be more like common folk and try and come up
with the closest FFU equivalent to the rational metric and decide to market
it as that size. When the metric is added to the label as part of the FPLA
it is back converted to SI and may not be rational. Like a dimension of 25
mm is converted to 1 in and then back converted to 25.4 mm. 1 kg is
converted to 2 pounds and 3 ounces, then back converted to 0.99 kg as Joe
Reid noted.
One division of a company might be less likely to follow the example
mentioned above and another division of the same company might be more
likely. Unless a top executive sets a company policy on how metric sizing
is to be done, each department and/or division is going to go their own way
and will be different. Whereas one will see Febreze in a rational SI size
and SURF/ALL close but not exact, one would surmise that even thought P&G is
metric friendly, their use is not consistent. Other companies may be
similar.
Glückliches Neues Jahr!
Happy New Year!
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Joseph B. Reid
Sent: Saturday, 2001-01-13 18:09
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:10454] Detergents
Kilopascal wrote in USMA 10448:
>I have seen the new 2 kg Tide boxes of tablets more and more in the shops.
>In one store they occupied an end of Aisle display. Yet, the in store ad
>showed them as 4.41 lb size instead of the 2 kg size.
>
>In the detergent aisle, I noticed something very dumb. A box of
SURF and a
>box of ALL powder detergents were labelled as 2 lhs. 3 oz.. (0.99
kg). Now,
>isn't this ridiculous? What is so hard about labelling it as 1
kg? And I'm
>sure it is 1 kg. This is the nonsense that turns of consumers to metric.
>And, both of these boxes are labelled in French and Spanish as well as
>English. These people need to be written to.
Han added in USMA 10453
>I deeply suspect that such labelling as 2 lb 3 oz (0.99 kg) is
not done out
>of ignorance, but done deliberately to set comsumers up against the metric
>system. Making metric look stupid is one of the ifp goons' tactics. Just
>read all those 'funny' and 'humourous' anti-metric diatribes
which have been
>published through the years,
All postings to this list about Proctor and Gamble indicate the company is
friendly to metric and is gradually converting their products to hard
metric quantities. However US regulations require guantity declarations in
pounds and ounces. 2 lb 3 oz is the conversion of 1 kg. Some stupid
person in P & G
converted this back to 0.992 kg, and rounded it off to 0.99 kg. It was a
stupid oversight, not a deliberate plot to show the metric system in a bad
light.
