There may be sound marketing reasons for offering a 1.8 L size. Let's not put manufacturers in a packaging straitjacket.
Procter and Gamble's smallest Febreze used to be 1 L (expressed, unfortunately, as 1000 mL). The smallest size is now 800 mL. Considering how good they are at marketing their products, I'm sure there's a sound reason for that. 800 mL is certainly much better than some off-the-wall size, such as 790 mL. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Wizard of OS > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:41 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:21638] Re: incrementalism > > > let's rather get rid of 1,8 L switch to 2 L only! > no FFU > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 8:33 PM > Subject: [USMA:21636] incrementalism > > > > Have to laugh at P&G's incremental approach. 2 years ago I say Downy > fabric > > softener on the shelf labled something like: > > > > 64 fl oz (2 Qt) 1.89L > > > > A year ago it was: > > > > 1.8 L (1.9 Qt) 60 fl oz > > > > Now I notice it as: > > > > 1.8 L (60 fl oz) > > > > Come on, let's get rid of the parenthesis stuff and be done with it! > (Oops - > > but there's unammended FPLA in the way!) > > > > Nat > > >
