2002-08-10 I agree! I don't mind sizes that are not exactly whole numbers like 2 L as long as they are still in a simple format. 1.8 L is fine, even 1.9 L is ok. But, not 1.89 L. Of course we would all like to see 2 L. But, that isn't always practical.
When the original FPLA was amended some years ago to require metric be added, it was considered to allow metric only. There was some opposition from manufacturers that thought metric only was a prelude to fixed package sizes. So, as you see the compromise was to require both. We have to accept that businesses do downsize their products without lowering the cost. This helps raise profits without contributing to inflation. Having a standard size and raising the price is both bad publicity and appears to the consumers and population as inflation. We have to convince retailers that metric is just as flexible as FFU is if we want them to accept the change. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-08-10 14:51 Subject: [USMA:21645] Re: incrementalism > 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 > > > > > >
