I don't know if it qualifies as "metric cheating" so much as metric
price gouging, but there are several well known examples of brands in
the UK reducing the size of their products while going from imperial to
metric measure, but keeping the prices the same. Essentially when the
product was dual-labeled, the size remained the same, and the second
they went to a metric-only label, some unscrupulous companies shrunk the
size of their product while keeping the price the same, hoping that
people wouldn't notice amidst the conversion.
Here's the link:
http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20Downsizing.htm
Keep in mind this is a pro-inch-pound website, but unfortunately they do
have a point here. Retailers took advantage of the conversion to reduce
milk, for example, from ~570 mL to 500 mL, with no drop in price. This
is not a problem with the metric system, of course, but anti-metrication
forces will likely use it as such.
We here in the states would do well to learn from this.
-Mike
Daniel Jackson wrote:
The answer is quite simple. The choice of units is not always that
which will make it a appear to the consumer that he is getting more
product for less money, but to confuse the consumer with units they
don't really understand so they can be sold something they thought
was more but turns out to be less and for more money.
Monitors are sold by their tube size and not by the viewable area.
Viewable areas are always smaller then the tube size. This is
deceptive but for some reason acceptable. Prior to metrication in
Europe, it was common for merchants to use deceptive measurements to
short change the customer. This practice is still common in the UK
where some merchants still used uncertified pound only scales and
often short change their customers.
For some reason, cheating of this nature is unheard of when metric
is used. It might be because metric is a legal system in all
markets and is policed better. When non-metric is used, it is
almost like a wild west scenario where anything goes and the
authorities look the other way.
I wonder how many engines that have their engine sizes stated in
kilowatts (anywhere in the world) are over stated. Most likely
there are none.
Does anyone know of any situation where there was cheating from the
use of metric units?
Dan
Carleton MacDonald
Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:36:08 -0800
That's actually a very good question.
cm
_____
From: John Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 20:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: Re: [USMA:40364] Re: No more 'horsepower' on small engines in USA
In this case, then why aren't television and computer screen sizes marketed
in centimeters?
Carleton MacDonald wrote:
It's the same reason why Canadian and UK merchants still want to promote
pricing by the pound.
The horsepower is smaller than the kilowatt. So if you can advertise your
car in horsepower, the number is bigger. Size matters.
The pound is smaller than the kilogram. So if you can advertise your apples
or steak by the pound, the price is smaller. Size still matters.
It's all about marketeering.
Carleton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
