I asked them why ‘what I thought was a pound of buffalo chicken wings’ seemed to be weighing 410g, and whether the prices were being reduced with this reduction of quantity, and they admitted that they were reducing the quantity as a substitute for raising the prices of their goods. They did not say whether we were meant to spot that, but… it’s a bit obvious. So, they admitted to participating in the metric rip-off!

Please write to or email them (to do the latter you can go to this address: http://www.iceland.co.uk/ext_11/web/customer%20care.nsf/icec?openform )
Their postal address is:-
Iceland Foods plc
Second Avenue
Deeside Industrial Park
Deeside
Flintshire CH5 2NW

This is the reply I got from them:-
"Hello Frederick

Thank you for your email regarding the weights of our products. Firstly, we
have to put the weight in metric to keep in line with the European regulations.
With regard to the weight going down this is done to avoid raising the price of
the product. When the price of raw materials or the price of a product from our
supplier goes up, we lower the weight slightly to avoid raising the price.

I hope that this explains the confusion.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Kind Regards

Ellen Pearson
Iceland Customer Care"

It really is quite simple: inflation is always a positive figure so prices are generally increased over time. This is just a different way of doing it and the metric system has little or nothing to do with it.

Had all of this happened when it should have done (ie the 1970s and 80s) then such quantity reductions would still be happening now.

Like having a bag of crisps with just one crisp in it?

Smiths Crisps went from 1 oz (28g) to 27g to 24g.

<<
Smiths Crisps went from 1 oz (28g) to 27g to 24g.
>>

At worst you mighht be able to blame the 28g to 27g shrinkage on metrication, but there is no way that you can blame the 27g to 24g shrinkage on metrication.

It should be noted of course that neither 28 nor 27 are round numbers, so the case for blaming the 28g to 27g shrinkage on metrication is rather weak.

<<
They did not say whether we were meant to spot that, but… it’s a bit obvious.
>>

If it's so obvious what's the problem?

<<
So, they admitted to participating in the metric rip-off!
>>

Those are your words Frederick. They admitted nothing.

Frederick,

Sorry I was a bit unfair above. On further consideration.

You could write back to them and point out that reducing the weight for the same price does not amount to absorbing the increase in material cost.

If they charge the same for a lesser quantity that is exactly the same as an increase in price.

"Smiths Crisps went from 1 oz (28g) to 27g to 24g."

I could see a metrication change as being from 1 oz to 25 g, but 28 to 27 seems strange. In this case there is no 'mileage' in blaming metrication for the second reduction.

Indeed, in overall terms there is little scope in this area anyway. It is not the principle of metrication which causes such shrinkages, it is naughty traders using the changeover to cover up what they're doing. Blame capitalism and the desire for profit, not the system of measurement.

Blame Capitalism?
Have to seen the state of my share portfolio?

[grumble grumble]

It is quite obvious that that members of the BWMA have absolutely no concept of basic economics. To blame downsizing on metrication has got to make the BWMA the laughing stock of the business world.

Downsizing is a very common practice that is independant of what system is used. Metric plays no part. Governments prefer down sizing to raising prices, because it makes inflation figures look less then what they really are. If businesses kept their sizes the same and raised prices, then inflation figures would be much higher then what they are reported now. Also, it can scare customers away from buying their product.

When downsizing was practiced before metrication, whom did the BWMA blame it on then? Or was it not an issue? It seems like the BWMA is very desparately in need of ammuntion when it has to stoop to such a low level.

But please do keep it up. It only helps the metric cause even more.

<<
Governments prefer down sizing to raising prices, because it makes inflation figures look less then what they really are.
>>

When the government is calculating inflation (CPI), don't they make sure they are comparing the same product's price from year to year? If a pound costs $1 this year and 15 oz. costs $1 next year, that is inflation, even if the price hasn't increased.

Bud, in reality Governments change the rules so frequently that the results become meaningless unless some expert is called on to interpret them.

When the government is calculating inflation (CPI), don't they make sure they are comparing the same product's price from year to year? If a pound costs $1 this year and 15 oz. costs $1 next year, that is inflation, even if the price hasn't increased.


Response:

They have no way of knowing that. They just look at actual price increases and not downsizing. That is why they like the concept. This way the government can present a less inflated economy to the voters.

Sizes and prices can go up and down in either metric or UK/US. The point about the UK's downsizing in metric is that the UK units were removed beforehand, depriving consumers of information in terms that they understand. For instance, many customers pick up litre milk cartons, assuming that they are two-pint cartons. Prices are not adjusted and the producer makes an effectively "hidden" price increase.

Sizes and prices can go up and down in either metric or UK/US. The point about the UK's downsizing in metric is that the UK units were removed beforehand, depriving consumers of information in terms that they understand.

Reply:

After being educated in metric for more then 30 years and aware that most products now come in metric sizes and have so for a long time, I highly doubt that UK consumers don't understand the information. You are putting thoughts into peoples heads.

Even in the US, where downsizing is prevalent, the use of FFU on labels does not cause the product to be more obvious to downsizing. People really don't spend a lot of time looking at sizes and prices. They buy the product because they like the taste or it is packaged in a pretty box. In many cases a downsized product may be made to look the same or bigger (such as a potato chip bag being filled with air to give appearance of more fullness).

It is consumer protection groups whose job it is to take notice of changes and report it that we hear the reports about downsizing.

You put too much into this downsizing practice, only because you have found away to blame it on metrication and to make metrication look like a bad thing. How would you explain downsizing if all the products were returned to FFU and it still was happening? Which it would.



For instance, many customers pick up litre milk cartons, assuming that they are two-pint cartons. Prices are not adjusted and the producer makes an effectively "hidden" price increase.

Reply:

That tells me they are not able to recognise a pint when they see it. This was verified in Canada in the '70s when the MCC (Metric commission Canada) set up survey booths in supermarkets and malls and had people guess what size container they were looking at. The surveys proved that consumers did not know FFU like they claimed they did.

Now how many years ago did milk switch to litre containers? One should be completely adjusted to the changes after 2 or 3 purchases. If not, it really proves that people can't grasp quantities no matter what system and the proble would persist even if they were in pints and not litres.

Of course peoples inabilities when metric units are present make a good argument against metric. When the same inabilities are noticed with FFU, nothing is said.

I still don't get this thing about downsizing to mask price increases. The consumer price index has to take into account the size of a product.
For example, in the US, gasoline (petrol) is currently sold by the US gallon. If they were to switch to liters, would they be able to claim that the price of gasoline has gone down by a factor of almost four?

<<<After being educated in metric for more then 30 years and aware that most products now come in metric sizes and have so for a long time, I highly doubt that UK consumers don't understand the information. You are putting thoughts into peoples heads.>>>>

Care to comment on the re-introduction of imperial into the syllabus in the 90's? And why?

Oh, sorry, I was talking about my native "Britain". Who were you talking about?

"Care to comment on the re-introduction of imperial into the syllabus in the 90's? And why?"

I recently saw an edition of KS2 Bitesize Revision on units of measurement.

Curiously, there was no mention of non-metric units at all.

The commentary advised parents that they could help their children learn metric units by experience around the home, in particular through the labels on household products. Of course, thanks to governmental inaction the opportunities for this are not as widespread as they might otherwise be.

The commentary said:

"Make sure your child knows units of measurement. For length it's metres, centimetres and millimetres; for weight it's kilograms and grams; and for capacity it's litres and millilitres. First of all, make sure that you know these units yourself; you don't want to get it wrong."

Indeed metric measures take primacy in schools before Imperial. I was at school in the 80's when imperial got dropped.

Imperial is now taught so that kids are familiar with those measures still in common use today (ie no need to learn about leagues, grains etc).

Kids need to learn metric for the scientific reason plus the international nature of metric. Imperial should be learned so kids are familiar with living life in the UK. I guess it can be seen in the same light as learning music.

Learning more is more useful than learning less. There is plenty of space in the brain to allow for an interesting life as well as an official knowledge of science and international cargo trade.

Actually - when was the last time you needed to recall pythagorus's theory? Probably over a pint in the pub!

I was not saying that I oppose the inclusion of imperial in the National Curriculum, simply that KS2 tests don't seem to focus on it much if at all.

As for Pythagoras's Theorem, we use it everytime we choose to cut across the grass instead of walking round. (I try to avoid cutting across.)

SteveH wrote

<<
Actually - when was the last time you needed to recall pythagorus's theory? Probably over a pint in the pub!
>>

I have certainly used Pythagoras in anger a number of times this year. I have also used differentiation in anger this year.

'In anger'?

<<
In anger?
>>

By that I meant that I was solving a real life problem and being paid to do so.

I furiously used long division today.

Whilst lividly preparing a copper sulphate solution.

Thank God I went to school!

Martin: "I have certainly used Pythagoras in anger a number of times this year."

Ditto. I use it in electronics work all the time.