30 PW SEP2021
THE BIG PICTURE
By Sterling Anthony, CPP, Contributing Editor
Good Reasons for Package Redesign on a systems level. Examples include faster line speeds, or increased Since last month’s column was devoted to efficiencies in handling, transportation, and storage. The redesign avoiding misguided reasons for package reshould be as subtle as feasible, such that loyal consumers won’t design (pwgo.to/7277), let’s think about some good reasons to redesign. notice, or, at least, won’t object. The sequence in which the reasons will be discussed is not meant to Technology. An increased level of automation can be a good suggest an order of importance, nor does this constitute an exhaustive reason for a package redesign. Tighter tolerances can be required, list. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, either; they can overlap. for example. Another need can be making packages run more stably Product change. A package should be product-specific, its design under fast conveying. On a related note, a packaging user might reflecting the requirements of its contents. It follows, therefore, that determine that a different technology better suits its present and a change in the product could justify a package redesign. The type of future needs. One example: glue-applied labels give way to in-mold product change should be one that makes the product more attractive labeling, or perhaps full-sleeve labels. to targeted consumers: in promotional Sustainability. Packaging users are parlance, “New and improved.” Competition among packaging under constant pressure to reduce their Incidentally, that is not to be confused materials—paper, plastic, metal, environmental footprint, providing a with “New look, same great_______,” good reason for package redesign. A (fill in the blank), which implies that the glass—can justify package Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides problem was the package. redesign. One example can serve Life theory. However, in practice, it’s nonRegulatory mandates. Packaging is for many: a product in flexible discriminating, used by every packaging subject to a variety of federal agencies, their regulations having the power packaging today might be in rigid material supplier to support sustainability claims. The result is a skeptical public. to force package redesign. A familiar packaging later, or vice-versa. Therefore, it behooves packaging users example is label disclosures, requiring to undertake redesign projects that can strict compliance as to content and generate auxiliary benefits. Source-reduction is an example: given the form. The safety assessment of structural components of packaging often-hurled accusation of “over-packaging,” reductions (that don’t is another province of agencies. Even if an agency allows a certain sacrifice performance) accrue to the bottom line. component’s use (such as with BPA), its prior bad publicity can be Structural changes. Competition among packaging materials— a good reason for a package redesign. Examples are the variety of paper, plastic, metal, glass—can justify package redesign. One packages with labels declaring, “BPA-free.” example can serve for many: a product in flexible packaging today Expand distribution. It’s about place utility: making goods might be in rigid packaging later, or vice-versa. Any such change physically available to potential consumers as widely as possible. The must satisfactorily fulfill the functions of protection, containment, larger retailers, exercising their power within the supply chain, can communication, convenience, and utility. Beyond that, packaging dictate packaging requirements to packaging users. It’s not always users undertake structural redesign for a variety of reasons, possible about a redesign of the primary package, but can influence secondary ones being forecasts (availability and prices) or consumer preferences. packaging, too. That’s the idea behind retail-ready packaging (RRP). Competitor’s initiative. A competitor makes a splash with a Tertiary packaging is not exempt, as proven by sell-from-pallet package design, putting others in the position of having to decide displays favored by “big-box” stores. how to respond. Choices include dismiss (not recommended), Growth and scale. From humble beginnings, a company increases acknowledge but stand pat, copy, one-upmanship, and something sales, extends its brands into other categories, and needs packaging more measured. The choice should be commensurate with the that projects its new size and scope. The more logical and wellperceived threat, yet consistent with a forward-thinking use of managed the journey has been, the easier it will be to achieve a package redesign as a component of competitive strategy. If not, package redesign that encompasses the ideals that define the brand. a company can find itself constantly reacting instead of practicing On the single category level, growth and scale can be justification for proactive management. going from a stock package to a customized package. There being a myriad of reasons, of varying validity, for package Cost savings. The objective is not just “cheaper” packaging. Price redesign, the question is: What’s a reliable method for avoiding the reductions are subject to diminishing returns, and, at some point, bad and choosing the good? That’s the topic of the concluding article negatively affect performance. A redesigned package can carry the of this series. Look for it next month. PW same price (or even a slightly higher one) yet result in cost savings
BigPicture_0921.indd 30
8/17/21 3:44 PM
