The direct
cost of packaging is a very small % of your total
logistics spend, but it impacts every part of your business, so choosing
packaging purely based on its direct cost is a surefire way to either cost your
business money or to leave savings on the table. In the upcoming weeks, I’ll explore
the cost drivers of packaging, including:
o
Product
Protection
o
Warehousing
There are other,
softer impacts as well, but these are more difficult to dollarize:
o
Branding
o
Administration
o
Environmental
This week
we’ll be look into the impact packaging has on product protection . Protecting parts from damage is
critical both from a cost of damages perspective and from a reputational perspective. There is a
balance between packaging cost and product protection. Typically the more protective your packaging,
the more expensive it is, therefore it’s important to optimize and hit the “sweet spot” between cost and product protection when designing packaging.
Example 1
Company X is
an Aerospace Company making Custom Engine Components that cost $50K each. They make 1000 per year. They currently buy each set of packaging as a
custom package that fits the product perfectly.
They spend $600 EA on packaging currently. Their buyer has been tasked with reducing
direct packaging costs and has found a solution for $500 EA to consolidate
their packaging. This packaging,
however, is not customized to fit the product perfectly and will therefore
increase the damage rate a bit due to increased product movement. The new product will have an increased damage
rate of .5%. These are highly sensitive
products so any product damage will
require scrapping the component and building a replacement. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that the
damage rate is going up from .5% to 1%
Description
|
$600
Option
|
$500
Option
|
Total Packaging Cost
|
$
600,000.00
|
$
500,000.00
|
Total Expected Damage Cost
|
$
250,000.00
|
$
500,000.00
|
Total
Annual Cost
|
$
850,000.00
|
$ 1,000,000.00
|
As you can
see above, even though you’ve reduced your Packaging Cost by $100K, you’ve
actually increased the total cost by $150,000.
This is the problem with evaluating packaging only by direct cost. Not only have you increased your total cost,
but you’ve also increased the likelihood of damage from 5 times per year to 10
times per year, which will have a negative effect on your company’s reputation.
In many instances,
however, where the opposite of the above is true and packaging is over-designed
and not cost effective. It’s important
to work with smart designers that can optimize packaging design and hit that
product protection sweet spot. Here’s an
example of that situation:
Example 2
Company X
works in the Energy sector. They provide
goods to the mining industry.
They have a product that costs $200 and is not particularly sensitive,
but requires some cushioning. The product
ships LTL mostly. The existing packaging is a Corrugated RSC
with a fully encompassing PE Foam cutout.
It costs $50. They sell about
10,000 of this product per year. Their
Supply Chain Manager was worried about packaging spend so they called a
packaging company to evaluate their approach to the category. The packaging company came in, redesigned the
solution, and reduced material significantly as the product didn’t need to be
fully encompassed in the foam. Without
getting too in-depth on cushioning curves (the standard way to measure foam
cushioning), there is a sweet spot where either more or less foam touch points
would actually reduce the amount of cushioning.
So, even though there was more foam before, it actually cushioned the
product less. They were able to reduce
the price to $35 EA, while improving the packaging. However for arguments sake, let’s say that
the damage increased at the same level as the Aerospace example (.5 to
1%).
Description
|
Current Option
|
Redesigned Option
|
Total Packaging Cost
|
$ 500,000.00
|
$ 350,000.00
|
Total Expected Damage Cost
|
$ 10,000.00
|
$ 20,000.00
|
Total Annual Cost
|
$ 510,000.00
|
$ 370,000.00
|
Even when damages are doubled, the
direct cost of this optimized solution is still much lower than that of the
alternative. Of course, doubling product damage will present new reputational
costs. As such, I would recommend ISTA testing whenever you change packaging
solutions to ensure it will effectively protect your products.
You can see from this example that
over-design is often a serious problem.
Another big mistake companies make when benchmarking their existing
packaging is forcing like-for-like pricing.
Companies typically do this either because changing designs internally is
a long and difficult process or because they fear new packaging won’t offer
adequate protection. The example above
shows you how much this can cost. Special
care is also necessary because packaging companies will use tricks like putting
in materials that are difficult for competitors to source even if they provide
minor (if any) structural difference over a substituted material (i.e.
Engineered Lumber vs. Regular Lumber).
Hopefully this blog helped you
understand the role that packaging plays in Product Protection. In the next part of this series I will show
how packaging impacts Warehousing Costs.
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours