It used to be that cosmetics and perfume companies used co-packers because of the seasonal variation in volume combined with a huge volume of different SKUs.  Co-packers were largely oriented to  this industry. Today the line between co-packers and co-manufacturers is blurring and so is the functionality to brand owners.

Today we see private label manufacturers acting as co-manufacturers for major consumer products brands. These co-manufacturers are making and packaging products according to the specifications of the  brand owner. At the same time the co-manufactuere may be making a house brand and private label brands.  Increasingly, these manufacturers are buying equipment that is specific to the brand owner’s product.

When we first noticed this trend, we found we were being introduced by the brand owner to the co-manufacturer, since the brand owner was specifying both the process and the equipment to be used.

Today we are more likely to be dealing with the co-manufacturer who is choosing the equipment that meets the the customer’s process specifications.  Sometimes we are in contact with the brand owner but often we no longer have direct responsibility to the brand owner and they are unaware of the equipment being used to package their products.

We see a trend to more sophisticated decision-making and performance by co-manufacturers. Those co-manufacturers have depth and expertise in the products they make. Most recently we have seen this in soap and paper products, and historically in food products.

Issues we come across include co-manufacturers not being not the brand owners. This means they are less clear about how packaging reflects the brand owner’s values. At the same time, brand owners are disconnected from the manufacturing process and the packaging process and are unable to align their brand values with the production opportunities.

Co-packers who handle only the packaging of the product, not its manufacture have grown more slowly in recent years and are still carefully about aligning their packaging with the brand owner’s product requirements.

If you are thinking about outsourcing your production or packaging, have clear discussions about how the brand values will be impacted, about how changes in SKUs or packaging will be handled. If you are the co-manufacturer, have clarity around the manufacturing and packing constraints that the brand manager thinks are important and what is cost-effective for both of you. Flexible equipment makes it possible to reuse the equipment for future applications as well as for intended changes on existing products.

Let us know how we can support both parties in achieving effective product wrapping. Here are case studies of projects we have done with a link to a video.

For more information contact us at sales@pacaakgemachinery.com

Consumers are becoming savvy about packaging, too.

Consumers have been environmentally conscious for decades, but never has “reduce, reuse, recycle” been more meaningful to consumers than in this economic downturn. Suddenly the depression-era frugality of their grandparents has become the wisdom of consumerism in an age that closely mirrors the economy of the 30’s.

Many of today’s consumers evaluate the environmental impact of the packaging as well as the product inside. In fact, a recent survey found that “significantly more shoppers state they would like to choose environmentally friendly packaging compared to 2010 (36% vs 28%), with fully half still willing to pay more (despite the economy).”¹ They want to feel like they’re doing something to help reduce our carbon footprint and helping to dispel the country’s reputation as a “disposable society.”

Film wrap, although it can be recycled, isn’t always easy to recycle. Not all recycling centers accept all films and they are not labeled as to material of origin. That can frustrate an environmentally conscious consumer… and a manufacturer whose product requires a wrap for protection, enhancement and tamper evidence. The solution is for manufacturers to minimize the material used and to consider bio-sourced and compostable films.

If overwrapping is not a option, then Package Machinery has a solution. An energy-efficient, air-tight, size-forgiving new line of wrapping machines, the TFW-380 Flow Wrapper.  They offer the same warranty as our overwrappers and will receive the same strong level of support.

Your company may be in the midst of reviewing its internal practices and procedures to find ways to reduce waste and energy consumption. There may be mandates in place requiring measurable decreases in both. Once those are achieved, it’s likely the results will be used to market your company’s commitment to sustainability. It’s not just about compliance anymore; it’s about opportunity and growth.

If you’re still using shrink wrap, look at our current line of overwrappers or our new line of flow wrappers.  You’ll save 20 % on film; cut your energy use in half and increase your company’s appeal to the growing number of environmentally conscious consumers.

¹ packagingdigest.com “Packaging Consumers Keen to Go Green”, March 13, 2012

Then I moved on to  read an article in The Guardian (UK) entitled Edible Packaging: Fancy a Wrap?,which came to me courtesy of The Packaging Diva. This discusses the possibility of making a food product where the container could be eaten with the product itself. While we at Package Machinery are definitely into packaging minimization, the idea of having no packaging afterward at all is a new and intriguing one. After all it will still need packaging, even if it does not require post-consumer processing.

And while most advice is recycling is the best, since it reuses the ingredients in the packaging, I leave you with one more thought from Earth911 Wow! I  Can Compost That? which will let you know what things you have been throwing away can  be turned into compost.

Between now and then, Package Machinery still making low material consuming wrapping machines which can run compostable material if you have not yet invented the edible package.

We have recognized over the years that overwrappers are the most economical operating wrapping machines. They use the least material and energy of all automated forms of wrapping consumer products. However they are not the complete barrier seal that certain products require. Extending the shelf life of certain food products, such as those containing nuts or fruits, is more important than minimizing the packaging.

For that reason, we are choosing to import and support a line of economical and highly functional flow wrappers, the TFW series. We believe that this in the best interests of our customers. The machines we are selling have a track record of steady performance in the US and we are confident that customers who buy them will see the value in them.

They will carry the same warranty as our over wrappers and will receive the same strong support. They will broaden our ability to serve our customers and expand  on our strong wrapping expertise.

This means that PET can be made from raw materials other than petroleum but it does not change what is done with the PET post-consumer. The Plant Bottle may be sourced from plants, at least in part, but it is not compostable at all, since its chemical structure is the same as PET from typical sources.

On the other hand, bottles can also be made from PLA (polylactic acid), whose raw material is also plants (usually sugar or corn). PLA can not be recycled post-consumer the same way as PET, since its chemical structure is different from PET. Putting PLA bottles in the PET recycling stream contaminates the waste stream and makes it all unusable. PLA can be composted in an industrial composting operation. This is not for home composting, since a home compost cannot generate the necessary heat to make the composting process work.

FYI, all of this stuff can be burned in a cogen facility, but that may not be the highest or best use.

If you wonder why consumers are confused, trying to keep this straight and be responsible in their purchases is stress inducing.

Some of these same options exist in film and its alternatives. We have tested PLA film and cellulose films, although the most common film used inwrapping is Polypropylene, most commonly BOPP (biaxially oriented polypropylene).

For more information about what are the choices and  properties of various wrapping materials, look at  our whitepapers, specifically the Guide to Wrapping Materials.

On the consumer end, the reality is that this only works if there is a large volume of recyclable material associated with the product name (Coke has a recycling subsidiary for cans and bottles) or where the brand owners values are closely entwined with social responsibility (Stonyfield Yogurt is partnering with Whole Foods to recycle its #5 plastic yogurt containers and Starbucks is recycling its cups if customers put them in the appropriate container in the store).

I have a great deal of respect for those companies that are thinking ahead of their consumers and anticipating where they want to go. The problem is that overloaded and price-pinched consumers are confused and hurried. Figuring out at the time of purchase what to do with packaging requires effort.  In the most recent research conducted by Perception Research Services, more shoppers report the would like to choose environmentally friendly packaging compared to 2010 (36% vs. 28%), but they are frustrated by the information provided (26%vs. 20%) and confused by the environmental claims made (20%vs. 12%).

Those statements having to do with recycling are better recognized by consumer and have more impact on buying. Perception Research Services also noticed a significant increase in shoppers checking to see if a package can be recycled prior to buying it. Two thirds of shoppers self-report that they recycle on a regular basis.

Perception Research Services’ EVP Jonathan Asher concludes that there is ” a great opportunity for manufacturers to provide truly value-added packaging to their target shoppers by making it more environmentally friendly- primarily in the form of recyclability and recycled content – and clearly communicating these aspects.”

Cone Communications reports that 69% of American consumers routinely or sometime consider the environment when making a purchasing decision. 90% report that they are motivated to buy an environmental product if they think it will save them time or money. 42% report they are most influenced by information about how to dispose of a product. This is likely due to their ability to control that.

While we recognize that the consumable  in the wrapping process- film or paper –  is not easily recycled due to its volume, we want our customers to be aware of what is possible for all their packaging.

Since we recognize that the consumer will not recycle wrapping material, the push at Package Machinery is for minimizing the manufacturer’s energy and material costs, as they relate to wrapping. Since more than half of consumers continue to believe in common environmental marketing terms, reduction of material and/or energy used in production allows the manufacturer to claim its product is “green” or “environmentally friendly” which has a positive (36%) or neutral (18%) impact on the consumer’s perception of the product.  This needs to be backed up by data for those consumers who dig deep.

On April 3, I am off to the Sustainable Packaging Symposium in Houston. Look for more from me on this topic after that.

For those interested in running at higher speeds, we can handle that and still give you the benefit of servo wrapping: 65% fewer moving parts to break, need adjustment or replacement during changeover from one size to another. For running at 120-150 per minute, you need a pocketed infeed, rotary tuckers and possibly a fold back overhead transport that are not pictured here.

Give us a call at +1.413.732.4000 or email sales@packagemachinery.com if learning more about this application is important to you.