Any decision to poor package design will almost necessarily result in increased unit costs in mass production. Manufacturing inefficity does not cause most packaging cost problems, but rather the unnecessary design choices at the earliest stages that are reviewed at the latest stages.
Most of the brands are so concentrated on the bargaining of lower prices of materials or identifying cheaper suppliers but ignore how the structural decisions, tolerances, and material specifications can influence increase of labor costs, wastage, establishment periods, and the rejection. The myth that the cost increases are primarily caused by factory-side problems is a simple way of ignoring the truth: complexity and inadequate feasibility decisions made during the design phase makes the cost grow exponentially when the scale of production is considered.
Why Packaging Design Decisions Have a Direct Impact on Cost
The production effort, efficiency and scalability is directly dependent on the decision made on packaging design.
The design can be characterized by structure, materials, and tolerances based on the amount of labor, machine time, and rework needed. A seemingly trivial choice, such as adding an additional fold, or defining excessively narrow tolerances, can cause more time to be spent in setups, as well as to slow down assembly lines and reduce the number of defects. These effects tend to be concealed in the prototyping or in the small-scale production, and it is only when the order is in terms of thousands or tens of thousands of units that they become apparent, and expensive.
The initial cost estimates are often not real since designers and brand departments do not consider any full-scale manufacturing realities, e.g., die-cutting restrictions, gluing speeds or material behavior at high-speed production.
The following is how the common design decisions can be translated into impacting cost:
| Design Decision | Cost Impact |
| Complex structure | Higher labor and assembly cost |
| Tight tolerances | Increased rejection rate |
| Material over-specification | Higher unit material cost |
| Unstable design | Rework and delays |
Mistake #1: Over-Complex Structural Design
The most common reasons of inflated costs of production are overly complicated structures.
Redundant folds, overlapping layers, interlocked parts, or ornate cut outs lead to labor consumption. Every step further – be it manual gluing, accurate folding or component placement- would decrease the speed of assembly and increase the possibility of misalignment or flaws development.
When the production volume is large, few additional seconds per unit can count. Simple repeatable structures enable high machine running speeds, reduced set up times and reduced operator interventions which are much more scalable.
As far as manufacturing is concerned, the optimal structures are those that focus on straight-line gluing, reduced number of parts and designs that can operate repeatedly on regular equipment without the need to reconfigure the equipment frequently.
Mistake #2: Ignoring Manufacturing Feasibility During Design
Designs that seem fine in a sample or drawing can be difficult to deal with when they are put into mass production.
In most brand teams, the packaging is developed without the early consultation of engineering in the manufacturing process and so the features are created in such a manner that they push the tooling, have to be custom made dies or a manual operation that is slow in speed. Disregarding process limits such as largest die size, fold angle, or registration being, cause redesigns late in the design that may uproot schedules and may incur tooling, or set up cost.
Some typical oversights that occur in feasibility are:
- Constructions, which cannot operate on high-speed folder-gluers without clogging.
- Strict registration controls that add waste to print set up.
- Features that require a pass or special equipment that is not available in most factories.
- Designs of low sensitivity to small changes in materials which result in non-uniform quality at volume.
Premature cooperation with manufacturers avert these problems and preclude the covert expense of any modifications when tooling is set.
Mistake #3: Choosing Materials Without Cost Scalability in Mind
The choices in material selection are usually based on the first impression or testing on the sample, which increases the cost on a larger scale.
Some of the materials exhibit price volatility or lack of availability among the suppliers or high rates of wastages in the conversion process. Other categories of others may differ in thickness or quality across batches, leading to rejections or rework. Production delays on problems to do with availability may be experienced or they may lead to mid-run switches to costly alternatives.
In this way, the cost is impacted by material choice issues:
| Material Choice Issue | Cost Consequence |
| Limited availability | Price volatility |
| High waste rate | Increased unit cost |
| Inconsistent thickness | Quality rejections |
The use of materials that have consistent supply chains, are convertible and predictable in their behavior during the die-cutting, printing and gluing process assists in ensuring that the units costs remain constant across multiple orders.
Mistake #4: Treating Samples as Cost-Accurate References
Sample costs are not normally a true mass-production economics.
Prototyping and pilot production are often characterized by hand assembly, slow-speed machines and increased unit overhead. Manual samples conceal inefficient labor which prevails on automated, large scale runs. Use of these initial prices results in underestimation of the ultimate unit prices by the brands.
When the production is shifted to full-scale lines, there also appears hidden factors, which are longer setup time, higher waste percentage, and lower throughput. Brands whose budgets are based on sample pricing often suffer erosion of the margin or unexpected price increments on repeat orders.
Mistake #5: Correcting Design Problems After Production Starts
It is much more costly to make changes after the production is approved or is under active run than to curb the problems at the very beginning.
Redesigns after approval lead to new tooling, or reprinting plates or scraping materials, which usually stops the lines and shipments get delayed. Stocks accumulated under old design will be rendered redundant, occupying capital or writing down.
The delayed corrections also interfere with the relationship with the suppliers, and cause rush charges. Pre-manufacturing (before the die is cut) consultations with manufacturing partners are nearly always cheaper than correcting them after they have been entrenched in production.
For more on achieving cost-efficient packaging design, see our guide at
How Manufacturing-Aware Design Reduces Long-Term Costs
Intense, manufacturing conscious design reduces labor needs, defects and fluctuations in costs.
Repeatable stable structures execute quicker with less number of interventions and less direct labor and indirect overheads. The importance of designs that observe process boundaries is to reduce waste, rejects, and rework and keep the unit cost predictable even at a large volume or when repeating a design.
The real cost control starts before even production begins- when design decisions can still be made and changes can be made at little cost.
Conclusion — Cost Control Starts at the Design Stage
Majority of the packaging cost issues are design based rather than production based. Complexity, poor feasibility, unscalable materials, and late adjustments result in unnecessary costs, which are incurred over time.
Efficiency in packaging is realized when the design decisions are taken considering the manufacturing reality to avoid the unnecessary complexity to the design and the high cost increase over time. The early awareness of the problem is much better than attempting to correct it afterwards.