Perspectives: Sue Phillips, Scenterprises Ltd.
Sue Phillips
Industry members weigh in on the argument to stop overpackaging products.
At a recent Cosmetic Executive Women event, attendees were given goodie bags filled with wonderful beauty products. The creams, lotions, mascaras, and treatment products were such fun to experience—and I am thankful to the companies that provided the products. However, one thing did put a damper on my enjoyment of the products—overpackaging.
Among the items in my goodie bag, a foaming moisturizing product was very overpackaged. The primary container was solid plastic, yet this container was encased in yet another very sturdy, very difficult-to-open plastic cylindrical secondary package. Also, an antiwrinkle skin cream package looked wonderful—but why did it need to have a heavy plastic overcap on top of an already-protective primary overcap? There are many other examples that I can cite, but I have made my point.
Not only would it be environmentally correct to reduce the overpackaging of products, but it would also lower the cost of packaging. These savings can be passed on to the consumer. Now is the time for companies to be innovative and not overpackage products simply to make products seem deceptively larger to the consumer.
I recently started a message board on the subject of overpackaging on LinkedIn.com. Below are some comments from industry colleagues.
Ron Robinson, founder and CEO, BeautyStat.com
I agree that companies need to do a better job at this. I think they focus on making sure that packaging protects the product inside during shipping, as well as making sure that it is merchandised well on the counter or shelf. There needs to be more of a focus on being environmentally friendly as well.
Susan Tait Porcaro, president, 2 Lips Art & Design
I can’t stand overpackaging. It’s so wasteful. I think that companies overpackage to make us think we’re getting more product than we actually are!
Simmone Wainwright, independent beauty consultant, Mary Kay Cosmetics
Mary Kay corporate has done and is doing a great job of greening its packaging. The company used to package eye and cheek colors in a plastic container, and then seal the container in a plastic bag. Now, the products are covered with a plastic holder—and that’s it. They company has also enhanced its already environmentally friendly compacts, making the compacts smaller and with fewer movable parts.
Doug Schoon, president, Schoon Scientific & Regulatory Consulting
My opinion is that sometimes marketers put too much focus on packaging and too little focus on what’s inside the package. Some would rather sacrifice quality and efficacy for cool packaging. I’ve seen a lot of fancy packages filled with mediocre products. That’s not in the best interest of consumers, nor is it in the best long-term interest of the company, our industry, or the environment.
I think the consumer likes nice packaging, but not as much as marketers do. I’ve never met a marketer that didn’t love to use lots of cool packaging, but I think that sometimes, too much emphasis is placed on this. I do agree that a larger than necessary package is sometimes needed to prevent shoplifting, but I think that our industry could get by with less, in general. Then, some of the money that is saved can be put toward creating a better product to put inside the container.
My experience is often that packaging, containers, labels, closures, etc., cost more than the product itself. Selling an image is certainly important, but what good is that if the product doesn’t perform as promised or expected? I saw a statistic that 7 out of 10 newly launched retail cosmetic products are off the shelf within a year due to lack of repeat sales. A focus on performance instead of packaging might help prevent this.
I’m not so naive to think that generic packaging is the way to go. Great graphics are eye candy that entice consumers to make a purchase. But, like anything, packaging investments can be taken to an extreme. I think that consumers care about sustainability, and so should smart manufacturers. That’s the future reality we must all face, but there is a bright side. If consumers are demanding that fewer packaging materials be used, it’s a great opportunity to invest in better ingredients and to include useful concentrations of those ingredients. Then, everybody wins.
Patrick Etchaubard, consultant, Gerresheimer Glass Inc.
The bigger, the better, for perceived value. I know it is wrong, but it is the reality for most cosmetic companies today. It’s the same with perfume companies and gift sets at Christmastime. What a waste!
JoAnn Hines, Packaging For People And Products
I agree that many cosmetic packages might be overpackaged. But before you criticize overpackaging, you need to understand what goes on behind the scenes that you don’t see. You have to protect, convey, and keep a product secure from tampering throughout a very rigorous supply and distribution chain.
Most product packaging errs on the side of caution to ensure that products arrive undamaged at their ultimate destination—you, the consumer. Consider how angry customers would be if they purchased a product, only to find it damaged.
Much of cosmetic packaging is oriented to help sell or merchandise the product, too. Would you buy an expensive cosmetic product in a plain, ordinary package? For most companies, packaging is the “silent salesperson.” It has to sell the product and explain what’s contained within. The average person only takes 2.6 seconds to make a purchasing decision, so the package better be on target with the right message.
There has to be a meeting of the minds about the reduction of product packaging. It’s too simple to call for less packaging when in many cases, the packaging is necessary to protect the product. Companies need to rethink the entire packaging equation. Less packaging is not necessarily better. Packaging needs to be designed with a common goal in mind, to get the products to consumers in pristine condition yet satisfy their desires for less waste and less packaging.
I have seen a few good eco-friendly cosmetic examples such as the biodegradable paper jar, Lush’s little or no packaging concept, and, most recently, Origins’ recycling program. One thing to be cognizant of is that there is a lessening of the green movement due to the economy. People do want greener product packaging provided that they don’t have to pay more for it. All things being equal, they will choose a greener packaging option.
Handinata Lohita, account manager, Lubrizol
I agree that marketing will always encourage nice packaging—it is the spirit of marketing. In some cases, packaging might cost as much as the products themselves. Customers deserve a high-quality product, including its packaging, with the most reliable price. I would like us to think about what we can do to consider using proper packaging more than overpackaging—and how this could be applied to expensive products for which image is part of the sale value.
I think that packaging companies would be well served to take note of all of these comments. By the way, these comments are not just relevant to the cosmetics industry. We should try to make all consumer packaging easier to open. The number of times that I have struggled to open packages that are overwrapped, oversealed, and downright so difficult to open that I have had to resort to using a knife or a pair of scissors to open them is ridiculous.
I agree that a product has to be protected to keep a product secure through a very rigorous supply and distribution chain. I am also very mindful of the fact that we are in the cosmetic and fragrance industry, so packaging must be compelling and exciting. It is definitely the “silent salesman.” The product still needs to “pop” at the counter! However, companies can be just as innovative and creative without massive amounts of wasteful overpackaging.