The Dawn of Dynamic Contract Packaging Relationships
Over the past 10 years the cost of effective information systems consistently has dropped. Today even smaller contract packagers can produce robust data in formats tailored to the specific needs of consumer product goods companies. Continuous replenishment real-time information on WIP and lead times and the ability to react rapidly to changing market demands are all possible for contract packagers.
The range of available outsourced services has increased dramatically and the willingness of suppliers to accept more financial risk is driving growth in the contract packaging industry. Contract packagers’ willingness to invest heavily and accept more working capital risk is being driven by the increasing larger revenue opportunities available from the consolidating brands.
These in turn are being driven by the consolidation of their customers-the retailers. For example even some publicly traded companies outsource all of their manufacturing and package production to “virtual” plants owned by contract packagers.
The changing market offers more latitude to packagers with respect to how much financial risk they are prepared to take on behalf on their customers and it offers manufacturers the opportunity to structure contract packaging relationships in a way to further multiple strategic goals. The accompanying list compares the supply relationship changes that have occurred over the past 10 years.
Consumer company perspective
The relationship with a contract packager can be dynamic with the supplier providing a full range of services including acting as a complete virtual plant with full responsibility from raw material purchases through delivery to the customer. Based on a consumer goods company’s individual growth plans financial strategies and access to capital its relationship with its contract packager can be structured as a win-win and can have a substantial positive effect on working capital capital spending information systems and internal business processes.
• The co-packer can be a financial partner as well as a supplier by entering into agreements that shift financial risks to the supplier in exchange for a share of the upside economics.
• Consumer goods companies can enter into agreements that provide cost-reduction incentives to each party. These combine the co-packer’s ability to improve with the consumer goods companies.
• Contract packagers are more inclined to take significant financial risk for projects that would shift the manufacturing process from labor-intensive to capital-intensive.
Contract packager’s perspective
To be competitive contract packagers have to adapt to a supply channel that is consolidating at virtually every level. Long-term viability will be a function of:
• The commitment to invest an increasing amount of capital to finance a customer’s working capital and to make specific capital expenditures on a customer’s behalf.
• The commitment to invest in information technology systems and people
• Developing a clear industry strategy.
• Doing what it takes to supply large customers.
• The ability to serve multiple customers.
Services offered by the classic co-packer:
1. The basic financial relationship is one-dimensional - fixed price per unit with the customer buying materials and packaging
2. Rent machine time
3. Take no working capital risk
4. Typical products are short runs seasonal in/outs; automated straight pallets or hand packed variety packs; regional packaging requirements and samples
Services offered by today’s dynamic CP partner:
1. The financial relationship is multi-dimensional.
2. Source and purchase raw materials and packaging
3. Assist in packaging design
4. Jointly develop new product formulas and prototypes
5. Package retail displays and mixed pallets
6. Financing and warehousing a customer’s inventories
7. Open information systems for real-time reporting on production status
8. Commit to significant capital spending for specific customers
9. Arrange transportation/logistics
10. Full-service partner offering a “virtual” plant or a plant-in-a-plant











Comments(0)
Add new comment