Packaging Protection Report

At Datapoint Corporation in San Antonio, Texas, packaging is a serious business with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake with every new package design. According to Richard Valentine, Packaging Engineer: “We learned long ago that a detailed analysis is in order every time a new package must be designed. Certainly, our first goal is to prevent excessive damage. But we’re also well aware of the potential for unnecessary expense caused by overpacking or simply not recognizing all the costs besides material and labor that are attendant to the use of different packaging systems.”

"The two designs we compared were both found to provide adequate first-impact protection and the material and labour costs were not too different. The foam-in-place package would have been approximately 10% less at $9.52 than the polyethylene foam pack at $10.40. If we had stopped our analysis at that point we would have chosen foam-in-place. Further study indicated this would have been an unwise choice for many reasons."

To complete the total cost and performance analysis, Valentine first placed his attention on the protective ability of each package.

Valentine points out that: “Since we are dealing with products of high value, we can afford only the barest minimum of damage. Whereas both packs were found able to protect from a single drop, we were concerned about the ability of foam-in-place urethane to provide second-impact protection. Semi-rigid foam-in-place urethane protects the product by crushing under impact. So after a first drop, there is considerable loss of protective ability and less assurance of further protection. ETHAFOAM, on the other hand, is a resilient material which recovers almost completely after an initial drop. This more predictable multiple-impact protection was another point in its favor as we compared the two systems. ETHAFOAM not only helps assure lower damage rates when shipping to a customer, it also provides us with a reusable insert that will protect any units which must be returned.”

Valentine adds that: “We were also aware that the foam-in-place process requires very tight control to be sure there is consistency of performance from pack to pack. Slight errors in mixing can result in voids in the foam which make it less able to protect. ETHAFOAM polyethylene foam didn’t pose this problem, though. Density variations from part to part are extremely slight, almost to the point of insignificance. We feel very comfortable that every pack provides the same level of protection.”

Since most of these units would be shipped by air, we wanted to ensure we were getting optimum cube size to earn the most favourable rate. When this variable was entered into the cost analysis, the foam-in-place pack's apparent cost advantage was quickly erased. To protect the product adequately from even a single drop, a greater volume and thickness of urethane foam was required. As a result, the shipping container would have to be larger than the one used with the polyethylene foam pack. On average, the pack with ETHAFOAM would cost $20.25 less to ship."

"This smaller package also had an impact on warehousing costs. If we had used the foam-in-place pack, we could only place 9 units per shelf. The smaller polyethylene foam pack allowed 12 units to be stored. This seemingly small difference results in rather big dollars. We calculated we would have to add another $0.15 to the foam-in-place accounting per package to truly represent the less efficient storage space utilization."

Valentine points out there were other costs which had to be attributed to the foam-in-place system too. "We had to add in the recurring cost of shipping bulk raw urethane foam material containers to and from the supplier, the costs of special waste treatment for non-usable FIP materials, and the cost of special protective garments."

When all performance and cost measurements were taken into account, Valentine recommended ETHAFOAM polyethylene foam be used. "The choice was easy once all the homework was done. Although the foam-in-place pack was less expensive when labour and material costs were compared, the final tally which included the variables of shipping, storage, and material handling found the foam-in-place package would cost nearly three times that of the pack using ETHAFOAM. And remember we didn't even bother to go back and add in the cost of the capital investment that would have been required with the foam-in-place system."

"In short," adds Mr. Valentine, "ETHAFOAM provides superior product protection, reusability, no chemical hazards, and a lower total cost. And even with that, we have not included another very important consideration: customer satisfaction. We believe a customer deserves an attractive package. After all, they've just made a sizeable investment, so every detail should help reinforce their decision to do business with our company. By using clean, white, precise package inserts of ETHAFOAM polyethylene foam, we believe we make a contribution toward creating that feeling."