Every beverage manufacturer spends months perfecting their recipe, weeks finalizing their label and with a considerable budget selecting just the right bottle. When it comes to closure, most companies take a half-hearted approach. Select the cheapest or most common option, throw it on top, and call it a day. While this works for a backyard hobbyist, it can come back to bite a professional manufacturer right in the wallet.
That closure on your bottle doesn’t just keep your product from spilling. It prevents oxidation, keeps carbonation levels stable, and prevents product contamination. Additionally, it’s a critical consumer touchpoint before anyone even tastes what you have to offer. An inexpensive closure that feels cheap in the hand of the consumer can undermine an otherwise premium product, and a strong, beautifully constructed closure can only reinforce those positive assumptions.
Here’s The Thing No One Wants to Address
The science of beverage production does not care about your marketing budget. Once that bottle is closed, it’s in a controlled environment that either maintains the integrity of its contents or destroys it. The closure acts as the very first line of defense against all forms of deterioration.
And air is public enemy number one. Even microscopic levels can create imbalances weeks or months down the line, changing taste profiles and colors; even destroying beverages completely. Certain closure types allow more oxygen flow than others, but for certain products this may or may not matter. Juice with a high acidity profile might be more forgiving than an intricate sparkling product that requires specific carbonation levels for months.
Furthermore, temperature considerations exist. Products will expand and contract as they go from cold to hot, and closures need to be able to keep up with the momentum. A closure that seems airtight in a temperature-controlled warehouse could fail if sitting in a hot shipping truck during a summer heat wave. Real testing trumps theoretical numbers on a test sheet.
Why More Are Making The Switch
Over the years, many companies have switched over to aluminum caps, especially for producers who pride themselves on consistency and seamless production efforts, regardless of where those products are bottled or packaged. Aluminum closures act consistently across the board which helps support one’s bottom line, especially when dealing with thousands and thousands of units. Practicality reigns supreme.
More than one element.
Production lines run more smoothly thanks to aluminum closures because they apply consistently. There’s no fear of inconsistent application creating leakers. For those smaller operations with less than advanced QA systems in place, that faith breeds less waste and fewer customer complaints.
Equally as important is consumer experience. The screw cap is easily opened with no tools necessary, no one is left trying to open a bottle on their head as if it’s an improbable punishment; no one needs to set down their bottle to get started. While this may not seem like a big deal, it matters to the younger demographic who grew up without old world closures and thrive on convenience over anything else.
The Branding Component
Visit almost any aisle dedicated to beverages and you’ll find patterns, a higher-end spirit likely uses one closure style that communicates what it’s worth; a craft soda believes in another type of closure that amplifies old world charm versus new world convenience; wine serves an entirely different narrative when it comes to its relationship with closure selection based on pricing and demographic need.
These trends happen for good reason, they communicate information before a label full of words ever does. If the closure takes significant effort to open, it might denote artisanship and exclusivity. If the closure works best with a simple twist, it operates under a consumer-first mentality of access and ease of use.
Neither of these are better than the other, but without consideration, the wrong messaging occurs and companies find themselves changing closures mid-stream – and that’s expensive. No manufacturer wants inconsistencies on shelf when the same product suddenly looks different.
Other aesthetic considerations come into play, color and finish options lend additional opportunity for branding or against it. Many companies want their closures to match their labels for seamless integration; others want complementary colors for pop appeal or contrasting closures from matte finishes for elegant restraint versus shiny assertiveness that appeals more toward accessibility.
When companies select closures on cost or availability without establishing these connections, they launch with whatever co-packer suggests, and later realize that their choice makes their packaging system secondary to their branding story. Costs associated with changing closures are associated; the least of which is customer confusion down the line.
Cost Considerations Beyond Unit Cost
Of course, unit cost per closure matters. When you’re producing thousands or tens of thousands of units, per unit profit turns into per container profit in no time flat. However, focusing only on unit cost per container overlooks everything else.
Application matters significantly. Some closures require complex capping situations with much higher upfront investments, other closures work with basic equipment that’s readily available and cheap. For contract manufacturers and co-packers, equipment lends itself to discretion because they aren’t going to buy special systems for one small operation.
Furthermore, failure rates factor in, and none of these are transparent on invoices for closures. A closure that costs two cents less per unit but has a 2% failure rate could actually cost more than a slightly more expensive option that holds firm 100% percent of the time, those failed units equate to money going down the drain regarding wasted product, wasted labor efforts, and potential brand rapport going out the window should bad items get into customers’ hands.
Storage and handling vary widely depending on the failure type as well. Some closures require specific cold storage situations; others require carful application pre-launch. For smaller operations with limited warehouse access and options, these details trump minor cost differences every time.
Making The Right Choice
What drives selection for closure above all else? Beverage type. Carbonated products differ entirely from still products; high alcohol content products employ different closures than low ones; juice products need specialized attention if they possess inclusions that can create clogging upon sealing.
Furthermore, shelf life expectations matter greatly for all types of distribution channels; anything that’s expected for quick turnover should be treated differently than national distribution efforts where products sit for a month or more, if your product needs longevity, your choice matters even more.
Distribution channels matter, even through temperature zones; direct-to-consumer options offer very different requirements than those only shelved or refrigerated.
Trying out your own product with your own closures ahead of time saves everyone hassle down the line, but unless testing occurs, through real distribution methods, different temperatures over time, companies are likely making blind selections. Let it sit for three weeks in your warehouse before testing seal strength over time? That should be done, all too often manufacturers don’t care enough about proper testing and pay the cost down the line.
Choosing a closure should be done as thoughtfully as choosing a recipe or design aesthetically, and occurs far too often as simply functional necessity or line item on production budgets, when it should include so much more at play with quality control efforts, customer experiences, production fluidity and overall branding stories from day 1 onward – getting it right saves it all down the line.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.