Custom packaging tends to get ruled out quickly. Not because it has been properly costed (and not because it has been tested), but because there is a general assumption that anything bespoke must automatically cost more than something taken off the shelf. On the surface, that seems to make sense. A stock carton has a clear unit price, and a custom solution often shows a slightly higher one. The problem is that the unit price is often not the number that determines what packaging costs your business over time.
Why Unit Price is the Wrong Starting Point
Most procurement decisions begin with a spreadsheet comparison. One column shows a stock box at a lower per-unit rate, while the other shows a custom option that costs a few pence more. If you only look at that line, the decision looks obvious. But experienced operations teams know that packaging does not exist in isolation. It moves through warehouses, onto vehicles, into customer hands, and sometimes back again. Every stage carries cost implications for businesses to consider.
Harvard Business Review has written extensively about Total Cost of Ownership in procurement decisions, arguing that focusing purely on purchase price often hides downstream costs that exceed the initial saving. Packaging fits that pattern perfectly. The cheapest box to buy is not always the cheapest box to use.
The Hidden Costs of Stock Packaging
Stock packaging is designed to suit as many products as possible. Your product is unlikely to be average, and that gap between ‘generic’ and ‘specific’ is where costs begin to creep in.
If we take void space, for example, we can see this play out. If a carton is larger than it needs to be, you compensate with void fill. That adds material cost, but more importantly, it increases dimensional weight. Carriers do not just charge based on what something weighs. They charge based on how much space it occupies, and so over time, shipping air becomes surprisingly expensive.
Deloitte’s supply chain cost analysis frequently highlights transport efficiency as one of the most significant drivers of overall operational spend. Reducing even small amounts of unused space per parcel can have a measurable impact when multiplied across thousands of shipments.
Damage is another quiet contributing element. When products move inside oversized boxes, the risk of transit damage increases. A one percent return rate linked to packaging may not sound dramatic, but across a year of trading it can represent a substantial financial drain once replacement goods, reverse logistics and customer service time are factored in.
Then there is labour. If your team needs to cut down cartons, improvise internal fitments, add excessive tape, or overfill with padding, those extra seconds accumulate. McKinsey & Company’s procurement research consistently shows that operational efficiency gains often outweigh marginal price reductions in sourcing decisions.
Five seconds saved per pack does not sound like much until you multiply it by daily volume. Storage also plays a role. Businesses relying heavily on stock packaging often carry multiple box sizes to accommodate different SKUs. That massively increases inventory complexity and warehouse space usage. A more tailored packaging format can very much reduce the number of variants needed, which simplifies forecasting and stock management.
None of these factors are dramatic on their own. But together, they can easily outweigh the apparent saving on unit price.
Understanding Total Cost of Ownership in Packaging
Total Cost of Ownership is very much not an abstract financial theory. In fact, in packaging terms, it just means looking at the entire lifecycle cost rather than stopping at purchase price. That includes freight implications, damage rates, labour time, storage footprint, waste disposal and even brand perception where presentation affects repeat business.
When you step back and evaluate packaging across all those dimensions, the conversation changes quite a lot. A bespoke solution that costs slightly more to purchase may reduce freight spend, lower damage rates, speed up packing, and streamline storage. As a result, the system becomes more efficient as a whole.
When Bespoke Packaging Delivers Stronger Value
The financial case for custom packaging tends to be strongest in environments/fulfilment operations where volume is high, products are fragile or valuable, dimensional weight drives shipping costs, or brand presentation influences customer loyalty. In those scenarios, improving the packaging format often unlocks a lot in savings that’s simply not visible when looking at purchase price alone.
The mistake many businesses tend to make is treating packaging as a commodity rather than as part of their operational system. Once you see it as part of the system, you start to evaluate it differently.
A More Useful Question to Ask
Instead of asking, ‘Which box is cheaper?’ it is often more helpful to ask, ‘What does this packaging cost us per shipped order?’
That subtle shift in thinking usually reveals things that spreadsheets miss.
Key questions to consider
Those answers rarely sit neatly in a single cell, but they often tell a more accurate (and useful) story.
Looking Beyond the Price Tag
Custom packaging is not a luxury upgrade (nor is stock packaging automatically the budget-friendly option). Nevertheless, evaluated properly through a ‘Total Cost of Ownership’ view, bespoke solutions do quite often prove to be commercially sensible rather than indulgent, largely owing to their efficiency.
If you are currently defaulting to stock packaging based purely on unit price, it may be worth reviewing the wider cost picture. A short evaluation from our team can reveal opportunities to reduce overall spend rather than increase it.
If you would like to explore whether a bespoke solution could lower your true packaging costs, we are always happy to have a practical conversation. You can send us a message, email sales@allpack.uk.com, or call 01543 396 700 to review your current setup and identify realistic next steps.
`