Most Popular in:
Airless Packaging Brings Form, Function
By: Jeff Falk
Posted: January 9, 2009, from the January 2009 issue of GCI Magazine.
page 3 of 5
Gabilanes: Consumers prefer an airless option, thanks to the sleek design. They also like the cleanliness aspect.
Simon: Awesome—due to the evacuation of 99% of the product, which is what everyone wants when purchasing a high-priced skin cream, for example. We are constantly being asked for airless systems for many types of applications.
Sweeney: Consumers enjoy the experience of a quality dispensing system. I believe that today’s consumers are looking for the “total package”—excellent product in a quality dispenser.
GCI: What is the cost impact? Is there an impact on product performance?
Gabilanes: Airless packaging is usually more expensive than a conventional pump/bottle packaging, but offers a definitively higher performance.
Simon: It’s definitely higher priced due to the system, but you can keep the cost down using plastic injected parts versus metal, which could bring your cost closer to a dispensing pump and bottle. Performance of an airless pump is much better, since the piston system swipes the walls to evacuate almost all of the product.
Slowey: While we have seen airless packaging prices come down of late, the technology does cost more than traditional pump and bottle configuration, but the ability to use the entire product without contamination or drying out and discoloring is enough to make the packaging very desirable for many cosmetic applications.
Sweeney: The old adage “you get what you pay for” stands true for many things, including packaging. Airless dispensers are really a dispensing device, molded and assembled with multiple components to accomplish an end result: product protection, precise and repeatable dosing of medium- to high-viscosity products and a premium consumer experience. Although more expensive than tubes, bottles and jars, it is hard to compare the cost since these packages don’t offer the same features.