We're starting a new series called From the Studio, where we take a real brief, prompt, or pitch that's come across our desks and open it up a little. Hopefully through this we can dive a bit deeper into what a client actually asked us for, what was really going on underneath the ask, and how we thought through it. Full candor: some details are changed or generalized to protect our clients, but the problem and the thinking are real. This is the kind of conversation we have internally all the time, and we thought it'd be useful to let people in on it.

First up: a jar.

The ask

A client came to us with a simple-sounding request: their packaging cost too much, and they wanted it to cost less. Specifically, it was a custom jar and lid, as opposed to an off-the-shelf stock jar. It has a proprietary shape built for their brand, and while they love and are proud of the brand signal their packaging has come to be, they couldn’t avoid the reality: the jar was using noticeably more plastic than a standard jar of a comparable size would.

On the surface, this reads like a straightforward cost conversation. Resin prices, piece weight, unit economics, aka “the usual”. And it is that. But when we started digging into why the cost mattered now, a second thread came up almost immediately: regulation.

What's actually driving the ask

Cost pressure on packaging isn't new. What's changed is that plastic packaging is now carrying weight (literally and figuratively) that it didn't used to. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs are rolling out state by state, and many of them tie a brand's fees directly to how much material they're putting into the world. So heavier, less-recyclable packaging costs more, full stop. Layer on labeling requirements like California's SB 343, which restricts how brands can make recyclability claims on-pack, and you've got a packaging decision that used to be purely aesthetic and structural now touching compliance, finance, and sustainability reporting all at once.

So the real brief wasn't "make this cheaper." It was closer to: make this cheaper, in a way that also gets ahead of where packaging regulation is clearly headed. That's a pattern we're seeing more and more: a brand comes in asking about cost, and the conversation naturally becomes about material efficiency, because right now those two things are pointing in the same direction.

What we're exploring

For this particular jar, we're working through two paths in parallel, and they're not mutually exclusive:

• Lightweighting the existing mold. Can we take wall thickness and structural material out of the current design without changing its footprint or compromising performance?  

• Reducing overall dimensions. A shorter profile means less surface area and less material overall, but it also means rethinking fill volume, shelf presence, and how the jar sits next to the rest of the client's line.

Neither option is a straight forward path to cost reduction tomorrow. In fact, lightweighting can mean new tooling costs or validation cycles, and a height change can ripple into labeling, cartons, and how the product looks on shelf next to jars people already recognize. Part of our job is putting real numbers next to both paths so the client isn't choosing blind between "cheaper" and "still feels like our brand."

The bigger takeaway

If you're a brand sitting on a custom package that was designed a few years ago (before EPR fees and recyclability labeling rules were part of the conversation), it's worth taking a second look, even if cost isn't your primary pain point right now. The brands getting ahead of this are treating "reduce material" and "reduce cost" as the same project, because increasingly, they are.

Are you interested in how our team would approach your packaging project? Reach out to us today and let’s chat.