In the first six months after switching to an on-demand label workflow, a mid-sized refrigerated meals brand saw scrap move from double digits to single digits—roughly a 25–35% drop—while color variation tightened to a consistent range. Based on insights from onlinelabels‘ work with 50+ packaging teams, the brand set a clear baseline, then chased practical gains rather than perfection.
Here’s the story behind those numbers: a multi-SKU portfolio, seasonal swings, and evolving date-coding expectations in California. The team prioritized brand consistency and compliance, chose Digital Printing for agility, and built a label process that could actually keep up with marketing calendars and retailer resets.
Company Overview and History
The company is a North American, retail-focused food & beverage brand known for refrigerated meals. Over the past five years, SKU count climbed from a handful to a rotating portfolio of 80–120, with seasonal variants and co-branded packs. That growth strained their legacy approach: long-run preprinted labels, slow updates, and a marketing team who wanted faster refresh cycles without diluting brand identity.
Before the shift, internal teams often asked a familiar question—”how to do labels in word?”—for quick local pilots and samples. It worked for rough mockups, but scaled poorly. Templates became inconsistent, and version control frayed across departments. The new workflow formalized templates inside a single system: access via onlinelabels login, design in onlinelabels com maestro, and locked brand elements controlled by the brand team.
For regional runs, the brand had relied on a local vendor—josh custom labels—for years. That partnership delivered speed when volumes were predictable, but as SKUs multiplied and date coding changed more frequently, the brand needed a cadence that balanced on-demand flexibility with tighter color and content governance.
Quality and Consistency Issues
The brand’s biggest pain points were color drift and label waste. Color variation on high-chroma SKUs pushed ΔE into the 3.5–4.0 range across lots, making shelf sets look uneven. First Pass Yield hovered around 78–82%, and waste rates sat near 10–12%—untenable with frequent promotions and line extensions. Then came regulatory clarity: california bans confusing food date labels to reduce waste. That sharpened the need to standardize “Best By” language, streamline variable data, and keep traceability consistent.
The solution blueprint was pragmatic: move core labels to Digital Printing for Short-Run and Variable Data, keep lot/date codes in thermal transfer where needed, and specify a single Labelstock with a Glassine liner for cleaner application. Ink choice prioritized food packaging boundaries—Low-Migration Ink sets for non-contact labels and UV Ink for durable on-shelf presence—finalized with a protective Varnishing pass. Content standards aligned to GS1 data formatting, while non-contact materials stayed within FDA 21 CFR 175/176 interpretations relevant to labels.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Implementation wasn’t frictionless. Early batches curled slightly on a high-adhesion adhesive, so the team tightened storage conditions and shifted liner spec to stabilize unwind. Spot UV wasn’t feasible in the on-demand cadence, so they standardized on a clear Varnishing finish and accepted a subtle difference in glare. Access control mattered too: designers and product managers used onlinelabels com maestro under locked brand elements, while operations handled production assets through onlinelabels login. It wasn’t perfect—deep navy still required extra press checks—but it was consistent enough to protect the brand at retail pace.
Quantitative Results and Metrics
After the transition, several numbers moved in the right direction. Average label waste shifted from about 10–12% down to roughly 7–8%. First Pass Yield rose into the 90–93% band. Color accuracy tightened, with ΔE typically landing near 2.0–2.5 on core SKUs. These are not lab-perfect numbers—but they’re steady enough for consistent shelf sets and predictable replenishment across retail partners.
Operationally, changeover time moved from roughly 30–40 minutes to about 18–24 minutes on the most common label jobs, driven by standardized templates and fewer content revisions late in the process. Inventory write-offs tied to outdated preprinted labels fell by around 20–25%, simply because variable data could be updated on-demand. Financially, the team modeled a payback period in the 12–18 month range by shifting from large, static label buys to agile runs tied to actual demand.
Brand-wise, the difference shows up on shelf and in weekly ops huddles. Marketing keeps typography and hierarchy intact; operations keep date coding readable and consistent; QA watches color ranges instead of chasing one-off fixes. Word-based mockups still serve for quick internal proofs, but production lives in the digital system. As a brand manager, the takeaway is straightforward: find a cadence that your organization can repeat. In this case, the cadence—and the numbers—owe a lot to the discipline built around onlinelabels templates and access.
