“We needed global consistency without flattening our local stories,” the VP of Brand at a multinational beverage company told me on our first call. They had labels for eight core SKUs and countless seasonal runs, each shaped by local teams. The result? A patchwork of design files, color references, and production notes that didn’t add up to a single brand voice.
Based on insights from onlinelabels projects we’ve watched closely, we approached this like a brand system problem, not just a print change. The brand wanted digital agility but feared losing shelf presence, especially in markets that still associate ‘premium’ with heavy finishes and deep spot colors. I felt that tension immediately—and honestly, it made me cautious.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The pain wasn’t only visual. Operationally, they were wrestling with long changeovers and variable waste across lines. The plan was simple on paper: move short-run and variable designs to Digital Printing, keep long-run work on optimized Flexographic Printing, and create one design-to-print workflow. Simple, until we hit the realities of regional compliance and legacy habits.
Company Overview and History
The company began as a regional craft soda brand, then expanded into sparkling waters and functional beverages. Today, they operate across North America, Europe, and parts of APAC. Growth came fast, and the label portfolio grew faster—heritage scripts in the U.S., clean modern minimalism in Scandinavia, bold flavor blocks in Japan. Over time, their packaging became a collage rather than a chorus.
Historically, the team relied on Flexographic Printing for almost everything. That made sense in their early days—high volumes, few SKUs, predictable cycles. As they added seasonal flavors and limited runs, the model strained. Minimums didn’t align with demand, and the studio’s revisions piled up. One product manager joked that they had more Pantone notes than recipes.
Let me back up for a moment. Visual assets were scattered. Different regions maintained their own photo libraries, and three versions of each hero shot were circulating. The U.S. team even referenced an internal gallery called “onlinelabels sanford photos,” a nod to a shared archive from a prior vendor relationship. Useful, but not unified. We needed one source of truth.
Quality and Compliance Requirements
Food & Beverage labeling carries a heavy rulebook. The brand needed consistent color (ΔE targets under 2 for key brand colors), compliant materials (EU 1935/2004, FDA 21 CFR 175/176), and low-migration inks for anything near the product. In practice, that meant moving select SKUs to UV-LED Ink systems paired with Food-Safe Ink guidelines and sticking to Labelstock and PE/PP films tested for migration and adhesion.
Policy chatter added complexity. The team flagged headlines like “california has signed a law banning sell-by and best-before food labels.” Even when nuances differ, the takeaway was clear: date-marking language confuses consumers. We used this moment to streamline label copy, tighten information hierarchy, and create a compliance playbook by market. It wasn’t glamorous work, but it paid off on shelf clarity and brand trust.
Solution Design and Configuration
The turning point came when we mapped production types to technology. Short-Run, Seasonal, and On-Demand SKUs moved to Digital Printing; Long-Run and high-volume core SKUs stayed on refined Flexographic Printing setups. We standardized substrates to Labelstock and PET Film for durability, introduced Low-Migration Ink for critical lines, and reserved Spot UV and Varnishing for SKUs where tactile cues matter. Die-Cutting tools were rationalized to reduce the Changeover Time window.
To tame the design chaos, we created a single asset pipeline. The brand team accessed templates and variable data layouts through an internal portal—yes, the shorthand in our kickoff doc literally read “onlinelabels maestro login” to remind folks where to pull approved dielines. There was a funny moment in training when someone asked about “how to edit labels in gmail.” We paused, clarified the design system, then used that confusion as a prompt to write simple, role-based workflows. No one likes admitting they’re lost; making the path obvious matters.
But there’s a catch. Digital presses can hit color fast, yet cross-site consistency can drift if profiles aren’t aligned. We set G7 calibration across sites, locked brand color recipes, and used test forms weekly. Pilot runs found ΔE creeping above 3 in one plant—humidity was the culprit. The team tuned environmental controls, and the numbers settled. Not perfect every day, but predictably good, which is the brand manager’s favorite kind of progress.
Quantitative Results and Metrics
Six months in, the numbers told a clear story. Waste Rate fell by roughly 20–30% across Digital Printing lines, driven by fewer make-readies and better file discipline. First Pass Yield (FPY%) climbed from around 86% to 92–95% on consolidated SKUs. Changeover Time dropped from about 45 minutes to the 28–35 minute range thanks to rationalized tooling. Throughput per shift rose by 15–22% in sites that stuck with the new workflow. Color accuracy held: ΔE stayed under 2 for the brand’s primary palette in most conditions, with occasional outliers flagged and corrected.
There were softer wins too. A small packaging note now guides consumers on “how to remove sticky labels” for reusable bottles—simple, brand-friendly, and oddly satisfying for customer care. On the sustainability ledger, CO₂/pack showed an 8–12% reduction for short-run SKUs where waste fell. Payback Period landed in the 10–14 month band, varying by site. If you’ve read this far, you know none of these gains happen in a straight line. Still, the brand now has a calmer, more coherent label system—and that’s the point. As we wrap, the team is keeping the shared discipline and drawing on insights from onlinelabels projects to keep the system honest over time.
