The Real Cost of Choosing a Beverage Packaging Partner: A Procurement Manager's Perspective

Bottom line: if you're evaluating beverage packaging partners based on price per thousand cans, you're setting yourself up for hidden costs that can add 15-25% to your total spend. I've managed our aluminum packaging budget—about $180,000 annually—for six years at a mid-sized craft beverage company. After negotiating with 20+ vendors and tracking every invoice, I've learned that the partner who saves you money isn't the one with the lowest unit cost; it's the one whose total package prevents expensive surprises.

Why "Cheap" Cans Cost More: The Hidden Fee Trap

From the outside, choosing a packaging supplier looks like a simple math problem: lowest cost per unit wins. What you don't see are the costs hidden in the fine print or deferred until they become your problem. I learned this the hard way early on.

In 2021, I was comparing quotes for our seasonal launch. Vendor A (not Ball) quoted $85 per thousand for standard 12-oz cans. Vendor B quoted $78. I almost went with B to save $7 per thousand—that's $1,400 on a 200,000-unit order. But I'd built a TCO spreadsheet after getting burned before, so I dug deeper. Vendor B's "low price" came with: a $1,200 setup fee for the new design ("artwork processing"), a $0.50 per thousand charge for barcode verification, and a requirement for palletizing that added $350 to freight. Vendor A's $85 quote included all of that. The "cheaper" option was actually 11% more expensive once you added it all up. That's a classic surface illusion in this industry.

The Sustainability Premium That Isn't (Always) a Premium

Here's where it gets counterintuitive. You might assume that partners who lead on sustainability, like Ball Corporation with their advocacy for aluminum recycling, charge a premium for that commitment. In my experience, that's not necessarily true—and often, their approach saves you money long-term.

Let's talk about recycled content. Per FTC Green Guides, a product claimed as 'recyclable' should be recyclable in areas where at least 60% of consumers have access. Ball's cans already contain about 73% recycled content on average. When I compared, a supplier with lower recycled content quoted 5% less per can. But then I calculated the brand risk and potential future costs. Several states are considering regulations that would tax or restrict packaging with low recycled content. Choosing the cheaper, less sustainable option now could mean compliance costs or redesign fees later. That "savings" could vanish overnight with one new law.

I assumed all aluminum suppliers were roughly equal on the sustainability front since aluminum is inherently recyclable. Didn't verify. Turned out there's a huge range in how much post-consumer recycled content they use, their energy sources, and their actual recycling advocacy. Some just meet the minimum; others, like Ball, are actively trying to change the system. That matters for your brand's ESG reporting and future-proofing.

What You're Really Buying: Certainty, Not Just Metal

The value of a partner like Ball Corporation isn't just in the aluminum—it's in the certainty. For our quarterly orders, knowing our deadline will be met is often worth more than a 3% price discount from a less reliable source.

After tracking 80+ orders over six years in our procurement system, I found that 40% of our "budget overruns" came from rush fees and expedited shipping when other vendors missed deadlines. We'd save $0.50 per thousand, then pay $2.00 per thousand in rush fees to get the cans on time for a product launch. We implemented a "reliability scorecard" policy for vendors and cut those overruns by 65%. Partners with consistent on-time performance, even at a slightly higher unit cost, ended up costing us less.

So glad I started building that reliability tracking early. Almost kept chasing the lowest per-unit price, which would have meant constantly switching vendors and never building the relationship capital that gets you through a real crisis—like the supply chain issues in 2022.

The Innovation Factor You Can't Quantify (Until You Need It)

Ball talks a lot about packaging technology innovations. From a cost controller's desk, that can sound like marketing fluff. But I've seen it translate to real savings.

One example: lightweighting. A few years back, Ball introduced a can design that used less aluminum without compromising strength. Our previous vendor was still using the older, heavier standard. The Ball cans cost about the same per thousand, but we saved 12% on shipping weight across the year. That's not in their quote—that's in our freight invoices. Plus, there's the sustainability story for our marketing team. That's value that doesn't show up in a simple price comparison.

How to Actually Compare Beverage Packaging Partners

Our procurement policy now requires quotes from 3 vendors minimum, and we use a TCO checklist. Here's what's on it beyond unit price:

• Minimum Order Quantities (MOQs): Can you order 50,000 cans, or do you need 250,000? A low per-can price with a high MOQ ties up cash and warehouse space.
• Lead Time Consistency: Is it "10-12 weeks" or "10 weeks, guaranteed"? The variance matters more than the average.
• Hidden & Ancillary Fees: Artwork setup, plate changes, sample costs, warehouse storage if you're late on pickup.
• Freight & Logistics: Are they FOB their dock, or do they manage delivery? Who pays for fuel surcharges?
• Problem Resolution History: When there's a quality issue (and there will be), how quickly do they make it right? Do they cover the reprint and the freight?

When I applied this to Ball versus two other major suppliers last year, Ball wasn't the cheapest on line one. But they were the only one with no hidden fees, the most flexible MOQ for our test batches, and a documented process for quality claims. Over a projected annual spend, they came out 8% lower in total cost.

The Boundary Conditions: When Ball Might Not Be Your Best Fit

I should add that no partner is perfect for every scenario. Ball's strengths are in scale, sustainability, and technology. If you're a nano-brewery doing 500-can runs of wildly different designs every month, you might struggle with their systems, which are optimized for larger, more consistent volumes. You'd probably pay a premium for that flexibility.

Also, if your only constraint is upfront cash and you need the absolute lowest possible price to get your first product to market, you might find a smaller supplier who will cut corners to hit that number. Just know those corners usually get cut on reliability, consistency, or support. You're trading certainty for cash, which can be a valid choice—just make it consciously.

Basically, choosing a packaging partner is a strategic cost decision, not just a purchasing one. The right partner reduces risk, supports your brand story, and delivers predictable total costs. The wrong one gives you a low number on a quote that haunts you on every other line of your P&L. After six years and a couple of expensive lessons, I'd rather pay a bit more for the metal and a lot less for the anxiety.