Enough . . .

Think about this:  opening those hard plastic packages.

Enough is enough.

When a posting on Facebook is a cry for help to open those hard plastic, vacuumed-sealed packages, it is time to re-evaluate how companies package their products.

Look at companies that choose to eliminate excessive packaging.  Consumers are relieved when they get the product home and do not have to battle the plastics, the cardboard, or those vacuum seals in order to put them away and to use them.

One such company is Bath and Body Works.  The product is the feature, not the packaging.  The entire store is filled with the products, open and exposed.  They have even unwrapped the fragrant refills and allow consumers to mix and match.

Even when ordering from Bath and Body Works, the wasteful packaging has been eliminated.  A simple peace of plastic is shrunk around the bottle and the cap–no spill, no fuss to remove.  It has to save the company plenty money, too.

Enough was enough.

Another shipping change is the use of the air-filled plastic pillows.  Good use, but it is still landfill.  Check out what the Republic of Tea does to recylce or repurpose.  This company takes all the scrap from the tea bags, unbleached and natural, and uses it for stuffing in their shipments.

The change in packing eliminates those styrofoam peanuts.  The ones that dissolve in water are a great technique, too, but why not use even cheaper forms of stuffing–air certainly is not expensive and all those scraps from the tea bags will decompose faster than even the plastic air pillows.

Enough is enough.

Changing the packaging should do more, too.  It should reduce the weight in shipping.  It should make it possible to pack items more tightly, efficiently.  It should make stocking easier in the stores.  It should demonstrate to the consumers just what is in the package, not what is not in the package (remember the surprise when opening a box and only about 25% of the package is the product).

Of course, if all these results are added up, that means the cost of shipping is reduced, too.  Does that not translate in less fuel usage?  Doesn’t that mean the actual cost could be reduced for the consumer (and I hesitate to mention this) or the profit margin is increased for the company.

Enough is enough.

The arguments and examples could continue, but the point is made.  Reduce the packaging.  It is unnecessary.  It is costly.  It frustrates the consumer.  It is one more way to keep our world green, or at least greener.

Consumers buy the product, not the packaging.  Consumers fight the packaging just to use the product.  Consumers are paying for the packaging.

Enough.