A significant increase in consumer demand for products with specific attributes that meet individualized preferences is driving change throughout the food and beverage supply chain. In response to this demand, small niche players are establishing a foothold in specific categories and competing with traditional, large CPG brands – with an attention-getting degree of success. In 2016, an annual collaboration between Information Resources, Inc. (IRI) and The Boston Consulting Group, reported small companies (sales of $1 billion to $5 billion) accounted for 46.4% of total CPG sales in 2015, which translated into a 27% increase since 2011. The number also translated into an $18 billion shift in the $670 billion CPG market between 2011 and 2015.1
To keep up with this variable demand and take on their new competitors, CPG companies have had to diversify their product portfolio. According to the Symmetri Marketing Group, the average number of brands in a large CPG company has gone from 46 to 153. This means what has historically been thought of as “brand management” in a CPG environment has really become “brand complexity,” and the transition is challenge-ridden. According to Steve Mattheson, president of Nielsen Retail Vertical, while modern retail has been driven by scale in the past, “…the ‘bigger is better’ paradigm has been challenged virtually everywhere.”2 Attempts to control supply chain and marketing costs through scale and mass-market strategies no longer yield the necessary results. Therefore, companies must identify new avenues for savings.
One such avenue is a better Label and Artwork Management (LAM) process. Implementing a SaaS-based LAM system can yield several benefits, including savings achieved through process efficiency gains, speed-to-market improvements and product recall reductions. With the right LAM solution in place, CPG companies can improve their artwork management workflows and asset approval processes. How?
Go from Manual to Digital
When a project manager has to assemble distribution lists, upload large files to Dropbox, email links to stakeholders for approval, remind them to complete their tasks, assemble their comments and set direction, there’s a manual process in play.
There is a better way, and it’s a digital process.
Utilizing digital functionality such as workflow templates, date tracking, automated email notifications, and audit trails of comments can reduce project management time by up to 75%. Learn more.
Go from Linear to Concurrent
Teams that email label and artwork files to key stakeholders for approval are using a linear process.
There is a better way, and it’s a concurrent process.
When teams can view the same file, at the same time, in the same web-based window, the approval process becomes concurrent. This creates process efficiencies and ultimately additional time in market for products. Learn more.
Go from Distributed to Centralized
A typical knowledge worker spends two and a half hours searching for a label and artwork asset that hasn’t been indexed. When this happens, opportunity costs are incurred. Other responsibilities are delayed.
There is a better way, and it’s a centralized Digital Asset Manager.
Label and artwork assets stored in a central repository with filter, search and sort functionality can reduce search time by 90%. Learn more.
Go from Deferred to Real Time
When IT resources are spent generating reports or managers either lack proper access to data or spend time analyzing spreadsheets to understand label and artwork management performance, backlogs are created and benefits are lost.
There is a better way, and it’s real-time business intelligence.
Business intelligence enables organizations to find actual solutions to business problems, provide new ways of looking at data, reduce reporting time, increase data reliability and ultimately enable real time business labeling and artwork decisions. Learn more.
Download BLUE’s comprehensive list of solution requirements for managing brand complexity and jump start your supply chain and marketing savings today.
1. Nunes, Keith. “Small, mid-size C.P.G. companies gained share in 2015.” Retrieved from: http://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/news_home/Business/2016/05/Small_midsize_CPG_companies_ga.aspx?ID=%7BD7753996-E70A-4E17-B2DC-E67389DF6BBE%7D&cck=1 (Visited 4/18/17).
2. “Roadmap to Retail Growth: Why Bigger is No Longer Better.” Retrieved from: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/roadmap-to-retail-growth-why-bigger-is-no-longer-better.html (Visited 4/18/17).