… but it may also lock you into single source relationships, which could be bad for business if your supplier is on, or is close to, shaky ground.
While it’s always nice to stand out from the crowd, I have to wonder if Coca-Cola’s recent decision to shake up its packaging is the right decision from a supply chain viewpoint. I’ll admit that the 16-ounce bottle might give it a key price point, but it could come at a cost. There’s a reason most soft-drinks come in standard package sizes (2 L, 20 oz bottle, and 12 oz can) … that’s the sizes that most manufacturers have standardized on. Every time you change a size, you change a production line. That requires investment. A manufacturer is not going to do that without a significant commitment on your part. This locks you in … and even if it insures a stable supplier, it also takes away any negotiating leverage you might have as a buyer if your sources are limited. This may not matter if your product sells like mad at a decent profit point … but if the sales campaign backfires, it could cost you.
I’ll admit that Coca Cola most likely has the brand, the marketing prowess, and the supply chain optimization capabilities to pull it off (as a very early adopter of strategic sourcing decision optimization and supply network optimization technologies), but I don’t think there are many companies that could pull this off in today’s economy. Anyone have a different viewpoint?