Page 43 - FINAT Yearbook 2015

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE 2014 EDITIONS
OF FINAT RADAR
While steps are being taken to improve converter response rates in 2015, the Industry Trends subcommittee that is in the lead of this new initiative expressed satisfaction about the circulation of the reports, of which so far around 240 (edition #1, June 2014) and 310 downloads (edition #2, December 2014) respectively have been recorded. Both editions of the FINAT RADAR remain available for downloading off the Members’ Area of the FINAT website.
Some key findings about brand owners and packaging buyers’ perspectives from the first edition (%s rounded for simplicity’s sake):
• ONE FIFTH want a ‘one-stop shop’ for as many sourced
packaging applications as possible;
• ONE QUARTER insist on environmental certification of
label suppliers (and another 35% indicates that it is
becoming more important);
• ONE QUARTER are willing to pay (and/or already paying)
a premium for environmentally friendly label constructions (but the other three quarters are uncertain -50%- or simply not willing -25%- to pay a premium);
• 30% indicate that increasing demands from retailers are their single biggest pain point at the moment, closely followed by regulatory demands and lack of innovation;
• ONE THIRD of label buyers don’t currently source shrink sleeves for their products, but expect they will be using shrink sleeves in the next 1-2 years (another 50% is already sourcing shrink sleeves and will continue to do so);
• ONE THIRD of label customers indicate that they will stay with their label suppliers for all categories over the next 1-2 years. The other two thirds will be putting some or all categories out for bid, albeit in part for reasons of company policy;
• 50% will be shifting label sourcing channels from within Western Europe to other regions (of which more than half from Eastern Europe);
• 70% indicate that (lack of) label quality is the #1 issue to look for new label vendors (followed by delivery reliability for about half of the remaining 30%, which appears to be a critical factor in the personal care & cosmetics sector specially).
Some converter findings based on the surveys in 2014 (about the development in 2013 and the first half of 2014):
• STRONG GROWTH (> 5%) in the demand for beverage
labels and labels for personal care & cosmetics;
• SATISFACTORY GROWTH (2-4%) in industrial and
household chemicals, retail, pharma, food and
automotive;
• SLOW GROWTH (0-2%) in consumer durables, office
products and transport & logistics
• RUN LENGTHS VARY WIDELY, between ca. 2,000 linear
meters per average order for office products, pharmaceuticals, consumer durables and automotive labels, and around 8,500 linear meters for household chemicals and 13,000 linear meters for beverage labels (the other segments vary within the 5,000 – 7,000 linear meters range).
• ONE FIFTH of label printers surveyed in October
– November 2014 will buy a digital press over the next 6 months. Of this proportion, 55% will purchase an inkjet label press;
• ONE QUARTER of label producers surveyed in the autumn started producing flexible packaging (14%) and/ or booklet label (12%) applications on their narrow web presses within the past 6 months;
• MORE THAN 60% of European label printers surveyed have already acquired some type of environmental certification.
FOCUS OF THE 2015 EDITIONS
Having evaluated the two editions in the launching year 2014, the Industry Trends subcommittee has decided on some adjustments for 2015, the most important of which will be a split in focus of the respective spring and autumn editions. Whereas the spring edition will focus on converter performance ratios for the previous year, the autumn edition this year will take a closer look at end-user trends.
The spring edition of 2015 will be released after the European Label Forum in June. The autumn edition will appear in November/December.
43
SECTION 2
In addition to asking surveyed brand owners and packaging buyers to indicate the
In addition etonda-suksiensgecstuorvsethyeydsbervaen,dinodwivindeurasl raenspdopnadceknatsgwinegrebaulsyoeraskteodintodtieclal tues twhheatend-use sectors they serve, indivtidheuiar ljorbesfupnocntdioennwtsaswweirtheinaltshoeiar sckoemdptaonyt.ell us what their job function was within their company.
Job Functions of Survey Participants
Sourcing/ Procurement Management 38%
Package Engineering 33%
Research & Development 29%
One of the mOnoestofimthpeomrotastnitmqpuoertsatniotnqsueinsttiohnesRinAtDhAe RABDrAaRndBrOanwdnOewrnSeurrSvueryvepyrporboebdedthe significance of different crittherisaigtnhifaictawncoeuoldf ddifrfievrenat croitmerpiatnhyatowosueledkdnrievwe alacobmelpsaunpyptolieserse.kRneswploanbedlents were given a
suppliers. Respondents were given a defined set of criteria and were asked to rank
defined settohfemcriftreormiamaonsdt two eleraestaismkpeodrtaonrt.a(nPkrictehwemas dfreolimbemratoeslyt lteoftloeuatstofimthpeolirstaonft. (Price was deliberatelycrlieteftrioa uretsopfonthdenltistwoefrecrgiitverniabreecaspusoenwdenwtasnwteedrteo geixvpelonrebechcanugseawgenwtsabnetyeodndto explore change agents beyopnridcep.)rTiche.s)eTthoef csreiteoriaf croimtepraianiceos mwepraenaiseksedwteorreanakskinecdlutdoedratnhke fionlcloluwdinegd: the following:
• Quality w•ithQcuarlirteynwtitvhecnudrorern(tcvoelnodrodrr(icfot,loinr dcorinfts, isntceontsiqstueanltitqyuafrliotym run to run) from run to run)
• Capabilities (current label vendor does not have digital printing capabilities)
• Responsi•venCeaspsab(oilcitcieas(iocunrarelnistsluabeesl wveinthdolar bdeoel svennotdhoarv’se cduigsitoalmer service)
• Delivery (labperilnstainrge cnaoptabaillwitiaeys)s delivered on time)
• Responsiveness (occasional issues with label vendor’s customer service)
T h e t a b l e o n t h e • f o l l D o e w l i i v n e g r y p ( a l a g b e e l s s h a o r e w n s o h t o a l w w a l a y s b d e e l l b i v u e y r e e d r s o r n a t n i mk e e ) a c h o n e o f t h e s e c r i t e r i a f r o m m o s t t o least important.
15
S
1
S
C
E
C
I
IO ON
E
T
i
T
N
ParticipatSinugrcvoenyv eRr
Pa re
rt
v responden
ci
e
n
u
e
s
€i
3p-
d
p
a
ti
n Po
e
ch
es
t
w
s
a
s
k
e
g
croislnliwvoenertraernsadwlsmeoreoaarselksoethdasatknoed1int0od%incodaiftcepatatehrtehicieriprccaotminpgacnoy’ms’sapnaannunaieul sraelhvreaenvuensa,nuanendsu,aal nredveancuhes of more gm
afrt
ci
rt
a
r
c
o
n
v a2t
e
1
€1
M
e i0n
o
0 €
n
Survey Respondent Company Size and Job Function
tervrssepwyoenRredeaselspnootanCskdoeedmntotpCianondimycaSpteiaztneheyairSnciodzmeJpoanbnydF’suJaonbncutFaiuol rnecvteinounes, and each respondent was asked to indicate their job function. More than 60% of surveyed companies have annual
S
u
dentot winads aicsaketed tohienidricjoatbe ftuhenicr tjoiobnfu. nMctoiorne. Mthoarne t6h0an%6o0%f soufrsvuervyeydedcompanies have annual than € 50commilpliaonnie.s have annual revenues of €3-20 million and more than 10% of participating
p
a
revenues of € 3-20 million and more than 10% of participating companies have annual revenues of more
companies have annual revenues of more than €50 million. than € 50 million.
M
l li
RADAR Survey ParOcipaOon by Converter Size RADAR Survey ParOcipaOon by Converter Size
> € 50 Million € 30 Millio>n €- €5050MMilliilolinon €€3020MMilliilolinon- €- €5030MMilliilolinon
12% 2% 12% 2% 12%
€
20
M
on- €- €3020MMilliilolinon n
12% 34% 3324%
€
10
i
n
ill
ill
on- €- €2010MMilliilolinon li
i
i
o
o
3
€ 3 Million - €<1€03MMilliilolinon
M
i l
8% 32% <€3Million 0% 5% 180%15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
RADAR Survey ParOcipaOon by Job FuncOon RADAR Survey ParOcipaOon by Job FuncOon Company Owner/President/CEO 62% CompGanenyeOrawlnMera/nPargeesrid/Menatn/CaEgOing 19% 62%
General ManageVri/cMe Parneasgidinegnt 6% 19% Technical/OperaOonVsicMeaPnreagsiedmenetnt 64% TechniMcaal/rOkepOenragO/SoanlsesMManaangaegmemenetnt 44%% MarkeOngP/rSoadleuscMt Manaangaegmemenetnt 42% ProductManagemOethnetr 2%4%
Other
0% 41%0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
4
Number of Presses Sold
SECTION 4
EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL PRESS SALES
The other graph on p. 22 is this one (below). It’s the first one and you’ll notice how the values on the Y aTxhisegothfreormgr0a-p1h6%oninp.d2e2noiQsmthuinisatoirontnees(boref-l2o.wvT)h.eItry’-sbQtohtehufmairsarttcoehn,ersoaVntodhiylsuounm’ell dneoftaSicuealtheleodwswtehiredvlyalaulesos ownhtehneitY
both quarters.
Here’s this graph (p. 23) w/the corrected title:
Section Four: European Conventional Press Sales
waaxissigmopforrotmed0. -T1h6e%fYoinarxdeCesnnoemnedinvtaoetimonnatsticohf.n2. aThlePy rbeotshsmeastc:hQ, so2th2is0o1ne4de&fauQlte3d w2e0ir1dly4also when it was imported. The Y axeQs unaeertdetro-omveartc-Qh.uarter Installation Rates for Conventional Presses
Q2 2014 & Q3 2014
LiLkiekewwithiththtehreolrlosYtleolscatkorcd-okatvdaae, etra-,cYeheaiascshruieGssorufoetwhoeftFhtIhNe(AQTFI3RNA2DT0AR1RA4hDavAssRa.shQeac3stiao2ns0et1cht3aiot)np:rtehsaetntpsrpersesnsts press sales sadleastadaintaoirndoerdteor dtoevdelvoReploapllnaPinadinpedexertxhLtahatabrtereflflesectctostscqkquusaar-rtteAerlyly Gffllurcatduaettisionssinintototatal pl prersesssasleasles for Europe. foTrhEeurlaorpgee. sTthperlearsYgsemsatarpn-rouefvsasecmtru-aYrneurafsarhctaGuvreorpswahrathviceip(pQatr3etidc2iip0na1the4devicnsot.nhvQee3cnot2niov0ne1anl3tipo)r:neaslspirnedses x, representing inmdeoxr,erethparenseantiensgtimoarteRdtho9a0nll%aPnoaefpsttehimeramLtaeadbrk9e0lt%s.tTohfcetkhcseham-rAatrblkleGlto. Twrhaesdhceohswarst cboenlovwensthiownasl press sales in coEnuvr1eo6np%teiofnoarltphressescaolensdinanEdurtohpiredfoqrutahretesersconfd20an1d4.third quarters of 2014.
A s 1 t 1 h 4 6 i %s % g r a p h s h o w s , Atshteh1ri1s2e4%gw%rapshasmhoawrkse, d
there10w%as a marked
i n i c n r c e r a 1 e 8 s 2 a %e %s i e n i q n u q a u r t a e r r 6 t - e . r 2 - o % v e r - ovqeura-1qrt0uea%rrtperrepsrsesaslseasl.es. 120 CoCnovnev6n8e%t%niotinoanl aplrepsrse6s.s2s%ales 2.5%118 sarloeser4o6b%s%ye8b%y 8in%tihneththeird thqirudaqr2t4u%e%arrotefr2o0f1240,14, 2.51%16
1 2 . 3 %
cocmomp0apr%aerdetdotsoalseaslefosrfor the pre2v%iousSqcuaanrdteinr.avia Atphperopx0rie%mvaioteulys 2q2u7arter. coAnpvpernotxioimnalStpecrlaeyns2sde2isn7avia wceorenvsoelndtionntoalthperesses
Ireland
Central Europe Central Europe
Southern Europe Southern Europe
Eastern Europe Eastern Europe
E u w r o e p r e e a s n o l md a i n r k t o e t t p h l a e c e inEbuorothpeqaunarmtearsrketplace in
106 104
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
114 UK and112 Ireland110 UK and108
4.0% 2.5%
Conven@onal Press Sales in Europe: Q2 2014 & Q3 2014
2.5%
4.0%
The graph below indicates a breakdown of presses sold for both quarters, by cost range.
Here’s this graph (p. 23) w/the corrected title:
The graph below indicates a breakdown of presses sold for both quarters, by cost range.
Breakdown of Values of Conventional Presses Sold
Breakdown of Values of Conven@onal Press Sold Breakdown oinf EVUaliunQeE2sU2oQ0f21C42o0&n14vQe&n3Qt2i3o02n10a41l4Presses Sold
in EU Q2 2014 & Q3 2014
€1 million - €1.5 22% million 22%
€500.000-€1 €500.0m00ill-i€o1n millio4n2% €500.000-€1
>€1.5 m>€i1ll.5iomnillion
14% 14%<€5<0€05.000.000
€1 millio€n1-m€i1>ll.€i5o1n.5- €m1.i5llion <€2520%02.20%00 million m2il2li%on14% 22%
The highest volume of presses sold in Europe for these two quarters fell within a price range of €500.000 - €1 Million per press. Of all presses sold in the two quarters, 82% were for label applications, 17% for flexible packaging applications and 1% for folding carton applications.
23
42% million 42%
12.3%
FINAT YEARBOOK 2015 |