Prior to designing printing on aluminum cans (aluminum can printing), one needs to excel in the three fundamental dimensions of technical parameters, cost models and supply chain capabilities. Consider the nano-coating technology of Ball Corporation as an illustration. The surface of the tank must be treated by micro-arc oxidation (5μm thickness and Ra≤0.8μm roughness), such that the ink adherence is grade 4B (according to the ISO standard), and the color differential in print ΔE must be controlled at ≤1.2 (industry benchmark ΔE≥3.5). If digital UV printing is employed, the minimum is 20,000 cans (500,000 cans with offset printing), a single can is 0.028 US dollars (0.045 US dollars with offset printing), but there is a charge of an additional 150,000 US dollars for plate-making charges required. One sparkling water brand defied the surface roughness condition (true Ra=1.5μm) and observed the ink shedding rate to be a level as much as 2.3%, along with over 1.8 million US dollars recall loss.
Translation of design requirements and processes directly becomes product final quality. For 52mm diameter and 122mm height thin-walled aluminum cans, arc curvature of the printed area surface is as much as 60°. Special 3D pre-deformation design software (such as Crown Holdings’ CANVAS system) has to be used in order to avoid stretching and deformation of the artwork. Positioning deviation should be ≤±0.05mm. Red Bull 2023 limited edition cans were rejected due to uncalibrated deformation of curved surface, which caused a 12% stretch of the Logo. 100,000 cans of the initial batch were rejected, incurring a loss of 240,000 US dollars. Further, during conversion of the Pantone color numbers, reflectivity of the metal substrate has to be taken into account (82% for aluminum cans and 68% for white cardstock). The visual brightness of the same color number on aluminum cans will increase 15% to 20%.
Timeliness of supply chains and hedging of risks should be measured quantitatively. Flexible production lines (such as the i3S system of Ardagh Group) allow for switching between 8 designs per hour, but the maximum daily capacity is 12 million cans (24 million cans for traditional production lines). If the small-batch printing of 50,000 cans is chosen, then the delivery cycle is 7 days (with 3 days of quality checking) and the logistics cost percentage goes up to 18% (9% for bulk order). A new and emerging tea drink brand did not pass a transportation test period (the stacking pressure of the cans ≥12kPa), resulting in 10% wear on the printed surface of the cans and an additional rework cost of 85,000 US dollars.
The interaction between environmental protection regulations and costs cannot be neglected. The EU REACH regulation requires VOC (volatile organic Compounds) content of the ink to be ≤0.1%, while VOC content of traditional solvent-based ink is 0.3%-0.5%. Substitution of UV-curable ink will incur a cost of 0.006 US dollars per can. Heineken has reduced its carbon footprint per can by 61% due to the introduction of laser etching technology (zero ink), but the equipment upgrade cost is 3.5 million euros, and at least 200 million cans need to be produced to reach break-even (ROI=1.8 times). According to a McKinsey survey, the aluminum cans printing solution that qualifies for the EPEAT certification will reduce brand carbon tax costs by 23%, but the up-front cost increases by 12%-15%.
Budget allocation and ROI calculation require multi-dimensional modeling. Take a medium-sized brand with a yearly sales volume of 50 million cans, for example. If it is done through digital printing (with 6 runs of design in a year), the printing cost per year would be approximately 1.4 million US dollars, but can increase shelf conversion by 19% (figures from Nielsen) and drive growth in sales by 3.8 million US dollars. Compared with offset printing, for which the cost per year amounts to 2.25 million US dollars (including plate-making charge), offset printing will be able to handle only two runs of designs. The final decision must balance the requirement for innovation (e.g., Generation Z’s low runs of up to 63%) and the expense to ensure that printing on aluminum cans is a premium driver for brand rather than an expense.