186 Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1961

(Third Paper)

B O T T L E S V E R S U S C A R T O N S The Case for Bottles

B Y V. LENNARD, B. E. MOODY, L. MOXON A N D C. WEEDEN on behalf of the Glass Manufacturers’ Federation.

Milk Distribution in the U.K. Let us start by getting the pattern of milk distribu- tion in the United Kingdom in perspective.

The United Kingdom consumption of liquid milk in 1960 is estimated at 1,558 million gallons and the pattern of its distribution can best be seen from the followine figures:

I I

Door-Step Deliveries. . Cateiing, hospitals etc. Schools . . . . Retall Sales . . . . From Farm * . Vending Machines . . Otheis . . . . . .

..

.. .. . . .. ..

Million Gallons . . 1,233.1 . . 194.8 . . 57.5 .. 37.4 . . 13.2 .. 8 *O .. 14.0

1,558.0

The importance of door-step deliveries is better

% of Total shown below:

Door-Step Deliveries. . . . . . . . 79.1 Catering, hospitals etc. . . . . . . 12.5 Schools . . . . . . . . . . 3 -7 Retail Sales . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 From Farm . . . . . . . . 0.9 Vending Machines . . . . . . . . 0.5 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9

100.0 -

We have more to say on this later. At this stage we suggest that the present level of milk consump- tion can only be maintained, let alone increased, if this personal contact between the dairy and the household is maintained. Whilst undoubtedly milk consumption can be increased by sales through new outlets such as vending machines and milk bars, the most effective means of increasing sales is to persuade housewives to buy more milk when their roundsman calls.

M& Consumption in Relation to Pack There undoubtedly is room for improvement, as can be sten below:

Liquid Milk Consumption per capita (gaI./head/year) 1938 1957 1958 1959

U.K. . . . . . . . . 21.1 30.9 31.1 31.3

It is interesting, for a moment, to consider the relationship between the consumption of milk in these countries, the method of distribution and the type of container at present in use.

I t seems probable that, in the first place, there is a fairly strong correlation between the per capita consumption of milk and the extent to which a comprehensive door-step delivery system exists.

While due allowance must be made for certain other factors such as price trends, standards of living etc., statistics do seem to indicate that in those countries with a comprehensive delivery system, milk consumption per capita has risen proportionately most rapidly over the past twenty years or so, and least rapidly, or even fallen, where a poor or modified system exists.

Thus, to take two examples, the consumption of milk in the U.S., where some 50 per cent of total liquid milk is sold in shops, amounted during 1959 approximately to 28.8 gal. per capita. This repre- sents an increase of only 13 per cent on pre-war figures and an actual fall of very nearly 10 per cent since 1945 and some 2 per cent since 1957. In contrast, in the U.K. where almost 80 per cent of milk is delivered to the door-step, per capita consumption during 1959 at 31-1 gal. not only exceeded the U.S. figure but was some 47 per cent higher than in 1938 and, unlike the U.S., showed in addition an increase on the 1957 figure. Likewise, in Sweden, with a poor delivery system, per capita consumption although still high has fallen steadily since pre-war days. In New Zealand, however, where the delivery system is good, consumption of milk together with cream has risen rapidly since 1938 and for the last few years has stood at the very high figure around 47.0 gal. per capita. Naturally, as we mentioned earlier, other factors have played their part in influencing the trend in milk consumption, but nevertheless it seems probable that it is more than pure coincidence that good delivery systems have gone hand in hand with favourable consumption trends.

U.S.A. . . . . . . 2 5 3 29.5 28.9 28.8 . This argument scarcely requires a proof, but if proof is needed let us look closer a t the position in

.. 42*7 38*9 37’9 37*9 the United States where to a certain extent dairies Sweden *New Zealand .. . , 4.6 47.0 47.0 47.0 have abdicated their position as direct supplier to

. . . .

(+inc. cream) the housewife.

Journal o f t h e Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1961 187

Consumption of liquid milk (fresh, whole milk) per head of

total civil population (Ib.) 1935 26 I 2.07 I940 265 2.46 1945 335 3.61 1950 293 3.70 1955 305 2,79 I956 308 2.61 1957 304 2.12 1958 300 I .92 1959 299 (estj 1.99

We have not been able to correlate the actual change from door-step to retail sales, but if we take the sale of milk bottles as an indication of the change in policy we find that when the sale of milk bottles fell away, then so did the sale of milk. In a study, undertaken in 1953 by the University of Wisconsin, it was estimated that a loss of about 10 percent in home delivery trade should be expected as a result of switching from glass containers to cartons. Store trade usually remained unaffected by the changeover and the general effect, therefore, was to increase the emphasis on store distribution and thus, to reduce the overall degree of control which the dairymen had over the selling price and the method of sale.

We have, we feel, said sufficient to establish the importance of door-step deliveries to the dairy trade, and it is implicit that in order to increase these, market costs of distribution must be kept as low as possible.

Before finally leaving this argument, however, let us consider for a moment the habits of house- wives. The housewife decides on an order large enough to cover her likely needs, for example, 2 pt. each day and 3 pt. on Sunday. If she finds that milk is piling up her reaction is to make a milk pudding or something similar, rather than cut her order. On the other hand, were it customary for her to buy milk from a shop, then her natural reaction would be to reduce her purchases.

Distribution Costs Our next point is, therefore, that the glass bottle is the most economiccontainer for door-step deliveries. Glass containers have many advantages which we shall mention in detail, but the principal advantage of the milk bottle is that it is a robust, durable container which can be used over and over again. If you imagine that glass is a fragile material just bear in mind that a milk bottle can withstand a crushing force of about five tons.

Although we cannot tell you what your distribu- tion costs are, we are repeatedly told by dairymen that there is no container for milk that can meet the very low cost per journey of a glass bottle. We are told by many dairymen that bottle trippage averages well over 50 journeys. Bottles, we are informed, have been known to do over 200 journeys. If the average initial cost of the standard unenamelled pint bottle is taken as 4fd. then

Supply of bottles

(mill. gross)

the cost of a bottle each trip is less than one-tenth of a penny. Taking into account also washing and filling, the cost of a bottle is between .30d. and .38d. per journey. You, of course, can judge best the accuracy of this statement. An authoritative letter to the Financial Times on February 22nd said ‘Because the average bottle makes 54 journeys compared to the one of the non-returnable con- tainer, the bottle is approximately five times cheaper as a package for milk, and that is taking into account bottle collection, washing and labour costs. Modern washing and filling machinery give. a production rate with bottles which has not yet been matched by the carton filler, and the bottle is left in as sterile condition as the carton.’ If milk sales are to be increased, and that surely is the aim, then milk must be distributed in glass bottles since no housewife will welcome an increase in her housekeeping budget that results from a rise in costs of distribution.

But there are other important reasons why glass bottles are the most efficient containers for distributing milk. Fairly recently the Glass Manu- facturers’ Federation commissioned an independent enquiry into the attitudes of housewives towards the packaging of milk. The results were interesting and confirmed the results of an earlier survey carried out on behalf of the National Milk Publicity Council which indicated that there was an over- whelming preference for the glass milk bottle. In the National Milk Publicity Council survey you will remember, three out of four housewives said that they preferred their milk in bottles.

Consumer Preference In the Federation survey for all foods, in which category we classify milk, 63 per cent of housewives preferred glass containers. The enquiry took into account their attitudes towards all other forms of containers, that is tin, plastics and paper. The housewives’ preference for a glass bottle was given in this order: 1. They consider it the most hygienic container. 2. It does not taint the contents. 3. It allows the contents to be seen and therefore

creates confidence. In the case of milk bottles, the final point is most important to a dairyman since the transparent bottle clearly shows the cream line.

The dairymen interviewed also showed them- selves to be strongly in favour of the milk bottle, confirming what has already been stated, namely that in view of the large number of journeys the bottle can undertake, it is by far the most economical container on the market. This, it was felt, was the vital factor. Like housewives, dairymen felt that the inert nature of glass made it physically the most suitable container because it imparted no taste to the milk; they also felt that it was the easiest container to fill and seal.

188 Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1961

From the survey it was also clear that dairymen feel strongly that they must consider the needs of the consumer. They believe what was, in fact, confirmed by the survey, that the consumers prefer to see the milk in glass bottles and that it is an attractive container.

So much for market research. We make no excuse for continuing to point out the natural advantages that glass has when used as a container. Some of these have been hinted at in the survey already mentioned, and we want now to deal with them in more detail. The chemically inert nature of glass has been referred to and this characteristic, although important for any product, has even greater significance where the product concerned is a staple food forming part of the diet of every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. You will have seen from our advertising that we make a particular point of stressing that glass cannot affect the taste of a product and this is, indeed, a valuable characteristic of this very remarkable material.

Another attribute of glass that has considerable value is its transparency. You will remember that the housewives interviewed in our market research spoke of the confidence they had in the quality of the product when they could see it through the clear transparent walls of a bottle. This regard for the bottle is not confined to housewives, for many dairymen also believe this to be one of their most effective selling points. Certainly, if we may borrow examples from other fields of marketing, we have found that in self service stores, where a product competes with its immediate neighbours, a product that looks good appeals far more to the customer and we believe that it was for this reason our shelf test experiments on food products were so success- ful. You may remember that some eighteen months ago, in a number of self-service stores, we tested a range of food products against identical competitive packs and found that the offtake was greater for those products that were packed in glass.

Advantages of the Glass Bottle One can continue for a long while on the natural advantages of this remarkable material, glass, but let us summarize what we believe to be the remaining important reasons that make it not only an eminently practicable but also a necessary container for milk. Milk bottles are manufactured at high speed on automatic machines, a matter that we wish to touch on later. The method and speed of production is such that the requirements of every dairyman in the country can be met. This is further reinforced by the fact that the principal raw materials for manufacturing milk bottles are indigenous, and the commercial problems associated with the importing of raw materials do not arise. We have referred to the attractiveness of a milk

bottle and with that goes the stability of milk bottles on a filling line at well over 200 pt. bottles a minute, the ease with which they can be filled, and the accuracy in capacity of each individual bottle. This last point is of such vital importance to dairy managers that we illustrate below the standard of accuracy achieved.

Capacity above nominal Number of (20~7. 02.) in 1/64ths Bottles

n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16

_- 30 39

23 1 276 338 304 214 21 1 154 51 24 34

3 5 0 1

Figures extracted from quality control records of a glass container factory producing milk bottles covering a period of several months.

From this you will see that 90 per cent of the bottles are within an overall tolerance of 7/64 of a fluid ounce. We feel you will agree that the glass con- tainer industry has reduced the capacity tolerance to a minimum. The other factor contributing to accurate capacities is the filling machinery and here, too, much has been achieved by the manufacturers, in regard to accuracy and speed. We have good reason to believe that the current British glass milk bottle, filled to a standard filling height, can provide an accuracy of capacity which is unrivalled by any other system, anywhere in the world.

Another attribute is that the housewife has no difficulty in removing the cap, which in itself protects the pouring lip until the milk is required. Pouring the milk from a bottle is, in short, an easy and clean operation. Finally, two more points that bear on this subject. The milk bottle is not only a robust and durable container, it is also rigid, which means that it can be handled with safety in the dairy, on the float and in the kitchen or classroom. It also protects the milk 100 per cent during its journey from the dairy to the home or school.

We have referred briefly to the automatic methods of production now used in the glass container industry, and we would like to develop this a little more fully because it has been our experience that the revolutionary changes that have occurred in the methods of making glass containers are not as well known as they should be. The between-war years saw the introduction of automatic glass container manufacturing machines into the United Kingdom. This development was retarded, as one would expect, during the Second World War, but the post-

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1961 189

war period has been one of the most intensive periods of development in the long history of the glass industry. Much new plant and machinery has been laid down, to an extent that the glass con- tainer industry can now be ranked as one of the most highly mechanized industries in the United Kingdom, and the industry is by no means com- placent with the present position. Much time, energy and money is being spent in research into such matters as the control of capacity and weight, and the strength of glass containers. Even though a glass bottle is a strong container, it as yet only uses a small part of the theoretical strength of glass; at some point we shall work our way into the remainder.

Comparison of Distribution Systems Let us now look at other countries to see how their patterns of distribution measure up to ours. We have seen that the distribution of liquid milk in the United States is fairly evenly divided between shop sales and door-step deliveries. What is so frequently overlooked is that 90 per cent of all home delivered milk is i n glass. What is even more significant is the increased demand for half and one gal. glass containers for milk in supermarket sales.

This is the text of a recent report: ‘Housewife preference for glass milk bottles for store-bought milk has steadily risen until demand for glass is equal to that for the paper carton, which has generally been the only package available in the stores.’ And it is further reported that today one out of three stores stocks glass-packed milk, whereas a few years ago glass packed milk had practically disappeared from stores.

It has been said that the milk producers in the United States look enviously at the pattern of distribution in the United Kingdom, and well they might when we see from the National Milk Publicity Council survey that 94 per cent of all householders in the United Kingdom have their milk delivered to the door.

The Scandinavian countries are frequently cited as an example of the modern trend but one has to remember that in these countries a high proportion of the sales are unpacked. In Sweden, for example, 25 per cent of milk sales is unpacked and 55 per cent goes into glass bottles. The result of a survey in Gothenburg showed that 97 per cent of all housewives wanted their milk in glass containers. In Norway, 32 per cent of all milk is sold loose; the remaining 68 per cent is sold over the counter, over 60 per cent of this in glass bottles. The cost of milk in bottles in Norway is 9 ore (that is lad.) cheaper than in cartons.

In Oldenburg, in Germany, a market research was instituted to determine the reaction of house- wives to carton packed milk and 86 per cent said they preferred milk in glass bottles-so you can see

that the. public reaction is consistently in favour of the bottle. In France there was a consumer preference of 65 per cent for milk bottles. In the Dijon area, where there was an active attempt to introduce carton-packed milk, housewives showed that they preferred glass packaging for their milk and glass manufacturers based their publicity on the theme ‘If you have the health of your loved ones at heart you will choose the product protected by glass’. One has to admit that glass manufacturers in France are not as restrained as glass manufac- turers in the United Kingdom. You will know from our advertisements in the milk trade journals that we are restrained, and seek to put before you what we believe to be the inherent advantages of glass bottles for packaging milk. It has always been our policy never to make odious comparisons with competitive packs because we believe, in the first place, that such comparisons show that there is an inherent weakness in one’s own argument and we do not believe that this is the case; secondly, acrimony only leads to acrimony and in the long run both competitors suffer.

Services offered by the Glass Industry In the paper that we have presented today we have sought to show that we have a good material and an up-to-date industry. Our final point, therefore, is to seek to show that these are matched by the services our manufacturers have to offer. Since milk bottles were introduced in 1926 there have always been good customer-supplier relationships between individual dairymen and glass container suppliers.

Over the years, in the dairy industry, there has been sufficient agreement on shape and volume to develop what can be termed a standard container and this is the type of co-operation that the glass container industry welcomes. The advantages of working together are so apparent that they scarcely need mentioning, but occasionally they are over- looked. The economic advantages of having virtually one shape of container for 85 per cent of your products is very great indeed. The Glass Manufacturers’ Federation has a long record of co-operation with the National Dairymen’s Associ- ation and glass container manufacturers welcome this opportunity of settling problems on a national scale. This co-operation has, in the past, often led to significant improvements in bottle design and methods of usage, and there will undoubtedly be many similar cases in the future. For example, we are trying to play our part in the very interesting work on U.H.T. sterilization and aseptic filling which is taking place, and even if ultimately liquid milk turns to dust we shall be able to supply a suitable container. It is, of course, because of our interest in our customer and his problems that we are anxious to assist in experiments that he may be conducting, as for example, on U.H.T. sterilization.

190 Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, I961

More recently you will have seen the develop- ment of further services both collective and individual, and whilst these may not be of im- mediate interest to you, in so far as milk deliveries are concerned, we have to remember that today dairies are frequently concerned with the marketing of other dairy products. We mention this in order to show you that in the marketing field we have services that will enable users, or prospective users, of glass containers to test their products on the market before they are finally committed to a decision as to the final form in which it will be sold. W’e cite these services as an example of how a forward-looking industry views the problems of the packer today.

We would like to conclude, therefore, with this thought. The glass container industry is fully aware of the competitive nature of many of the markets in which it sells its products. It is prepared

to help its customers to solve these problems, both individually on a customer-supplier basis or, collectively on a national basis. The industry makes a good product. It believes it is the beat of its kind for the job and it believes this so sincerely that it wants to convince you if you ere not already so convinced. Above all, the industry is sincere in its wish to help you sell your product.

After our friends and competitors from the carton manufacturing industry have had an opportunity of putting their case there will be a discussion, and we can assure those present that we shall do our very best to answer fully any questions they may like to put forward.

Mr. H. S. Hall: ‘Thank you, Mr. Weeden.

from his friends and competitors.’ Now we have Mr. Dixon to present the arguments

The Case for Cartons BY N . F. D I X O N

on behalf of the Milk Carton Manufacturers

My duty today is to present to you on behalf of the milk carton manufacturers the case for the use of milk cartons-or single use containers-in the distribution and sale of milk.

The idea of the use of paper for milk packaging is certainly as old as the use of the glass bottle, and in fact cartons of one sort or another have been in use in the world throughout this century.

From the earliest days of milk packaging in glass, there were forward-looking people, both in the industry and outside who could see that a single use container for milk would cut out many of the requirements which are essential to the use of glass on multiple journeys.

It is true that limited experiments in the use of cartons prior to the last war were not entirely successful, but it would be wrong to assume that any shortcomings at that time necessarily remain today. I t was as true then as it is today that there is a ‘dairy trade’ resistance to cartons; a resistance that is endemic to the custom of using bottles.

Post-War Developments Since the war, however, we have seen dramatic developments in the use of paper cartons in several countries of the world. In a period of 15 years, the United States of America moved from negligible packaging in paper to something around 60 per cent of the milk today.

In Europe the loss of bottle plants during the war left dairies after the war with a free choice to decide which way to equip for packaging. It is not unfair to say that a large proportion of this choice was for single use containers.

Naturally the commercial and industrial develop- ment of plant and equipment for the use of cartons and for their filling and sealing at dairies has had to move in keeping with the potential use of cartons. Until comparatively recent times there has been little knowledge of cartons disseminated to the dairy industry because, frankly, no interest was shown by the dairy industry and there was no incentive to the carton manufacturers.

The picture has, however, changed dramatically in the years from 1955. The national need for increasing the sale of liquid milk led the Milk Marketing Board to seek for new methods of selling. It was very quickly realized that the ultimate sale of milk is conditioned only by its availability to the consumer in a palatable condition. Milk bars and dairy shops which had been de- veloped pre-war with the prime purpose of selling milk had utterly ceased this function and were selling foodstuffs, tea, coffee etc. Failure to stimulate a return to active milk selling caused the Board to decide to encourage the use of coin-operated re- frigerated vending machines.

It was, therefore, the appearance of vending