A UK skincare brand approached us to develop custom cosmetic packaging for a growing range of individual products and gift sets. The initial goal was straightforward: create packaging that felt more premium and better supported the brand’s next stage of growth.
Before redesigning individual boxes, we reviewed the existing packaging across the full SKU range. The bigger issue was not the appearance of one box, but the increasing complexity of the packaging system—different colors, multiple structures, mismatched inserts and unnecessary storage volume.
Instead of treating each SKU as a separate packaging project, we looked at the range as one system, focusing on brand consistency, box and insert structure, packaging efficiency and perceived value.
What Packaging Problems Did We Find?
When we reviewed the brand’s existing packaging, we looked beyond the appearance of individual boxes. We considered how the full packaging range worked across multiple SKUs, gift sets and future product launches.
Several recurring issues became clear:
| Packaging Issue | What We Found | Recommended Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Too many packaging colors | Different SKUs used several unrelated colors, weakening the visual connection across the range. | Build a more controlled core color system. |
| Too many packaging formats | Products had gradually developed different box structures over time. | Standardize structures where practical. |
| Insert mismatch | Some gift-set inserts did not match the product layout or protection requirements well. | Re-evaluate paper card, thermoformed and foam options based on the product. |
| Excess storage volume | Some packaging structures occupied more warehouse space than necessary. | Use more space-efficient structures where suitable. |
| Premium positioning through complexity | More colors, materials and structure did not always create stronger perceived value. | Simplify the base packaging and use premium finishing more selectively. |
This review changed the direction of the project.
Instead of asking, “How can we make each box look more premium?”, the more useful question became:
“How can the entire packaging system work better across the product range?”
Managing Cosmetic Packaging Across Multiple SKUs
For this UK skincare brand, one of the main challenges was that packaging had evolved SKU by SKU. Different products used different colors and structures, which made the range harder to manage and weakened the visual connection between products.
The goal was not to make every product look identical. A serum, cream and skincare gift set may need different structures, but they should still share a recognizable packaging language. This can come from a controlled core color system, consistent logo placement, typography, materials and selected secondary details for individual SKUs.
Where product dimensions and protection requirements allowed, we also looked for opportunities to share packaging structures across related products. This reduces the need to create a completely new packaging format every time a new SKU is launched and can simplify purchasing, inventory and future product expansion.
For a growing beauty brand, packaging standardization should therefore support both sides of the business: brand consistency for the customer and lower complexity for the procurement team.
Choosing the Right Insert for Different Cosmetic Products
Insert selection was another important part of the review. Some existing gift-set inserts were more complicated than the products actually required, while others did not provide the right balance of fit, protection and presentation.
Rather than choosing an insert material first, we evaluated what each product needed the insert to achieve.
| Insert Type | Best Suited For | Main Advantage | Key Consideration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paper Card Insert | Lightweight to medium skincare and makeup products | Paper-based structure with flexible design possibilities | May not provide enough support for heavier or complex-shaped products |
| Thermoformed Insert | Bottles, jars, serums and multi-product sets | Precise cavities, repeatable positioning and efficient pack-out | Material choice should be considered alongside sustainability goals |
| Foam Insert | Heavy glass bottles, fragile products and premium sets | Strong holding and cushioning | Can use more material than simpler structures |
| Flocked Insert | Fragrance, premium skincare and luxury beauty sets | Combines fitted structure with a softer, more premium presentation | The underlying insert still needs to be engineered around the product |
For this project, the key question was not simply which insert looked more premium, but whether the material and structure were justified by the product. A heavy glass bottle may require stronger holding, while a lightweight skincare tube may be better suited to a simpler paper-based solution.
The insert should therefore be developed around the product’s size, weight, shape, protection requirements and presentation level. This also helps the outer box and insert work as one packaging system rather than as two separately developed components.
Reducing Packaging and Storage Complexity
Packaging efficiency became another important consideration in this project. Some existing structures occupied more warehouse space than necessary, which increased inventory pressure across a growing number of SKUs.
Rigid boxes can create a strong premium presentation, but fully assembled structures also take up significantly more space before the product is packed. For a multi-SKU skincare brand, this becomes more noticeable as order quantities increase.
We therefore reviewed whether each product genuinely required a traditional rigid box or whether a more space-efficient structure could achieve the same objective. Depending on the product and positioning, this could include a foldable rigid box, folding carton or a simplified insert structure.
For this type of project, storage efficiency should be considered at three levels:
- Unit level: Is the individual package larger or heavier than necessary?
- SKU level: Can related products share a common structure?
- Inventory level: How much warehouse space will the complete packaging range occupy?
This is why packaging cost should not be judged by unit price alone. A slightly cheaper box can still create a higher total cost if it requires more storage space, more packaging variations or more complicated assembly.
What Drives the Cost of Custom Cosmetic Packaging?
For this project, cost was not evaluated as the price of the outer box alone. The total packaging cost also depended on the insert, materials, finishing, SKU allocation, assembly and storage requirements.
| Cost Factor | How It Affects the Project |
|---|---|
| Box Structure | Rigid boxes generally require more material and assembly than standard folding cartons. |
| Insert Type | Paper card, thermoformed, foam and flocked inserts involve different materials and production processes. |
| Material | Paper grade, board thickness and specialty materials affect both cost and structural performance. |
| Printing & Finishing | Foil stamping, embossing and specialty finishes add production steps. |
| Order Quantity | Higher volumes can distribute setup and tooling costs more efficiently. |
| Number of SKUs | Splitting one total order across multiple artwork versions can increase unit cost. |
| Assembly | More complicated structures may require additional manual assembly or pack-out time. |
| Storage & Logistics | Bulky packaging can increase warehouse and transportation requirements. |
This is why the lowest unit quotation does not always represent the lowest-cost packaging solution.
A slightly cheaper box may still create higher overall costs if it takes up more warehouse space, requires a more complicated insert or cannot be shared across related SKUs. For a growing beauty brand, structure, inventory and logistics need to be considered alongside the quoted unit price.
The objective is therefore not simply to reduce packaging cost, but to remove cost that does not add enough value to the product, brand or packaging process.
What Changed in the Packaging Direction?
The biggest change in this project was not one new box or one new material. It was the shift from managing packaging SKU by SKU to treating the full range as one connected system.
The revised direction focused on:
- A more controlled visual system across related skincare products
- Fewer unnecessary packaging variations where structures could be standardized
- Better-matched inserts based on product weight, shape and protection requirements
- More space-efficient packaging structures where premium presentation did not require a fully assembled rigid box
- More selective use of premium finishing instead of relying on additional materials or complexity
- A packaging framework that could support future SKU expansion more easily
This created a clearer basis for future packaging development. New products could be evaluated against an existing system rather than starting from zero each time.
For a growing skincare brand, that is often more valuable than improving the appearance of one box in isolation.
What Other Beauty Brands Can Learn From This Project
This UK skincare project highlights a broader lesson for growing beauty brands: packaging becomes harder to manage when every new SKU is treated as a separate project.
A more scalable approach is to review the packaging system in the right order:
- Start with the product and SKU portfolio, not the box alone
- Standardize structures where product dimensions and protection requirements allow
- Develop the outer box and insert together
- Consider storage, assembly and logistics as part of packaging cost
- Use premium materials and finishing selectively, where they create visible value
The objective is not to make every product use the same packaging. It is to create enough consistency that new SKUs can fit into an existing packaging framework without adding unnecessary complexity.
For a beauty brand planning future growth, a useful question is not only:
“Does this packaging look good?”
but also:
“Will this packaging system still work when the product range becomes larger?”
Frequently Asked Questions About Custom Cosmetic Packaging
Can different skincare SKUs use the same packaging structure?
Sometimes. If product dimensions, weight and protection requirements are compatible, related SKUs may be able to share the same basic box structure and use artwork, labels or inserts for differentiation.
Which insert is best for skincare gift sets?
It depends on the products. Paper card inserts suit lighter products and paper-based packaging directions, thermoformed inserts provide precise positioning, and foam or flocked inserts can be considered for heavier, fragile or more premium products.
Why should the outer box and insert be developed together?
The insert affects product position, internal dimensions, removal space and final pack-out. Developing both components around the same product information helps reduce fit problems and repeated adjustments.
Can cosmetic packaging be optimized to meet a target cost?
Yes. Box structure, insert type, material, finishing, order quantity and SKU allocation can all be reviewed before production. Cost optimization is usually more effective before the final packaging specification is locked.