UK-based Talbot Chemicals, a manufacturer of chemical cleaning materials, has purchased digital label printing and finishing equipment from Impression Technology Europe (ITE) to move its entire label production in-house.
Talbot was facing a large overstock of product labels, high cost per label and large lead times from their label suppliers, the company said. Additionally, ongoing chemical regulation changes resulted in large stock of labels in its warehouse to become redundant, increasing waste and cost to the company. So the company took matters into their own hands and purchased label converting equipment from Impression Technology Europe.
Talbot Chemicals production manager Stephen Greenwood said: ‘Requirements vary and often we'll get asked to produce 20 bottles of one kind, or full pallets of 20 of one kind of label and 20 another kind. We realized this was inefficient in terms of ordering minimum quantities of labels, and having to store these, not to mention waiting for delivery and having to pass that extra time on to the customer.’
Talbot purchased a 4-color ribbon printer 10 years ago, which Greenwood said gave the company, ‘the confidence to take more in-house.’ At the time, the company was cutting labels with scissors but eventually installed an Eclipse LF3 finishing machine. Most recently, Talbot purchased a Compress LP4 digital printer, both products from ITE.
‘It was a fairly bold move and significant investment, but one we definitely do not regret,’ Greenwood said. 'The new Compress LP4 toner printer reduced the cost of ink dramatically, half the price, in-fact. Cost wise we've shaved 40 percent off each label produced.'
He continued: ‘Convenience is a major factor for us in addition to cost. On the back of that we have customer service; we can respond quickly now, even if it's just for one label. We were cutting some labels out with scissors in the past! Industry wise we're all aware of the CLP regulations and how things are changing rapidly these days. Our solution means we can react straight away, whereas before would have needed to re-order and potentially dispose of redundant label stock.’