What is a multi-flavour pack, why is it worth it, and where does it perform best
A multi-flavour pack is a secondary or tertiary packaging format that groups multiple different-flavour SKUs in the same box, such as a carton with multiple consumer packs or a case with multiple cartons. It is used mainly for marketing purposes, because it enables sales while also supporting market testing by measuring which variants are preferred and then updating the assortment. The main advantage is the speed with which a new flavour can be introduced.
On these topics, Industrial Meeting met Francesco Riva, Sales Engineer Director at Cama, who explained: “To do this, normally, dedicated packaging, a format changeover, and specific logistics would be needed. With the multi-flavour option, we can keep the same outer box and modify only the products inside it. This reduces time and costs and speeds up the verification of the consumer’s response. The system works best where variety is perceived as value. Examples include sectors such as pet food or confectionery, with assortments of chocolates, bars, and sweets, to satisfy consumers during occasions such as Halloween, Christmas, and others in Europe and the United States.”
Multi-flavour worldwide: differences across Europe, the United States, Asia, and the MENA Region
Multi-flavour is an international trend, but it develops differently from market to market because purchasing habits and distribution dynamics change. “In the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), which is more traditional, single-flavour dominates and historic brands matter a lot: multi-flavour packs are still rare and adoption is slow. In Asia, assorted packs are well represented on shelves. In China, variety is wide and often very ‘scenographic’, with combinations designed to stand out,” Francesco Riva tells us.
“Production logic also changes. In the United States and in Australia, automated packing is common and is based on standard, repeatable solutions. In Asia, manual assembly is more frequent. It allows varied mixes and the use of dividers or internal inserts to keep products separate, increasing the surprise effect perceived by the consumer.”
The regulatory framework also has an impact between Europe and the United States. In the United States and Australia, it is easier to manage packs with variable counts, especially for promotions or seasonal periods. A box designed for ten pieces can be sold with eight in the standard version and increase its content during the holidays. In Europe, the focus on packaging optimization and transparency makes these practices less feasible and reduces commercial flexibility.
“In the United States, multi-flavour solutions are widespread in many categories, from confectionery to dairy, such as yogurt, and also in dried fruit and nuts and in savory snacks. In South America, instead, automation can be more expensive, and manual work is often used because the investment does not always pay back, even if the trend is moving toward greater automation.”
Sustainability of multi-flavour packs: when they really reduce the impact
The sustainability of a multi-flavour pack is not automatic: it depends on design. If the design is proper, it can reduce environmental impact compared with having many single packs. By grouping multiple SKUs in the same secondary packaging for the same amount of product sold, less cardboard is used per unit. This reduces the environmental footprint of each single SKU.
The multi-flavour approach also encourages trial: the consumer tastes more flavours and then chooses the preferred SKU in a dedicated pack, without immediately buying large quantities.
Multi-flavour is sustainable when it:
- concentrates many variants in the same outer packaging;
- reduces cardboard per unit of product sold;
- keeps a simple structure, without unnecessary complications.
A multi-flavour pack is less sustainable when it:
- increases volume and mass without a functional advantage;
- combines different materials within the same packaging system (for example, cardboard and plastic);
- adds unnecessary inserts or dividers that do not improve protection or stability.
In Europe, empty space is also decisive. If a box is designed for 20 bars but contains 18, part of the volume is “transported empty”. Efficiency decreases, and the footprint per unit can worsen. The PPWR also moves in this direction. It steers toward limiting overpackaging, oversized formats, and incomplete internal fillings, without giving up variety.
During the project, the entire system is defined, from the format to the packing machine, to build a coherent and efficient solution.
Which criteria guide pack sizing?
- Logistics optimization: dimensions suitable for storage and handling.
- Functional protection: packaging proportionate to the fragility of the product.
- Material reduction: using what is necessary.
- Material uniformity: preferring mono-material solutions to simplify end-of-life recovery.
- Correct proportions: avoiding packs that are too large compared to the content, also to reduce the perception linked to shrinkflation.
Packaging in multi-flavour: turning brand requests into feasible solutions.
To turn marketing requirements into a feasible project, there is one rule: involve the packing machine builder immediately. This avoids choices that are convincing in a presentation but difficult, or impossible, to manage in production.
Francesco Riva explains: “The process starts with marketing, which defines objectives and expectations. The engineering work must translate them into technical solutions and cost estimates. The starting point is discussion with suppliers and partners, to clarify operational steps, constraints, risks, and alternatives. The solution must remain sensible, manufacturable, and compatible with the budget.”
Materials must be chosen methodically, because they affect both sustainability and the way the pack behaves on the line. Deciding between a mono-material solution or combinations of materials depends on the constraints that emerge with machine designers and with the supply chain. Only in this way can environmental objectives, feasibility, and costs be aligned.
In multi-flavour lines, cardboard, inserts, and dividers determine system complexity and directly influence productivity and costs. Poorly optimized packaging slows down the line. It increases stoppages and makes management more critical. Efficiency decreases, and the investment payback period becomes longer. This is the typical risk when “scenography” is preferred at the expense of manufacturability.
“For many companies, especially multinationals, a rapid payback is required. A method-driven project is therefore needed, and it must also guide line configuration: simplify where possible, optimize the format, reduce downtime, and make multi-flavour variety sustainable, also economically.”
Mono-material or multi-material: how packaging changes between recycling, costs, and the market
In packaging design, different materials can be used, but if the goal is to improve sustainability, in most cases it is generally preferable to reduce the number of components. Mono-material packaging simplifies end-of-life management and facilitates recycling, because it requires less separation and fewer steps.
“Paper-based solutions are often preferred because they make end-of-life management simpler, and many companies are moving in this direction,” Francesco Riva explains. “Plastic, however, will continue to be present. What changes is the way it is chosen and designed, aiming for greater recyclability and compatibility with collection systems. Every additional element increases complexity and costs.
“A paper and paperboard pack with an internal plastic tray can work if separate collection and recycling are effective, and if separation is actually practiced. However, it must be remembered that recycling requires energy and handling. More materials mean more steps and, often, higher costs, both for the pack and for end-of-life.”
In some markets, this complexity is a commercial choice. In pet food, for example, presentation affects sales, and a more “richer” packaging solution can be accepted because higher sales can offset the costs. From an environmental point of view, it may not be ideal, but sometimes it is a conscious decision.
Sustainability must also be considered through consumer behaviour. If some people do not sort correctly, the effectiveness of the system decreases. In this sense, a mono-material, paper-based solution is often more robust. Plastic is a valuable material, but the variety of types makes recycling more difficult when waste is mixed. A homogeneous material, instead, facilitates recovery.
The main limitation of mono-material solutions is performance. When barrier properties and seal integrity are needed to protect the product, achieving the same result with a single material is not always simple. Despite this, development is moving toward homogeneous solutions, to bring recyclability and performance closer together.
Finally, separate collection and recycling also depend on a country’s culture. It is not only a technical issue, but one of everyday habits. In Europe, environmental awareness and the separation of materials have grown, and the same evolution is affecting other areas of the world. This directly influences the effectiveness of packaging choices.
Multi-flavour packaging: resealability, portions, and visibility guide the choice.
In multi-flavour consumer packs, elements such as convenience, ease of use, and the ability to stand out on the shelf matter. Value increases when packaging becomes a solid experience in everyday use. Resealability, assortment, and portion-based consumption respond to the need to open, store, and take what is needed, when it is needed.
In larger formats, resealability is often decisive: it allows the pack to be carried, stored, and handled easily. The principle does not change, whatever the product is: consuming one portion at a time, while keeping the units well separated and ready to use.
The multi-flavour pack is also a lever for marketing. Shapes and opening systems help capture attention and differentiate the product. It also allows smaller portions and facilitates trial: the consumer chooses what to consume and when, without having to “commit” to the whole pack. For the brand, this is a useful indicator, because it naturally shows which flavours are preferred.
If the experience is positive, loyalty grows. If a competitor offers a pack that is more practical or more visible on the shelf, the choice can change. In multi-flavour, packaging is a concrete lever: it guides perception, simplifies use, and influences purchase.
The multi-flavour dilemma: in-line or off-line?
In multi-flavour, the strategic choice is between two models: composing the pack on the production line or off-line. Riva explains: “The in-line solution is less frequent, because it requires very flexible lines or few SKUs. When the variants are many, keeping a continuous flow becomes difficult.
“In some contexts, however, the in-line option works. A small producer, with lines close to each other and a well-organized work area, can compose the multi-flavour pack during production. In this way, storage and handling are reduced, and costs can go down, because the process remains close to a standard production.”
“The most widespread model is off-line multi-flavour. Here, the essential condition is traceability, together with orderly storage. It is necessary to know, in real time, how much stock is available for each flavour and for each batch. If even a single component is missing, the composition stops and the pack is not completed. For this reason, internal logistics becomes more demanding than for a single SKU. Shortages are reflected directly in efficiency.”
The design work must be developed with a reliable partner, but continuity also depends on the customer’s organization, which must guarantee consistent availability of the products to be boxed. When primary production works in batches, as in baking, forming, or filling, flavours are produced in sequence, stored, and then combined. In some cases, such as yogurt, management can be more “in a queue”, and composition runs better. In many others, for example in baked goods or chocolate, the logic remains: produce, store, and pack, with traceability and suitable storage conditions.
To make multi-flavour sustainable also economically, a flexible packaging line is needed, especially when formats change often. Multi-flavour is often produced for a few days and then production moves on to something else. If changeovers take too much time, the investment does not pay back.
Flexibility is achieved with automation and robotics, integrated with line management systems. Primary production continues to work in batches, one flavour at a time. In secondary and tertiary packaging, instead, products are selected and combined in the final carton. This is where a flexible line makes the difference. It allows different variants to be managed without turning every changeover into a heavy stop.
Simulation and multi-flavour packaging: preventing line blockages
In multi-flavour, the line must manage more SKUs and more combinations. For this reason, simulation is a concrete support. The digital twin (digital twin) allows the machine, the pack format, and the composition logic to be tested before start-up. It is particularly useful in new multi-format solutions: it highlights bottlenecks and weak points in advance, avoiding costly corrections when production has already started.
“With a single SKU the flow is linear. In multi-flavour, instead, it is enough for one component to be missing for the system to stop. Typical causes are machine stops, incorrect planning, and incomplete management of stocks and availability. Every extra step increases vulnerability.”
“Criticality increases in unbalanced mixes, for example three strawberry, two peach, and one raspberry. The SKUs do not progress at the same pace. Some flavours must arrive with greater continuity. Here simulation becomes decisive, because it helps define the infeed, evaluate transients, and prevent the most penalizing scenario: the line waiting because one flavour is not available,” Francesco Riva explains.
“Another key factor is integration. The more integrated the process is, the less errors and discontinuities increase. In practice, work is often done in phases: one flavour is produced, it is set aside, and then the next one is produced. Only when all flavours are ready is the assortment composed and packing completed, while replenishing stocks in the meantime.”
For this reason, design must cover the entire chain: loading and unloading of containers, the manual portion and the automated portion, storage and retrieval logic, up to feeding toward the packaging phase. It is not only “mixing products”. It is a process that includes loading, storage, retrieval, and packaging.
Technology also depends on product delicacy. Coffee capsules are managed more easily and lend themselves to automated feeding. Chocolate is more fragile and requires controlled handling. Pouches also have to be handled with care, to preserve shape and integrity and to orient the individual items correctly.
In multi-flavour there is no single solution. Sometimes automatic feeders are enough, other times robots or dedicated grippers are needed. Small candies or pralines tolerate automation well; a bar treated in the same way breaks and loses value. And a damaged product, even with perfect packaging, does not sell.
Multi-flavour lines: product robustness and shelf life guide choices and investments.
In multi-flavour lines, choices change depending on the product. Investments and technical solutions depend mainly on two factors: handling robustness and shelf life, an important operational constraint. Riva continues: “If shelf life is long, it is possible to produce for extended periods and plan format changeovers with more margin. If it is short, changeovers will necessarily be frequent. Production windows shrink, and the available time for stops and adjustments decreases. In this scenario, multi-flavour becomes more complex, because it requires continuity and tight timings.”
“Product fragility also matters: a chocolate bar loses value if it breaks or if it shows aesthetic defects. For this reason, the line must be designed ‘from the product’: the SKU defines the pick method, the handling, and the packaging.
“In defining the assortment, the choice is between working in-line or using storage. Picking systems can be manual, automatic, or robotic. The fact that today many solutions are still not very automated indicates an important margin for improvement.”
“In-line assortment, without storage, is the most economical but also the most sensitive to imbalances. If flavours progress at different speeds, it is enough for one to slow down for the process to stop. If one flavour is available in lower quantities, only the possible packs are completed, and the rest must be managed with storage or alternative solutions. For this reason, the line must be designed by considering these imbalances in advance.
When work is not done in-line, storage is used: the product is kept in containers and feeds the packing machine according to the required assortment, with automatic feeders or, in some cases, with reels of sachets for liquids or powders, cut and selected in the machine”.
There is no single scheme: assortment strategy and picking system are chosen depending on the product, its shelf life, and its sensitivity to handling.
Zero waste: the warehouse protects efficiency as the number of flavours increases
In multi-flavour, the warehouse is a concrete lever to protect efficiency and reduce waste. In-line assortment, without inventory and without accumulation, becomes fragile as flavours increase: if one flow slows down, the balance breaks and the line can stop.
“When possible, it is better to compose the multi-flavour by picking from the warehouse in a controlled way. Composition becomes more stable, and the process is less sensitive to differences in pace between variants,” Riva specifies. He continues: “The warehouse has a fixed cost, but it is amortized. Inefficiency, instead, is paid on the product: even small losses become raw-material scrap. If raw-material value grows, scrap weighs more. In chocolate, where value is increasing, a few points of scrap turn into a significant cost.”
“The more flavours enter the multi-flavour pack, the more variables increase and the higher the probability of line stops. For this reason, companies invest in production configurations aimed at reducing waste, also with small warehouses dedicated to individual products, managed as local “lungs”.
There is also the line’s “series” effect. When machines are in sequence, overall efficiency decreases. Two machines at 99% lead to about 98% overall. Three machines at 99% lead to about 97%. As the line is extended, the loss becomes increasingly significant.
In this scenario, the warehouse works as an operational cushion. It absorbs slowdowns, protects production continuity, and reduces scrap, making multi-flavour truly manageable”.
