Should customer change from Mullen to ECT?

Michael asks —

One of our customers is asking us a question I hope you can provide some insight on. They currently run all their boxes to Mullen specs and want to know why they should change to ECT. There are price reasons why changing is good as well as some environmental impacts, fibre savings, etc. but they are really looking for why they should change to ECT. They currently sell boxes through a catalog and would need to change the information in the catalog if they did go to ECT, but they are really looking for us to convince them to get out of Mullen and into ECT.

Please let me know your thoughts and could you forward me any information on this so that I can provide it to them.

Looking forward to your input on this.

Michael —

It depends. If the boxes are sold in small quantities and generally end up in the small package/parcel environment like USPS, UPS, and FedEx, then Mullen may be the preferred style. Boxes in those environments have to endure a rough handling mode verses those that need stacking strength, such as shipments in pallet loads, where ECT is the better predicator of box performance.

Mullen does not have the endurance it once had, because the use of 26# medium was removed from Rule 41/Item 222. Then again, boxes do not need to carry a certification stamp to be transported by trucks or rail.

The best corrugated structure is usually engineered when we place 50% of the load bearing potential on the fluted medium and the other 50% on the two liner facings. This is not the principal we use in combining Mullen based boxes. Tell me how deep you want to go in this area and I will send additional resources.

%d bloggers like this: