Most brands approach packaging like this: hire a designer, get beautiful concepts, then go find containers that match the vision.

That's backwards. And it's expensive to discover halfway through.

The reality is that your packaging decisions exist in three distinct layers, and each one informs the next. The first layer is strategic — what does your brand need this packaging to communicate, and to whom? The second layer is functional — what container type, material, and format does your formula actually require? The third layer is design — how do you make that container work as hard as possible for your brand?

Doing layer three before layer two means your designer builds concepts around packaging that either doesn't exist at the MOQ you can afford, doesn't come in the size you need, or isn't compatible with your formula. Doing layer three before layer one means your designer is making brand decisions that should have been made strategically. Both situations cost you time and money in revisions.

The order is: brand strategy, then container selection, then design. Every shortcut in that sequence creates a problem downstream.

This is the first thing that surprises founders: primary and secondary packaging are usually sourced from completely different suppliers, on different timelines, with different MOQs.

Primary packaging is whatever touches your product directly — the bottle, tube, jar, pump, or airless dispenser your formula sits in. Secondary packaging is everything around it — the outer carton, box, sleeve, or shipper. Both need to be sourced, sampled, and approved before your designer can finalise artwork. Both have their own MOQ requirements. And they need to arrive at your manufacturer at the same time for filling, which means coordinating two separate supply chains to the same deadline.

Australian packaging suppliers exist and are worth using for shorter runs — faster communication, lower MOQs in some cases, and no customs complexity. But the range is more limited and the unit cost is higher. Overseas suppliers — predominantly China — offer more variety, more competitive pricing, and brutal lead times. Ten to sixteen weeks from order confirmation to arrival is a normal expectation, and that's before you account for Chinese New Year shutdowns, port delays, or quality issues that require a re-run.

The practical implication: your packaging needs to be ordered significantly earlier than most founders expect. If your formula is still in stability testing and you think you have time to sort packaging later — you don't. The timelines run in parallel, not in sequence.

This is where formulation and packaging intersect — and where the most expensive mistakes happen if you're treating them as independent workstreams.

Not every container is right for every formula. The container you choose affects your formula's stability, efficacy, and shelf life. Get this wrong and your stability testing results are meaningless, because you'll be testing in a container you won't actually use, or you'll discover incompatibility after you've placed an order.

Vitamin C formulations are the obvious example — L-Ascorbic Acid oxidises rapidly when exposed to light and air. It needs an opaque, airtight container, ideally with a pump mechanism that limits air exposure. A clear glass jar is aesthetically appealing and completely wrong for that formula. Airless pump dispensers are more expensive, have more limited supplier options, and come with higher MOQs — but for certain actives, they're not optional.

Beyond active ingredient compatibility, you need to consider: the interaction between your formula's pH and the container material (some plastics leach at certain pH levels), whether your preservative system is affected by the container, and how your formula behaves at temperature extremes during shipping (a product that separates or changes viscosity in a hot warehouse is a return and a reputation problem).

Your manufacturer should provide guidance here — but confirm it, don't assume. Compatibility testing between your final formula and your chosen container is part of your stability testing scope. Build it in from the start, not as an afterthought.

Custom packaging MOQs are one of the most common budget shocks for new brand founders.

Off-the-shelf or stock packaging — containers that a supplier already produces and holds inventory on — typically has lower MOQs and faster lead times. You're choosing from what exists rather than creating something new. The trade-off is that your packaging looks like everyone else's, because they're buying from the same stock range.

Custom packaging — tooling a mould for a proprietary bottle shape, commissioning a specific lid, creating a custom carton structure — requires tooling fees on top of per-unit cost, and MOQs are typically higher because the supplier needs volume to justify setting up the run. Tooling fees can range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per component and are generally a sunk cost regardless of whether you proceed to production.

For a first run, stock packaging with strong label and design execution will almost always outperform custom packaging on ROI. You're not yet at the scale where a proprietary bottle shape pays for itself. Custom packaging becomes a strategic investment once you have proven demand and the volume to justify it.

A realistic frame for a first production run: if you're ordering 1,000 units of primary packaging from an overseas supplier, you're looking at a per-unit packaging cost that only makes commercial sense if your retail price supports the full COGS — packaging, formula, filling, labour, and secondary packaging — at a margin that actually works. Run the numbers before you fall in love with a container.

Sustainable packaging is a genuine consumer expectation in the current skincare market. It's also one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of cosmetic claims in Australia right now.

"Recyclable", "biodegradable", "compostable", "eco-friendly", "sustainable" — each of these claims has a specific meaning and a specific evidentiary standard. Slapping a recycling symbol on packaging that isn't actually recyclable in Australian kerbside programs is misleading. Claiming biodegradability without specifying conditions (industrial composting vs. home composting vs. landfill) is misleading. The ACCC has explicitly targeted packaging sustainability claims as a priority enforcement area.

If your packaging strategy includes sustainability claims — and given consumer expectations, it probably should — build those claims on actual supplier certification and documentation, not on vague commitments or assumptions about what "should" be recyclable. Ask your supplier for formal certifications. Check whether those certifications apply in the Australian context. And be specific in your claims rather than aspirational.

"Made from 50% post-consumer recycled material" is a substantiatable claim. "Sustainable packaging" is an invitation for scrutiny.