I can extract the absolute last molecule of toothpaste from a spent tube. It's a stupid life skill borne from poverty on my part and bad package design on the manufacturer's part. But I wonder how many gallons of toothpaste, shampoo, liquid soap, etc. go into the garbage, a few drops at a time, because people can't or won't bother to extract the last bits.
When I used to work in restaurants, we used the ridiculous $100 Ketchup Collector contraption shown up top to get the last bit of ketchup out of their glass bottles. Even the plastic squeeze bottles have not made this product obsolete.
Finally I have come across a package design that would enable you to get at the absolute last drop of something!
Intended for peanut butter (but obviously good for a variety of products), design engineer Sherwood Forlee's Easy PB&J Jar concept proposes dual lids, and I covet it intensely. I'm not familiar enough with glass manufacturing techniques to know how much more difficult this would be to make; any experts care to sound off in the comments?
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
Structurally its weak....
From a marketing point of view most consumers would see it as a fridge disaster waiting to happen, visually it won't appeal, and the particular problem of getting the last bit out doesn't really effect wide mouth jars like this as much as other products....
Not to mention how is it in the interest of the company selling you their products to spend more on the consumer spending less? (logically if they use more they will buy less, albeit not a huge a mount, but in the grand scheme of things these small amounts add up to a lot)....
What you really need to do is SAVE the company money while solving the problems that face the consumers otherwise your ideas will just get binned whether they give you the real reason or not!
Good concept overall.
1. Cost. That's number one. Every manufacturer (MFG) takes into account the piece price of the cap, the bottle, and the contents--down to a fraction of a penny. The second lid presents a large additional cost of goods for a MFG.
2. Environment. For every bottle sold, you are putting an extra cap into the landfill; most caps don't get recycled. For a wide-mouth jar, the amount of plastic/aluminum in one cap is already very high. Putting two in there to justify consumer laziness will, at the very minimum, be a PR nightmare.
3. Manufacturing. (In case you're wondering, most plastic jars/bottles are made using injection blow-molding or extrusion blow-molding, neither of which can make a thread on both ends of a bottle.) For glass jars, it's even harder without having to blow a balloon-like shape first and then chopping off one end for a second opening. Tolerances for a leak-proof seal will not be acceptable. Threads need to have very tight tolerances to ensure a good seal; having threads on both sides is simply not feasible. To make a glass jar like the concept, the jar will need to be made very slowly--not blown, which brings me to...
4. Line speed. The speed at which bottles need to be manufactured and filled is insanely high. The range is usually in the hundreds of bottles per minute. When you are adding an additional cap--even if you can manufacture the bottle--that means you are essentially doubling the time to put caps on the bottle. This means you have a machine that will need to cap one end, fill it with contents, and then cap the other end (or else the contents will fall out).
5. Tamper-evidence. For products that need to have tamper-evidence such as:
- A tear-off band like Coca-cola bottles
- A pop-up lid like a jam bottle/jar
- Shrink-wrapped cap like a mouthwash or ketchup bottle
- Aluminum-sealed opening
(Obviously, some of those contents won't need to have a 2nd lid but just for reference, I've added those examples.)
You will, again, need to double the time and/or cost of that portion of the manufacturing process. Perhaps more importantly, you are adding an additional area where the consumer will need to check for tampered bottles--once on top and once on bottom. You have essentially introduced an extra area of contamination.
6. Shipping/Energy/Others. This is related to both cost and the environment. MFG's have started to move away from glass jars because they are very energy-intensive to make and very expensive to transport due to the weight of the glass. PB and jam jars have started to move to plastic, which, at least in theory, are more easily/likely to be recycled.
I'm not trying to be a "Debbie Downer", but those are the realities. Nice concept, but I can't say it was wholly thought through.
The process for this kind of glass Jar is an "IS" machine.
The IS works (just two words) with a two step process. The first one push (so you will have the upper rings with threads) the glass up/down then the glass will be blown in a secondary mould (an in line process). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_production
At last you can see how having a two rim Jar sounds at last not so easy and why a good concept couldn't be translate in a successful industrial product.
I really don't see many advantages in this design, It would be better to have a wide mouth so you can use a spoon or similar to get the last bit of the product from its packaging.
And this topic reminded me the presentation you published about designer dark side, companies dark side may be a reason to make you buy 100 ml of product so you only use 95 and waste the rest. Every 20 you buy you wasted one, so porfit wins. I hope to see more comments...bye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKcISj2LfA
From a usability point of view, here's my concern; there are many people with hands not large enough to hold your standard, say mayo jar, around the center of the jar. They hold from the bottom, then turn at an angle and twist the top. If they do that action with this jar, they'll a) risk opening the jar from the bottom lid if the cap on the top is turned in the opposite direction as the cap at the top, or b) tighten the cap on the bottom, causing those with weak wrists (elderly, children) more trouble making use of the bottom cap.
Just tossing that out there.
Nice idea though! Thinking rather than accepting.