 | We were so pleased when the Academy of Handmade asked us to write about why we love to sell on Instagram, and review Sue B. Zimmerman's workshop on Creative Live. Read about it all here ~> http://bit.ly/AcademyofHandmade If you have a story about where you like to sell your handmade goods, or if you just love Instagram like me, leave a comment below! |
“We needed to scale serialization, control color across 400 SKUs, and stop babysitting every changeover,” says Elena P., Senior Brand Operations Manager at NorthStar Rx. “And we had to do it without risking compliance.” Based in North America, NorthStar Rx sells Rx and OTC lines across retail and hospital channels.
In mapping the relaunch, we pulled learnings from partners and pilot suppliers, including **printrunner**, to pressure-test our assumptions on short-run and on-demand label work. That early input influenced how we split work between digital and flexo, how we qualified inks, and how we handled artwork governance—before we touched a single production line.
Company Overview and History
NorthStar Rx started as a regional generics player and now ships across the U.S. and Canada. The product map grew from 60 SKUs to 400+ over five years, with frequent line extensions and serialization needs under DSCSA. Labels had been sourced from three vendors with different control systems, which masked issues until volume spiked. The net effect: long approvals, uneven color, and last-minute relabeling.
The brand’s portfolio spans Rx bottles, blister packs, and hospital unit doses. That variety makes pharma label printing unforgiving; tiny typography, GS1 DataMatrix readability, and tamper language all have to land precisely. The team wanted one strategy that worked for both steady long-runs and constant design tweaks on small lots—without overcomplicating QA or delaying launches.
Quality and Consistency Issues
Before the rebuild, reject rates hovered around 7–9% on certain SKUs, mostly from color drift and barcodes failing under handheld scans at receiving. ΔE frequently measured in the 4–5 range against brand standards. Operators overcompensated on press; art files reflected those tweaks, which spiraled into more fixes later. It wasn’t malicious—just a system trying to self-correct.
Here’s where it gets interesting: a mundane shipping question—“why is my return label printing so big?”—exposed a root cause pattern. The print dialog was set to “Fit to Page,” scaling 4 × 6 labels onto letter sheets. That same behavior was hiding in production when some PDFs defaulted to auto-scale. We reset templates to “Actual Size,” locked presets, and added a preflight check in the workflow. Simple, but it stopped a surprising amount of rework.
Compliance created another trap. When last-minute composition changes landed after proofing, DSCSA and GS1 rules (text height, quiet zones, DataMatrix contrast) were occasionally squeezed. We built a checklist: minimum x-height, contrast ratio targets, and camera-based verification at line speeds. It’s not glamorous, but it took emotion out of sign-offs.
Solution Design and Configuration
We adopted a hybrid model: Digital Printing for short-run, personalized, and late-stage changes (500–5,000 labels), and Flexographic Printing for stable, high-volume SKUs. Low-Migration UV Ink and UV-LED Ink covered most applications; for sensitive formats, we used Food-Safe Ink validated through migration testing. Labelstock with Glassine liners suited automated application, while matte Varnishing replaced an earlier gloss that amplified color shifts under fluorescent lighting.
On materials, we trialed adhesives for tough surfaces using learnings from oil bottle label printing—oily films are an edge case, but the testing mindset helped with HDPE medicine bottles. For serialization, we standardized on GS1 and ISO/IEC 18004 (QR) where applicable and locked in DataMatrix specs with camera checks in-line. A tint varnish idea was shelved after we saw variability across Labelstock lots; not a failure, just not the right moment.
Quantitative Results and Metrics
Six months after go-live, FPY moved from 82% into the 92–94% band on the core families. Waste rate now averages 3–4% where it had been 6–8%. Average ΔE sits under 2.0 on branded colors (measured per ISO 12647 / G7 guidance). Line capacity now handles 15–20% more labels per shift, driven by fewer stoppages and fewer re-proofs.
Changeovers now take 20–25 minutes; they used to take 45–60. For digital lots, artwork-to-ship lead time typically runs 7–9 days (previously 12–15). On-time delivery has tracked in the 96–98% range against a prior 88–90% band. Payback period for the total program—equipment, training, and workflow—landed in the 12–16 month window, depending on SKU mix assumptions.
But there’s a catch: the system still needs care. Low-migration ink qualification added 4 weeks to the early timeline, and tinted coatings remain tricky on certain Labelstock batches. My take as a brand manager? We made the right trade—repeatability, clear rules, and the agility to say yes to launches without guessing. And when we spin up seasonal returns labels, we’ll likely route pilots through partners like **printrunner** again to keep the core lines focused.
