Three Realistic Process Options for Reducing Gift Box Insert Layers—Remove the Inner Tray / Switch to Cardboard / Keep a Thin Sponge Layer: Which Three Metrics Should a Printing Company Measure First Upon Receiving a “15% Cost Reduction” Request?
💡 💡 At a Glance
The inner tray serves three functions simultaneously: cushioning, display, and fixation. Reducing its layers redistributes the costs among these three functions. There are three approaches: ① Direct removal—applicable only to flexible packaging that already has a protective layer. This saves the full cost of the inner tray and increases the unit count per carton by more than 50%, but may create a hollow feel; ② Replacing it with a paperboard divider—saves 3.5-5 yuan per set. The product must be square and regular, and friction between the paperboard and hard objects creates noise, so a matte paper layer must be added; ③ Retaining the foam while reducing its thickness—switching from flocked green EVA to solid-color EVA saves 30%-40% (the difference in process cost exceeds the difference in material cost), but reducing the thickness from 15mm to 10mm increases the drop-test damage rate from 0 to approximately 2/12. For glass products, this is too risky. Before requesting a quote from the printing factory, measure three figures: free movement, drop-risk level, and the inner tray's proportion of total volume.
A tea company client came to us for the 4th sample. He was very satisfied with the 3rd sample, but after taking it back to show his boss, the boss asked: “How can this box possibly sell for 38 yuan?”
The customer’s exact words were: “The company next door quoted 32 for the same box.”
We broke down the quotation for him: the gift box itself (mounting + hot stamping + die cutting) costs 11, the inner tray costs 6.5, the ribbon costs 1.8, the carrying handles cost 1.2, and shipping packaging and taxes are calculated separately.
The boss pointed at something: "This green thing, made of sponge?"
It was a 15mm-thick EVA artificial turf-lined inner tray, with all four sides raised and four circular recesses in the center to hold tea cakes.
The customer said, “Why not just remove it?”
We did not immediately propose removing it, because doing so would have two consequences the customer had not anticipated: first, the tea cakes would knock against each other during transportation; second, without an inner tray, a large void would be left in the box, making it look “empty” and less premium.
This is the full complexity of the inner tray: it does three things simultaneously—cushioning, display, and securing. Any reduction in layers means redistributing costs among these three functions.
Category 1: Direct Removal of the Inner Liner
This is the option customers are most likely to prefer, but also the one we least recommend. It is applicable only under strict conditions: the products themselves are neither hard nor prone to contact or rolling, and the products are not separated by inner trays.
Products that can take this route: soft packaging made of flocked fabric or cardboard boxes with their own protective layer, cosmetics with an independent paperboard cradle inside the bottle, and products already blister-packed in plastic.
Items that cannot be moved: tea cakes, nuts, glass jars, porcelain, and any products that require an inner tray to keep them in place.
Cost savings: inner trays are completely eliminated, and their added volume disappears, reducing logistics costs as well. With the inner tray for a gift box costing 6.5 yuan and accounting for 40% of the total volume, removing it increases the number of sets per carton from 24 to 38, reducing the freight cost allocated per set by approximately 1.5 yuan.
The cost: a hollow feeling. If the gift box does not fill the space when opened, the “cheapness” it conveys costs more than the 6 yuan saved. This loss cannot be quantified, but everyone who has put together a gift box has seen it.
Option 2: Replace it with a cardboard divider
This is the most underrated approach and the one most brands should actually choose.
The approach is to use E/B corrugated cardboard or greyboard for positioning panels and dividers instead of molded inner trays. Cardboard dividers commonly take three forms:
Cross-shaped divider. The simplest option: a single cross-shaped cardboard sheet divides the box into four compartments. The cost is 0.8 to 1.5 yuan, and the thickness is 1.5 to 3mm.
Positioning sleeve. A paper-like inner die-cut holder with four circular cutouts that secure the product in place. The cost ranges from 1.5 to 3 yuan.
Fence-style. Four side panels and one bottom panel, using gray cardboard of approximately 1.2mm, with a cost of 1.2 to 2.5 yuan.
Compared with EVA flocked inserts, paperboard dividers save 3.5 to 5 yuan per set, but more importantly, their cushioning performance is actually not inferior—because the additional layer of corrugated board or grayboard provides greater compressive stiffness.
But there are two issues that must be calculated in advance:
First, the product must have straight, regular edges. The slot in the paper card is cut to the product’s maximum outer diameter. If the product has curved or irregular edges—for example, a round tea cake with an uneven edge—it will either not fit or sit loosely in the slot. If the product’s shape is irregular, the paper card option should be ruled out immediately, avoiding unnecessary sampling costs.
Second, paperboard makes noise. When paperboard and paperboard rub against and press against each other during transportation, they produce a distinctive sound. Hard products such as glass and porcelain packed in paperboard are noticeably noisier when shaken than when packed in EVA. This is a drawback in gifting scenarios—the first sound the customer hears when opening the box should not be a “clatter,” or half the experience is already lost.
The solution is not to change materials, but to add a layer of thin cotton paper or matte paper between the paperboard and the product, increasing the cost by 0.2 to 0.4 yuan per set while significantly reducing the rattling noise. This layer is often overlooked during quoting.
Category 3: Retain the sponge while reducing the number of layers
This is the point that customers should most carefully evaluate, and it is also the point most easily led astray by the instinct to “reduce the number of layers.”
The cost of EVA flocked plant trays is mainly determined by three factors: density (thickness), color, and whether flocking is applied. Their approximate price multipliers are:
The key point: Switching from flocked fabric to solid-color EVA saves manufacturing effort, not thickness, and the loss in experience is far smaller than that caused by reducing the number of layers. When the customer says “reducing layers,” their instinct is “making it thinner,” but in reality, the cost of the flocked fabric is higher than that of the additional 5mm thickness.
The cost of reducing thickness is also concrete: the difference between 10mm and 15mm is significant in drop testing. We ran a comparison using the same gift box containing 4 glass bottles. After a 1.2-meter drop test (3 drops on each of the 6 faces), the 15mm EVA insert had no breakages, while the 10mm insert had a breakage rate of 2/12. Glass packaging cannot be left to chance.
Moreover, reducing the number of layers directly affects the box’s rigidity—the inner tray and lid originally rely on a fully covering inner tray for support. Once layers are reduced, a cavity forms between them, causing the lid to deform during transportation. This is especially noticeable with hinged lids.
Three Numbers the Print Factory Should Measure First
When customers compare our quotation with those from other printing companies, the most common mistake printers make is to cut prices immediately. The correct approach is to first calculate three figures, which determine which material-reduction route is feasible:
Number one: the product's free movement within the box. How much space does the product have to move inside the box? If the movement is less than 0.5mm, the shape is well formed and the paperboard solution is directly feasible; if the movement is greater than 2mm, a molded insert is required, as paperboard cannot produce a precisely fitting cavity.
Number two: the product's drop-risk level. Glass, porcelain, ceramics, and fragile electronic components fall into the "no reduction in packaging layers" category; metal, canned food, and flexible packaging fall into the "layers may be reduced or even removed, including the inner tray" category. Customers often have no clear understanding of this requirement themselves.
Figure 3: The volume occupied by the inner tray. Calculate this using the inner tray dimensions and the gift box dimensions. If the inner tray accounts for more than 35% of the volume, removing it can increase the quantity per carton by more than 50%. In that case, the savings go beyond the cost of the inner tray to include freight costs—a figure that often does more to win over customers than the inner tray itself.
When we enter these three figures into the quotation, we usually add an “Inner Tray Options Comparison” section listing the unit-set cost, volume share, and drop-test results for the three options: retain the current tray, replace it with a paperboard tray, or remove it. Once customers see this table, they usually stop comparing quotations, because they are now comparing total cost and risk rather than unit price.
Back to That Tea Gift Box
Ultimately, the solution we proposed to the customer was: replace it with a solid-color EVA insert, retain the 12mm thickness, and add a layer of matte paper as a separator.
The cost per set of the inner tray decreased from 6.5 yuan to 3.6 yuan, saving 2.9 yuan. Its volume ratio decreased from 40% to 34%, the number of sets per carton increased from 24 to 30, and the freight cost allocated per set was 0.8 yuan. Together, these three items reduce the cost by 3.7 yuan per set.
Moreover, after making the change, we had an answer to the boss’s question: the price dropped from 38 to 34.3 yuan, which is 2.3 yuan more than the neighboring company’s 32 yuan, but this box has an independent cushioning layer, interleaving paper, makes no noise when opened, and does not break when dropped. We later learned that the neighboring company’s 32-yuan box uses 8mm nonwoven fabric edge binding, costing 1.2 yuan—the savings came from there.
The customer's repeat purchases began with this batch. Later, he said something that I believe illustrates the point better than any data: "Your quotation is expensive, but I know exactly why."
Further Reading
The inner tray is only one part of the gift box cost structure. Read these articles together:
FAQ
A customer says another supplier offers the same box 15% cheaper. Should I follow suit and reduce my price?
Do not lower the price immediately. First, break down the quotation; the difference is usually in the inner tray. Then measure three figures: the product's free movement, the drop risk level, and the inner tray's volume share. If you can clearly identify where the extra cost lies, you will have the initiative in negotiations.
Can paperboard dividers replace EVA inner trays?
Inspect the product shape. A close-fitting insert is suitable when the product is rectangular and moves by less than 0.5mm, provided the corrugated board has sufficient stiffness for cushioning. If the product has curved surfaces or requires substantial clearance, a precisely fitted hole cannot be achieved, so a molded insert must be used. If the paper rubs against hard objects and produces noise, add a matte paper or tissue paper interlayer.
What are the practical effects of reducing the inner tray thickness from 15mm to 10mm?
The difference in drop-test performance is significant. After a six-sided drop from 1.2 meters, all 4 glass bottle gift boxes with 15mm EVA remained intact, while the 10mm samples showed a breakage rate of approximately 2/12. Reducing the number of layers also deprives the lid of its internal support, making the base and lid more prone to deformation during transportation.
How much more does flocked EVA cost compared with solid-color EVA?
At the same thickness of 15mm, solid-color EVA is 30%-40% less expensive than green plant velvet. Among solid-color options, 10mm costs about 35% less than 15mm. The price difference caused by the manufacturing process is usually greater than the price difference caused by thickness, so changing the process is preferable to reducing the number of layers first.
How much can you save on shipping by removing the inner tray?
It depends on the tray-to-package volume ratio. When the ratio exceeds 35%, the quantity per carton often increases by more than 50%, while freight costs can be reduced by 1-2 yuan per set. When requesting a quotation, the tray volume ratio should be listed separately rather than showing only the unit price of the tray.
Are pulp molded trays worth using?
Suitable for irregular-shaped inner trays that require a precise fit. At a cost of 3–6 yuan, it is close to plant-based flocking in price, but offers a more environmentally friendly and understated look and feel. The mold cost must be paid upfront, so it should be used cautiously for high-end gift boxes, although it is suitable for festive food gift boxes.
What should be noted when adding an insert or tray solution to a quotation?
Present a three-column comparison: retain, replace with paperboard, and remove. For each option, include the unit-set cost, volume share, and drop-test results. Add a freight amortization item so customers can see the total price rather than just the unit-price difference. This comparison often concludes the price evaluation directly.
📚 📚 Related Recommendations
Need a Custom Packaging Solution?
Learn more about packaging, or consult directly for a custom solution and quote