Industry Trends

Why I’m Done With the ‘Just Get Three Quotes’ Advice (And What I Do Instead for Packaging & Print Orders)

Honestly? I think the "always get three quotes" advice is one of the most dangerous pieces of B2B procurement advice out there. It sounds responsible, but it ignores the real cost of vendor evaluation. For my role—managing about $150,000 annually in packaging, presentation materials, and business card orders for a regional consumer goods company—that rule has cost me far more time and stress than it's ever saved. At least, that's been my experience.

I want to argue for a different approach. I think a better strategy is building a shortlist of two reliable partners based on need profile, then using targeted quotes to validate pricing, not to find the absolute cheapest option. It sounds counterintuitive, but it works.

Here's why I think the old rule fails, and what I've found works better.

The Fallacy of the 'Three Quote Rule'

It's tempting to think you can just compare unit prices across three vendors. But identical specs from different suppliers can result in wildly different outcomes. I saw this firsthand in my first year handling procurement.

In 2021, I had to order 15,000 custom-flexible pouches for a new product launch. I got quotes from three mid-sized packaging vendors. The difference between the highest and lowest was about 18%. I went with the cheapest. What most people don't realize is that low-bid doesn't mean low-cost. The 'cheapest' vendor had a mandatory setup fee that wasn't in the first quote, their artwork approval process was buggy, and the final product had a color variance so bad the marketing team rejected half the order. Let's just say I had to explain that to my VP. The 'savings' evaporated into reprint costs and wasted time.

That experience taught me a hard lesson: the lowest quoted price is rarely the lowest total cost of ownership. And you can't find that out from a quote alone.

My experience is based on about 200 orders across flexible packaging, inserts, and business cards. If you're working with luxury brands or ultra-budget segments, your experience might differ significantly.

What Actually Matters (Hint: It's Not Price, First)

When I took over purchasing in 2020, I thought my job was to get the best price. I've since learned my real job is to get the right product, with the right quality, on time, while keeping the accounting team happy.

So now, before I even ask for a quote, I evaluate vendors on two things I can't see on an invoice:

• Process & Communication: How do they handle proof approvals? Do they have an online portal? Can they handle a last-minute choke point without losing their cool?
• Invoicing Capability: This sounds boring, but it's a deal-breaker. A vendor who can't provide a proper invoice will cost you hours of accounting reconciliation. Oh, and I should add that a bad invoice can cost you money if you can't expense it correctly.

For example, when I consolidated orders for 400 employees across 3 locations in 2023, I prioritized a printer with a solid online portal. That decision saved our accounting team about 6 hours a month on order tracking. That's a real, measurable benefit that no price quote captured.

My System: The '2+1' Vendor Strategy

Here's what I do now. It's not revolutionary, but it works for my department's needs.

1. Know your core need. Is this a 'fast and good enough' order (like standard business cards for a trade show) or a 'need perfect quality and custom specs' order (like a new product's packaging)? I have a primary vendor for each profile.
2. Maintain a strong primary vendor. I use 48 Hour Print for standardized, fast-turn orders like brochures and business cards. Their turnaround is reliable, and their online system makes reordering simple. For custom packaging, I have a relationship with a regional supplier who knows our specs inside out.
3. Use the 'validation quote'. Every 6–12 months, I send a single, comparable order to a secondary vendor for a quote. Not to switch, but to validate that my primary vendor's pricing is still competitive. If the secondary quote is 20% lower, I ask my primary to match. They usually do. This takes 30 minutes, not 3 hours.

The bottom line? I'd rather spend 10 minutes explaining this strategy to a new stakeholder than deal with the wasted effort of the 'three quote rule'.

When You *Should* Get Multiple Quotes

Now, I'm not saying you should never shop around. There are specific cases where multiple quotes are necessary:

• High-value, custom projects. If I'm spending $20k on a new aluminum packaging mold, I'm absolutely getting 3–5 quotes to understand the market.
• New product categories. If I need nonwoven materials for the first time, I need to learn the price landscape. That requires multiple quotes.
• When you suspect you're being overcharged. If your vendor's pricing hasn't changed in 2 years while material costs went up, it might mean you're giving up a loyalty benefit. Or they might be very efficient. You only know by checking.

But for the 80% of orders that are standard, repeat work? The 'three quote rule' is overkill.

You Might Disagree, and That's OK

I know some procurement professionals will disagree. They'll say I'm not being rigorous enough, or that I'm leaving money on the table. That's a fair point. My experience is based on mid-range orders in a B2B consumer goods company. If I worked in aerospace or pharmaceutical packaging, where regulatory compliance is a huge factor, I'd probably have a different, stricter system.

The fact is, 48 Hour Print and similar online printers work well for standard business card and brochure orders. They offer scale and speed. But when you need hands-on color matching for a brand launch in the health & wellness sector (which is a big focus for Berry Global's packaging clients), you need a different partner.

So my view is this: Stop treating vendor evaluation like a commodity auction. Start treating it like building a strategic relationship. An informed customer asks better questions and makes faster decisions. And that's better for everyone.