The Wrong Way to Compare the Cost of a New Surfactant

When evaluating a new surfactant, price per pound is an easy place to start.

It may also be the wrong place to stop.

I’ve been having more conversations lately about how we evaluate new chemistry, particularly as bio-based technologies enter formulations built around incumbent products.

The comparison often becomes pretty straightforward: What does my current surfactant cost? What does the new one cost? How much of each do I need?

Those are necessary questions.

But they don’t tell you what the formulation actually costs.

Raw material price is only one part of the equation

Surfactants don’t operate independently from the rest of a formulation.

Changing one component can affect use rates, compatibility, processing, total surfactant loading and potentially the need for other ingredients.

So if we’re evaluating a new chemistry strictly on a dollar-per-pound basis, we’re isolating one variable from a much larger system.

A better evaluation starts with questions like:

• What is the recommended use rate?
• How much active material am I actually buying?
• Does the chemistry allow me to reduce another component?
• Does it change processing requirements?
• Can I reduce total surfactant loading?

And, most importantly, what performance am I getting from the finished formulation?

Those answers can tell a very different economic story than the raw material price alone.

Different chemistry shouldn’t always be evaluated as a drop-in replacement

This becomes particularly important when the new chemistry doesn’t behave exactly like the incumbent.

If Product A is primarily providing wetting and Product B contributes retention, stabilization or another functional benefit, a one-for-one price comparison doesn’t tell us much.

The question isn’t simply whether Product B can replace Product A at the same concentration.

The question is what the formulation looks like when Product B is used according to the functionality it actually provides.

That may mean changing the use rate. It may mean pairing it with another surfactant. It may mean simplifying another part of the formulation.

Or it may mean determining that the incumbent is still the right choice.

That’s what a good formulation evaluation should uncover.

Cost-in-use is the number that matters

Ultimately, formulators aren’t buying a pound of surfactant just to own a pound of surfactant.

They’re building a finished product that has to perform in the field.

That’s why I think the more useful commercial conversation is around cost-in-use.

• What does the finished formulation cost?
• What does it cost per acre?
• What performance does that investment deliver?

And can the chemistry create value somewhere else in the formulation that isn’t captured by its purchase price?

Those are harder questions than comparing two numbers on a price sheet.

They’re also much closer to the questions that actually determine whether a new technology belongs in a formulation.

New chemistry requires better evaluation

As our industry continues developing new bio-based chemistries, we’re going to have to get better at evaluating them on their own terms.

That doesn’t mean ignoring economics. Quite the opposite.

It means evaluating economics more completely.

Price per pound matters.

But the formulation doesn’t go into the field one ingredient at a time.

Neither should the business case.