
Famous Logos Optimized to Be Eco-Friendly - SaulRand
http://ecobranding-design.com
======
ShakataGaNai
Companies are very very very specific about their logos, how they are to be
used, what backgrounds they can have. It's not unusual for their to be a
branding "bible" thats hundreds of pages. Why does this matter? Because the
background is on white. They're going to require that if the logo design looks
best on white, that there must be white.

So all you've done here in introduced ANOTHER color to be printed in a lot of
cases. Ok, it works fine on a Starbucks cup and on a webpage... but in most
real life cases? Way way more complicated. The McDonald's Arches are
prominently lit on the front of their buildings. Now instead of one lighting
loop, there needs to be two.

And while I do like the design of some of these logos, like Coke. The Apple
logo is TERRIBLE. Some logo's this High School design class of "lets make some
of the logo white", just doesn't work.

~~~
captn3m0
Companies already have multiple versions of the logo:
print/web/monochrome/glyph etc. Since this only affects print, it would only
affect the printed versions of the logo. The Brand guidelines could be
reflected for the same.

The complete logo could still be used in print scenarios, but if it is
something that is very print specific (brochures, magazine ads, newspapers),
then you specifically pick the "eco" logo, as per your branding bible.

I agree on the Apple logo being terrible though. It could have been a bigger
bite.

------
kosievdmerwe
Does this take into account the cost of commercial ink vs consumer ink? I
don't know but I would bet the ink used on a drink cup is cheap.

At best, I think this is misplaced concern. At worst, I think this is a cash
making scheme by guilting people into buying their design services which they
advertise at the bottom of the page.

EDIT: I thought about it some more and the cost savings don't take into
account the costs of redesigning your logo, retooling your printers or
replacing your storefront signs. In either the ecological or economical sense.

~~~
bpeebles
Brands change/tweak their logo fairly often. It'd probably make sense to
incorporate eco-thinking (if it actually does make a difference) when you're
otherwise doing a brand/logo update to avoid duplicating those costs.

~~~
kosievdmerwe
Certainly wouldn't be a bad idea, as you can then brag about how "ecological"
your logo is. Even if the actual benefits are marginal.

~~~
derekp7
Something like how Google turns their web page background black on Earth day?

------
DangerousPie
I really can't imagine that the ink required to print a logo is large enough
of a cost to justify messing with something this important to a business -
neither from an ecological nor an economical standpoint.

Let's say the "thinner" McDonald's logo saved a few million per year. If it
decreased their sales by just .1% due to decreased brand recognition or just
being less attractive the losses would probably far outweigh the benefits.

It's an interesting idea, but I doubt any company would risk something like
this. Unless they use it to try to make themselves look more green perhaps,
but that would be more about marketing than about actual cost savings.

~~~
jjuel
And what happens with the McDonald's logo on say their brown McCafe cups. Does
the lessened yellow become brown then or do we now have to print white onto
that cup? I think there are many ways companies could go "eco" and changing
their logo is really far down on that list...

------
jaclaz
Clearly I am not understanding the artistic value, I would call that "remove
central areas of solid colour filled regions of logos to save ink", which
shows how better than me Mr. Boyer is at naming things.

That printer ink costs double than Chanel N°5 is a statement that would need
IMHO some background, I don't think that most logo's are printed with a
technique involving high cost ink (such as that of inkjet printers).

Anyway, Chanel N°5:

[https://www.chanel.com/en_US/fragrance-beauty/fragrance-
no5-...](https://www.chanel.com/en_US/fragrance-beauty/fragrance-
no5-no5-88173)

US$ 210 for 15 ml

Epson Ink (for EcoTank Inkjet Printers):

[https://epson.com/InkFinder/i/C11CF73201](https://epson.com/InkFinder/i/C11CF73201)

US$ 12.99 for 70 ml

~~~
SaulRand
This is a Tank not a cartridge. Ink is really expansive:
[https://www.fastcodesign.com/3021290/why-printer-ink-
should-...](https://www.fastcodesign.com/3021290/why-printer-ink-should-be-
packaged-like-chanel-no-5)

~~~
jaclaz
Sure it is a tank, it is _ink_.

Do you believe that professional printing uses inkjet printers with
cartridges?

I believe that largely not even inkjet printers are used in professional
printing (unless maybe for some low number, large formats), as said, but if
they were actually used, they surely would not use "cartridges".

------
azeirah
Less ink is not necessarily better, is it? Some patterns are harder to print,
depending on the type of printer, no? I like the line of thought here though.

------
danielgivens
Pattern diffusion would be a much better option. These compromise the
integrity of the design way too much. I appreciate the idea, but do not
believe the stats and feel like it is an attempt to get work more than it is
to save resources. Also print is less common nowadays and I expected this to
be something that talked about digital application of logos.

------
rocky1138
I actually really like the way the H&M logo looks with this. It stands out
much more.

------
ggambetta
"-X% less ink", LOL. Negative numbers, how do they work?

------
hinkley
That animated Nike swoosh looks like nightmare fuel.

Like a psychotic clown at the moment when he realizes you know he has you
trapped and this is the end.

------
voltooid
-34% less ink. So 34% more ink.

------
DatBear
You spelled skeuomorphism wrong.

------
barabba
Saving mill _I_ ons! ;)

------
SaulRand
Visibility is hugely important to brands, which is why they want to see their
logo everywhere, but there’s a price to pay for such widespread exposure, not
just financially but ecologically as well. As you can see on the link, there’s
a simple way to reduce these costs, and that’s by using less ink. The idea,
called Ecobranding, is a new conceptual experiment created by a Parisian
Designer named Sylvain Boyer that aimed at making brands more eco-friendly
while at the same time saving millions of dollars in production costs. From
McDonald’s and Apple to H&M and FedEx, the streamlined examples you can find
here maintain the essence of each specific logo while simultaneously making it
more cost-effective for both the manufacturer and the environment. How do you
think they compare to the originals?

