Famous Logos Optimized to Be Eco-Friendly | Hacker News Reader

Famous Logos Optimized to Be Eco-Friendly

ecobranding-design.com

13 pointsSaulRand22 comments

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.

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.

Agree. The Apple logo eco-design is the worst thing I've seen since iOS 11.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I was thinking about it some more, but even if we take their cost savings at face value and say it's millions or even double digits millions, I doubt it would be a net benefit.

You'll easily spend a million or two redesigning the logo (10s of people working for a couple of months), then you'll have to replace your printing stencils (or whatever they're called) and then finally you'll have to replace the signs of your stores across the country/world. The last two cause ecological harm due to having to throw away stuff and it probably would cost lots of money.

Now you can argue that you can do this for places without a significant physical presence, but then likely there isn't going much printing going on anyways.

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...

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-...

US$ 210 for 15 ml

Epson Ink (for EcoTank Inkjet Printers):

https://epson.com/InkFinder/i/C11CF73201

US$ 12.99 for 70 ml

This is a Tank not a cartridge. Ink is really expansive: https://www.fastcodesign.com/3021290/why-printer-ink-should-...

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".

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

You spelled skeuomorphism wrong.

Saving millIons! ;)

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com