They look way better with the eco friendly touch to them! Like did you see the coca cola one!! LOVE IT!!

Wow less ink on a mcdonalds cup. Maybe there might be better things to demand from mcdonalds. Like maybe demand they don't allow rainforrest to be cut down for croplands to feed the beef on there burgers.

fedex and starbucks look good

I think this is too much. I support the eco-friendly thing but this seems to be something the companies are not going to apply

I think this is the tritest tokenism I've ever seen.

It would be far more eco-friendly if consumers stopped buying so much of the unnecessary products that most of those companies churned out. I don't buy anything from any of the above.

There are better ways to be more eco-friendly than this one, for example reducing plastic bags and use more ecological materials to pack products.

I like all of them except a Starbucks and Nike

Logos are about visibility from a distance. These alterations make the logos less identifiable form a distance. It's like calling a car with one wheel removed better because it uses less gas.

also 50% uglier and 50% less noticeable?

How about leaving the symbols as is and branding, embossing, raising, engraving, or imprinting them without ink period. I'm pretty sure everyone would recognize the symbols and it'd probably look pretty damn cool for s**t to be branded or raised instead of colored.

Whoever thought that destroying a brand by altering its logo was a good idea? If you answered "yes," then don't ever expect to get a job in marketing (or last long if you do)!

Nice idea in principle, but even if the like of McDonalds could be persuaded to change their logo, they would obviously want a complete re-brand of the company. How many resources would it take to change every sign, every letterhead, business card, poster and other signage? Plus there's the wastage of disposing all the existing items bearing the old logos.

Great

I love them! They are not only eco-friendlier, they are also much cooler than the original logos.

Rather misleading. "Printer ink" and ink used by printers on large presses is not the same thing, or the same cost, Additionally many commercial printers use plant based inks, which are eco-friendly,

Really?? instead of worrying about the Ink you should be worrying about how to make the food more healthy.

That's interesting. You made an very important factor in your article, “Visibility is hugely important to brands…” Yes, that's so important but from a logo or brand identity design perspective, scalability (how well a logo can scale without losing details) at all touch-points of the brand is what's most important for achieving the former (visibility). So that scalability factor has to be considered as well.

Marketing decisions require more data points than just cost and environmental impact. Unless, of course, you have established those two things as your priorities.

One problem i see (besides the fact that I don't think they look as good) is that if you reverse them out amid a solid color or image, you're actually then using more ink. Negating the effect of the ink saved elsewhere. I don't know about all these brands, but with the brands I work with I find myself using the logo reversed out of a color or image just as much if not more than a 1 or 2 color job on white.

Still the sane product, but with a clean, fresh look!

honestly i think the ones with less ink look better, stand out more, and are more eye-catching while remaining completely recognizable

I didn't care for Apple or UPS, otherwise, why not??!

Seems like a cool idea, some look better than others. We'll have to wait and see if it catches on.

These all look bad, though.

But I don't like this version of Starbucks, she looks skinny and her hair is thinner

I call it b.ull.shi.t

weak design

Only one looks nice to me...

A great idea, and I think it looks better too!

I much prefer all the new eco versions. I'd go as far as saying that I don't think many people would actually notice the difference.

I could also take some of those logos, use it to produce a knockoff product, claim that it is my original product and that the resemblance is mere coincidence.

A logo is out there for simple reason that it is simple to relate to as a simple glance can make us think of the product and where the nearest store might be all from an image instead of a large section text to read. A picture speaks a thousand words, so they ecofriendly versions do look good, it'll probably not take off.

You need to get laid more often...

It would be more eco friendly if McD spend more money in eco friendly packages then a new logo-designs.

Hit and miss. I like most of them, except for Apple, Nike, and especially Fedex because they actually change the logo somewhat. I really like the negative space Starbucks one though.

Anyway in a close future they'll all desappear ...

I like macdonalds and starbucks.

I don't like the Apple one...