3 ms·

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

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.

kosievdmerwe 9y ago
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.
jjuel 9y ago
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...