Should brands dare to go bare?
While marketers and politicians have made some small progress in reducing the environmental impact of product manufacture, marketing and distribution. One simple manufacturing and design idea caught my attention recently and holds some appeal.
The question relates to the packaging of products and how the addition of paints, inks and embellishing processes use significant volumes of chemicals and water to achieve their results. What if these could be reduced or removed? Would a brand dare to have its products go bare?
While design enhances packaging and attracts the eye of the consumer. The paints and inks may perhaps be less important than using the packaging materials themselves more creatively to convery the brand image and product message?
The example below of a Coke can makes a point. The design still ensures brand recognition and appeal, without any toxic paint or other embellishment required.
Designer Harc Lee has come up with the design and the work is intriguing, as the product packaging appears to have been enhanced, at least to my critical eye, while actually simplyfying manufacture and reducing both environmental impact and production cost.
While it’s only a small step, it appears to have some merit. If, as reported by Gizmondo, Coke manufacture 75 billion cans every year (of all the Coke varieties combined). It’s clear that not only would cutting the paint/dye process from manufacture save time and money. It would also aid recycling, as aluminium cans are currently stripped bare through a chemical process in order to recycle the metal.
View Harc Lee’s portfolio online: HERE
Filed under: Blog Post | Leave a Comment
Tags: Coke Can, Environmental Design, Harc Lee