First it was this one from Fast Company: “Will ‘Active Packaging’ Undermine Apple’s Quest for Sustainability?”

Then it was this week’s Marketing: Green column from MediaPost: “When It Comes To Packaging, Less Is More.”

I’m not sure which is most disturbing about these two articles, the fact that we’re still having conversations about the amount of wasted materials in product packaging today, or that Apple, while touting the new MacBooks as the Marketing: Green column points out what has become obvious:

Reduced packaging yields cost savings that go right to the bottom line, the perception of a greener footprint, and a potential lead marketing position in a highly competitive market.

The only thing I can figure is that Apple (a) has conceptualized packaging that even if they don’t ever create would be a good thing to patent in case someone else wants to use it, and (b) has enough money to burn that they don’t really care much about being green (good if it helps boost sales but not necessarily a way of life for them).

For me, when it comes to so many things—especially packaging—less is more. To see where we should be heading, check out this interview with Patagonia and 1% for the Planet founder Yvon Chouinard about how they increased sales of long underwear by reducing the packaging.

(If for some reason the video isn’t working, please visit http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/noah-robischon/editors-desk/patagonias-underwear-designed-exposure

[ad#homeinpost-3]

360 Vodka—eco-packaging, strong rebate and tastes great!

OK, I admit it: I like vodka. I’m also on a budget. In fact, I live my life on a budget. Nothing too extreme (though times are a little tougher than usual), but I do pay attention to what I spend. And while I like nice things, I realize that top-shelf items are not normally in my budget. Life is full of compromises.

For example, I like Ketel One. It’s smooth. But Smirnoff is a better fit for the budget, it’s totally drinkable, and the liquor store down at the Smith’s has it for a good price even when it’s not on sale.

But while in for a bottle recently I noticed some very “green” marketing on a boutique vodka I’ve eyed from time to time but never bought, and caved. The vodka is “360” and it bills itself as the “Eco Luxury Vodka.”

The “packaging,” such as it is, is clean and simple; tasteful. The clear, round bottle sports no fancy sculpting, save for the “360” embossed on the front, and is made from 85% recycled glass, according to the label. The label is also simple: one color printing with green ink (of course) printed on what appears to be FSC certified recycled paper. They even tout the resources supposedly saved by using this particular type of label:

• 82,766 gallons of water
• 139 million BTU’s of energy
• 9,255 pounds of solid waste
• 193 fully-grown trees
• 18,052 pounds of greenhouse gasses

Recycled bottle, eco-friendly labeling, yada yada yada…whatever. Anyone can do that. The cool thing about the packaging is their use of the old-fashioned wire swingtop bottle cap and a hangtag promoting their “Close the Loop Program.” Simply remove the swingtop, put it in the pre-paid envelope provided, and then recycle the bottle. 360 will then donate $1 to a “recognized environmental cause” of their choice. That’s pretty cool. Now, who knows how many people will really go through the trouble of doing that, but I think if you’re swayed enough by the environmental bent to buy this vodka, you very well might go the extra mile. (As for me, I’m more likely to keep the bottle and the swingtop and re-use it for bottling homebrewed beer.)

OK, truth be told, even that wasn’t enough to hook me in to buying a $22, 750 ml bottle of vodka. Hey, that’s what I’m used to paying for a gallon of Smirnoff. No, in times like these it takes a little extra. In fact it was the special hangtag that caught my eye. “Save Some Green,” it says, and offers $10 off either a 750 ml or 1 liter bottle. Add to that that today this bottle was 20% off, making it about $17. Add a dollar for sales tax, subtract the rebate, and now we’re talking a $22 bottle of vodka for 8 bucks. Now, that’s a bargain! Currently each household can take advantage of this rebate twice before it expires on March 31. That’s a great rebate in these troubled times, and perhaps even enough to convert some Kettle One or Grey Goose customers (though probably not us Smirnoff drinkers).

Oh, and that other critical component for top-shelf vodka? Yes, it tastes quite good.

[ad#homeinpost-3]

Well, Amazon.com has decided to take the lead on getting manufacturers to make a change to packaging that is safer, simpler to open and better for the environment. During a visit to the site this morning, I was greeted with a letter from Jeff Bezos himself, announcing the launch of their new “Frustration-Free Packaging” program. It seems children’s toys are the biggest offenders when it comes to nightmare packaging (as noted above), and Amazon has begun working with Fisher-Price and Mattel, among others, to eliminate unneeded packaging. As stated in his letter, not only does Frustration-Free packaging make the packages easier to open, it also makes it more environmentally friendly.

Take a look at this page to see the amount of junk that comes in the traditional packaging compared to the new Frustration-Free packaging. You can also watch a video comparing the time it takes to unwrap one particular product in both the traditional packaging versus the Frustration-Free packaging. This is mostly plastic pieces and plastic-covered wire ties that are destined for the trash heap from their inception. There is definitely something wrong with a society that makes stuff that’s intended use is so unneeded that its primary destination is the dump. Don’t we throw enough stuff away as it is? (And by the way, just where the heck is “away”?)

As much as I try to cut down on the cost and waste of shipping and support my local businesses, I live in an area where going to the mall is (thankfully) not an option. I find myself shopping online a lot, and this is just one more reason for me to try Amazon first. Good job, Amazon; I applaud your efforts and look forward to a sea-change in packaging practices.

[ad#homeinpost-3]

It wasn’t a big deal. I stopped by my local outdoor store, Wilson Backcountry Sports, where they had a sampling of Camelbak products in a highly visible area adjacent the cash register, and picked up a new 70 oz reservoir to replace the one that had accompanied me on countless backcountry trips, ski days, mountain bike rides, and other worldly travels, and had just recently failed. It was even reasonably priced: a little less than twenty-five bucks after Andy extended the good buddy deal.

Though I was saddened to have to replace such a faithfully utilitarian piece of equipment, serving me so well for so long, it wasn’t until I got it home and opened up the package that I realized what pleased me most about my new purchase.

It wasn’t the prospect of a new, clean, unadulterated, non-scummy Camelbak; rather, it was the easy-to-open, easy-to-pack-back-up, fairly simple and mostly recyclable packaging.

Bad packaging just pisses me off, and Camelbak has done a commendable job of eschewing the bullshit that is modern commercial packaging—namely, the much reviled clamshell.

Other than the product, there was a total of three pieces of packaging:

• the recyclable corrugated cardboard outer wrap
• the non-recyclable plastic tray holding the reservoir
• the tiny bit of plastic protecting the bite valve from contamination

It was fairly minimalist and Camelbak deserves kudos for keeping things simple. Of course, it would be nice if there was even less packaging, or if it was more recyclable, or if Camelbak’s choice of packaging was not such a surprise and used by more manufacturers. It’s not as simple as attaching a 3×5 card to a piece of underwear and rolling it all up with a couple of rubber-bands, but at least I didn’t have to hurt myself or others wrestling with some impossible-to-open plastic clamshell.