Perfume Creation: How Focus Groups Work

If you've been reading about perfume and fragrance creation for some time (and if you've been following the Perfume Shrine specifically) you must have come across the mention of focus groups, employed by large companies like L'Oreal or such, to test the "mods" supplied by the laboratory in order to gauge whether the perfumer and his/her team should go back to the drawing board or not.

I have managed to unearth through some research a few concrete examples of just how this works exactly. The following pictures you will see are the actual questionnaires that people participating in focus groups (people off the street, so to speak, without perfumery training) were asked to fill. As you can see, and as has been mentioned on the Perfume Shrine before, the purpose of the focus group and the tool for gauging market reactions is always within the perimeters of comparison. It's always against a current best-seller. This makes for much perfume sameness to be sure; we tackled that in the past as well. But at least now you can see with your own eyes.

The two rival companies below are Lancome/L'Oreal and Dior/LVMH. They're a bit older but the point remains. Makes for fascinating commentary I bet!

Right click and open in new window to see in full size. 

Paying Good Money on Shampoo-Worth Perfume Formula

The most spontaneous posts on Perfume Shrine often involve a small rant and this is one of them. The ideas for the rants also strike me as I'm going through the motions; no preplanned, big thinking dissertation projects, which is probably why they come out of the blue. The other day was one such day of an unwelcome epiphany, concerning several issues we have touched on this site before: similarity between current perfumes, recycling of ideas and ingredients while not revealing sources under penalty of Chinese torture, focus group practices that deprive any originality, pricing of fine fragrance at fine fragrance level while the perfume formula obviously costs as much as a mass-range shampoo... Unlike wanting to find a dupe for MAC Ruby Woo lipstick or DiorShow mascara, perfume stands for something that can't be irrefutably compared in qualitative terms by the average consumer. With cosmetics, it's right there in your face, you can't deny it. With perfume...not as easy to claim your case.

What made me have this light-bulb light up in my brain? Simple. Re-smelling the best-selling (or so it seems from the commentary and the numerous flankers) Chloe Eau de Parfum, the re-orchestrated one from a few years ago.

It smells like -effing- L'Eau d'Issey! 

Now, the two fragrances, L'Eau d'Issey (feminine) from 1992 and Chloe Eau de Parfum (2008) share no common notes apart from rose I believe (which scent doesn't, you ask). You can compare their respective fragrance notes pyramids here and here. Of course seasoned readers of this blog already know notes do NOT correspond to actual ingredients in the formula; they're meant to convey an olfactory impression. But still huge numbers of people review Chloe EDP as rosy, as well as soapy (and it is sudsy in a very sharp, shrill way most definitely, as I had said in my fragrance review of reformulated Chloe eau de parfum, comparing it with the vintage ). The same doesn't happen for the modern classic floral aquatic by Miyake of course, people view it as watery, aquatic, white floral; no rose, no powder, no soap.
In fact I see that I had already mentioned that the Chloe EDP opening reminds me of L'Eau d'Issey all those years back when I first wrote the review in 2008. Can't be blamed for a reformulation, then.

But wait a minute. Are people that suggestive, then? Not quite.

Here is one reviewer of Chloe on Fragrantica, blurting it out in plain sight:

wooedwithpeonies

I must say I was a bit disappointed with this perfume. Only because I was really expecting a super floraly rose. But I got none of that. Instead on my skin it's a fresh fruit with the tinest hint of something floral. On my skin it smell exactly like bombshell from Victoria's Secret. I got no hit of anything rose and the peonies only stuck around for about 5 minutes. The search for the most Rosie perfume continues....

And even though there are tons of other reviewers insisting on the classiness or uniqueness of it (and they do have a perfect right to like it and wear it in good health), I strained my eyes to find someone hinting at what I had perceived at of the blue.
In the end it does seem I am not alone, nor mad at feeling the similarity.
Here it is:

calma

The shared name of this distinguished fashion house,
together with its exquisitely designed bottle,
would make you think that what´s inside holds at least some of the same quality.

Not so.
This is actually one of the greatest disappointments
I have come across, if I may say so.
The fragrance itself reminds me of the crude 'aquatic'
(based on the note of Calone) Issey Miyake L´Eau d´Issey.
With added cheap cotton-candy-ingredients for a more 'feminine' style.
Clean? Well, like a chemical lab I suppose.
Easy to sum up for me; a dull, generic, all-synthetic-'muguet-rose' made by some team who doesn´t care one bit about perfume.

The most fascinating part of it is Chloe EDP smells identical to the cheap chemist's dupes of L'Eau d'Issey sold in plain glass bottles for a buck! Even the formula of the Miyake is considered "expensive" nowadays? 

This valuable lesson also teaches us something important: Familiarity is of paramount importance in perfume tastes. We like what we're familiar with. If an idea has worked once, it will work again, assuming the time lapse is just right; too soon and you risk being called out as derivative, too long and you risk being considered as moldy as an attic full of mothball-preserved clothes.
This is why the industry churns out endless variations on a known theme. And when the theme is considered somewhat passé, they recycle it under a different campaign, a different image and a different set of notes. But it does smell very, very similar all the same.

Consider where your buck flows to.

For those reading Greek, please consult my article on Perfume Sameness on this link.
Next, we will have a niche samples giveaway, stay tuned!

The Ugly Reality of Fragrance Sameness: Insights into Stagnant Practices

The homogeneity of fragrances in the marketplace is markedly poignant, especially lately. If you have shopped for perfume yourself (and who hasn't) you have surely noted it, despairing at the lack of what could be different enough to jolt your senses into a eureka moment. It seldom happens. If you have followed out Twin Peaks articles comparing smell alike perfumes you are equipped with solid argumentative aces. Back in 2008 I had devoted space into why it's so difficult to protect a perfume formula as a unique intellectual property with all rights stemming from this and why formulae are copied, more or less.

There are reasons however that are increasingly more relevant than just the historical explanations or the "shooting" of the scent juice that goes on behind closed doors. Those reasons have to do with both marketing research and with chemical intricacies going on in the laboratory. Let's take them one by one.

Source: chiccham.blogspot.com via Sandy on Pinterest

How Perfume Marketing Tests Work

 Modern perfume development for the mainstream invariably involves focus groups. Each perfume "draft" is presented to a randomly chosen public segment, stratified according to their social status. But they are not presented with the draft free to comment on it the way an evaluator works. There is no free association or technical comments, if only because there is no specific knowledge of how to go about the latter and the former would be practically useless and highly individualized anyway. Instead people are presented with a couple of fragrance "mods" juxtaposed with a benchmark perfume that has been performing very well in the market for some time (an Angel, a Tresor, a Dior J'Adore, a Cool Water...). They fill out a predefined questionnaire which will further dictate the twists in the formula that the evaluators will demand of the perfumer. This is why best-selling/popular perfume lists based on market research are somewhat skewed to begin with, exactly because they commence with certain givens within the parameters of which the subjects are allowed to move. This is why so many fragrances smell like tiny variations of the exact same design.

And because time and financial pressures are huge, often the direction of the perfume (the "brief") is given not to one team headed by a single perfumer, but to many, in different companies. If each of them modifies a small part of the whole, then more than one perfumer takes credit for the finished product. This is you end up with not knowing who masterminded what, which in a way devalues the artistic authorship.

The Ubiquitousness of the Same Raw Materials

 One can complain about the endless tirade of pink pepper or oud in the listed "notes" of any given perfume press release, but the truth is that the notes list bears little resemblance to what actually goes inside the perfume formula ingredients-wise. Basically no more than 20 manufactured raw materials (natural-identical or synthesized anew) get recycled endlessly. These include citronellol, phenyl ethyl alcohol, hedione, heliotropine, ionone, methyl ionone, hydroxycitronellal (despite the IFRA reductions it can still be used in very small amounts), coumarin (ditto), Lilial, salicylates, patchouli, Iso-E Super, synthetic sandalwood, vanillin, synthetic musks, and ambroxan. They potentially have the ability to build diverse "effects" when put into context, but the reason they're preferred has to do with two very important reasons.

One is their unchanging nature; they are stable, technically dependable materials, linear, practical and always of the same quality standards (unlike the wavering quality of natural materials or less stabilized ones which are making their way out of the perfumer's palette as we speak). Therefore they're produced in gigantic quantities and supply dictates usage. They have effectively become perfumers' currency.

Not only that, but the vast supply and subsequent widespread use means that the public has been accustomed to them via familiarization; and familiarization, in matters so inextricably tied to memory and emotion as smell is, means that the public seeks them out again and again.

A vicious circle exacerbated by the avalanche rhythm of fragrance releases in the last decade.