Art Revered for the Sake of Reverence?

In the film “How to steal a million” (William Wyler,1966) the plot revolves around a prized Cellini Venus lent by the heroine’s father to a respected Paris museum; the minor detail is the Venus statuette was not sculpted by Cellini but by Nicole's grandfather, who is a forger! (Art frauds are nothing new) The audience is kept at such a distance thanks to technological systems guarding the art piece that no one can discern the truth.
Yet audiences and critics don’t want to see the sculpture itself, they insist in admiring its value. It’s a monetary value, to be sure, but, more than that, a value of prestige. The work of art is exalted not merely because it is beautiful, but because it has been globally tagged as beautiful. [Of course, if you missed that day at school, art history courses are available online to discuss this in more detail.]

On another real-life occasion a lady reading a newspaper exclaims “By Jove, a Guido Reni painting has sold for X million dollars! Who is this Reni, anyway?!” Another customer at the same café informs her he’s a famous painter. “But how did he manage to become so famous? Those painters have it good! Ah, he’s a 17th century painter, I see…”. And with that decisive tidbit read in the length of the article she returns to her coffee appeased.
What do these incidents teach us and how are they related to art and subsequently perfumery (a form of art for some)?


First of all any piece put on a pedestal is there to be worshipped, it isn’t asking or giving anything really. This is true with paintings and sculptures at the Louvre (your arms would fall off if you attempted to touch the Venus de Milo, such is the guarding!) but also of anything that has attained the status of “masterpiece” such as legendary perfumes (Shalimar, Chanel No.5, Mitsouko, Miss Dior, Cabochard…) Worshipping an art piece ~especially if we are not certain of its authenticity or its well-preserved state or if we do not instinctively like it~ transforms it into a fetish: we do not derive pleasure from it in real time but from the pleasure it had induced in the past! Perhaps to people whom we did not even know! Since the current Shalimar in production is but a pale spectre of itself, how much of this reverence is genuinely heart-felt and how much is cultural upbringing? And how poignant the line in another film is, "The Object of Beauty" (Michael Lindsay-Hogg, 1991) in which the rich couple debate whether to sell the wife’s Henry Moore sculpture, right until it gets stolen, whereas the deaf-mute maid admires it for its beauty rather than the value it represents voicing this immortal line: “It spoke to me; and I heard”.
In artistic terms, the phenomenon of feeling a pre-digested and codified emotion is called Kitsch.

Usually “Kitsch [is] defined as an aesthetically impoverished object of shoddy production, meant more to identify the consumer with a newly acquired class status than to invoke a genuine aesthetic response”. [1]

But in the words of Hermann Broch [2], Kitsch is not only a replica or a vulgar upstart but the entire Modern Art genre from Romanticism onwards ~the latter emphasized the need for expressive and evocative art work, you see~, since art is being made unto a purpose in itself and to be consumed as beauty. In other words, it’s being produced as a museum piece on a pedestal! Broch also accuses kitsch of not participating in the development of art, having its focus directed at the past.

Secondly, we note the graceful, forgiving halo of time. In our example of Guido Reni, if the painter lived, the lady would be livid on how he attained such selling prices. Now that he’s dead, somehow it is considered proper and justified to be famous and valued expensively. Reverting to perfumes, an old perfume is certainly viewed as better than a new release. Or isn’t it? This is especially significant if we notice that in the discussion there was no mention whatsoever of the beauty of Reni’s paintings, only the time-frame in which they were created and the fact that they still circulate. And there is also a kind of appeased class envy: if Reni was alive, there would be some, whereas now there is none. Additionally a crucial aspect isn’t pointed: someone sold the painting for X millions and therefore profited that amount. However that monetary aspect ~which is rampant in the perfumes auctioning as well~ justified via the values of perceived beauty and time elapsed is eluding the aspiring middle-class audience who is brought up to believe in humanistic values instead. According to that Kant dictum, values are intrinsic (thus beauty is a thing of its own and not “in the eye of the beholder”, otherwise there can not be universal masterpieces and the Mona Lisa could be equated with Lucy in the Field with Flowers at MOBA); or alternatively they are born out of a plane of existence more elevated than the audience’s own. Enter the sanctioned plane of the perfume critic who surely “knows”, therefore his/her opinion is more valid than one’s own experience. But that is also another manifestation of kitsch in the sense explained above!
This is why we read such statements as:

“I tried it [Douce Amère by Serge Lutens] for the first time last night and it did not work for me, sadly. Am I just not far enough along in this hobby to appreciate frags like this? Will I like it later? I can tell that it's well composed and appreciate it-- but I don't like the way that it smells”. [3]

And why blind tests between a cheaply produced perfume sur-mesure and a real expensive one do not always play out as one would have expected!

Virginia Woolf captured these problematics in her famous "middlebrow" discussion. [4]Whereas low-brows like that they like, crude as it might be or not (Emannuel Kant describes the direct appeal to the senses as "barbaric" which might be a wonderful reference when experiencing Dioressence, formally introduced as “le parfum barbare”! Think about it!), high-brows like what their elitist stance manifests into creating. Which leaves middle-brows: On the whole they are educated people who aspire into bettering themselves through the appreciation of art.
This indadvertedly reminded me of Philipe Martinet’s scorn on Ingmar Bergman[5]:

“He is the hero of that peculiar creature of our times -the wannabe, the pseudo, the pretend-intellectual who finds the incomprehensible to be profound, the obscure to be enlightening and the disgusting to be ennobling”.

Yet, editor Russell Lynes satirized Virginia Woolf’s concept in the article "Highbrow, Lowbrow, Middlebrow" [6], attributing the distinctions to a means of upholding cultural superiority and subtly lauded middlebrows in their zeal. His parodying of the highbrow claim that the products a person uses distinguishes his/her level of cultural worth, by satirically identifying the products tied to a middlebrow person, has a real and tangible significance in the world of perfume use. Are we better, more educated, more discerning, and more “in the know” because we appreciate an obscure niche scent such as By Kilian Liaisons Dangereuses? Is the effect even more pronounced and pointed as an external attribute because it costs a lot of money too? Does the trend of high-end exclusive lines within mainstream brands (Prada and Armani boutique exclusives, Guerlain Les Parisiennes, Chanel Les Exclusifs etc.), constitute an aesthetic middlebrow manifestation apart from a marketing technique?

Let’s also examine the instance in which an artist (a perfumer?) is invited to spend the day amidst bourgeois society, where he/she is bombarded with questions pertaining to inner meanings of art and philosophy, resulting in equating the artist with how once upon a time the court jester was regarded: someone to provide pleasure and some degree of the inner workings of life and art (Compare with the Shakespearean fool in "King Lear")

I do not purport to have all the answers, but the discussion is open to all and I welcome your input. Milan Kundera said it best in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being":

“Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch”

May we all remember that when faced with a revered perfume!


Thanks to Angela of NST for inspiring this stream of thoughts in the first place.

Refs:
[1]Kitsch definition
[2] Hermann Broch overview
[3] MUA fragrance board quote
[4]Woolf, Virginia. "Middlebrow." The Death of the Moth, and Other Essays. London, Hogarth P., 1942.
[5]What the heck is art.blogspot.com
[6]Lynes, Russell. The Tastemakers. New York, Harper, 1954.
Pics of How to Steal a Million with Audrey Hepburna & Peter O'Toole via doctormacro1.info and Absolut ad via gone4sure.files.wordpress

Mothers and Kids and the Scents that Bind Us Together

“And how should a baby smell in your opinion?”
“A baby should smell good!” the nurse {Jeanne Bussie} replied.
“What does good mean?” father Terrier’s voice sounded booming. “Lots of things smell good: A nosegay of lavender smells good. Chicken soup smells good. The gardens of Arabia smell good. How does a baby smell?” […]
“It’s not that easy…” the nurse began “because…they don’t smell everyplace the same, although they smell everyplace wonderful, father, you understand…on their feet for instance, they smell like a smooth, warm pebble ~no, make that clay…or like butter, like fresh butter. And on their torso they smell like …biscuit soaked in warm milk. But on the top of the their head, right there on the crown, right here where you don’t have anything anymore” and with that she touched the centre of the bald spot on father Terrier’s head, who, affronted with this stream of detailed nonsense had remained speechless and had submissively bowed his head, “here, they smell exquisite! Here, they smell like butterscotch, so sweet and wonderful, father, that you can’t really imagine! If you smell a baby there, you will love it, whether it is your own or someone else’s”. [*]

When I first read those memorable lines in Patrick Süskind’s classic novel Das Parfum, the story of a man with an extraordinary sense of smell but no personal odor of his own, I was but a mere teenager. The thought of having a baby of my own was not even a spermatic idea at the back of my mind; it was simply an indefinite non-entity! I was never one to coo in maternal mode upon seeing babies ~although I always had a fondness for small children and their intelligent way of interpreting the world~ and one who never heard her biological clock going ding dang dong “time to have a baby”. Love for a man took care of it. And I never had a sick day or perfume-free day all the while.
We often hear “you can’t judge unless you’re in someone’s shoes” and that goes doubly so for parenthood. But upon smelling my own, I remembered how those lines from the novel took their own life, their own truth, and the miracle was happening right under my own… nose! It’s indecipherable for anyone who isn’t a mother and it’s the special bond which forms between two beings at their most primal level. Like we choose a mate that their natural odor pleases us, so our offspring bear in their genetic makeup the scented fingerprint which ties them to us, making us able to differentiate our own among many. I often linger over my sleeping child inhaling deeply the yummy smell with eyes closed...And I can imagine that an adoptive mother grows to learn ~and eventually love~ their children’s smell, just like they learn to recognize their tastes and their idiosyncrasies. Because that personal scent is a constant reminder and a symbol for nurture and love.

But babies very quickly show off how they are able to smell their mother out as well! This is why I forwent the beloved Mitsouko and my emblematic Opium fumes for a while to give a chance for this special bond to form and for fenugreek tea to make me all maple-y smelling. It’s enough to breastfeed once to see how the baby turns its small nose and mouth to the sweet scent of milk like a hungry little puppy; that nectar of nature meant to help it grow, to help it become the man or the woman who will be in later life is naturally scented with a vanillic aroma which is perpetuated through baby food later on for a reason. Reminiscences of those tender moments are never far off, read like a language of smiles and smells.

The pleasant is never coming without the less enjoyable and changing nappies soon gets you intimate with the urinous muskiness of baby pee (which has an eerily animalic quality like that of real deer musk and the background of Guerlain's Shalimar) and the sulphurous odor of poop as soon as a mixed diet is introduced. Perhaps the baby’s own reluctance to get disgusted by the excrement however is the most interesting observation and one which you have to see with your own eyes to attest that although nature has guided us through smell into making the healthiest choices, our aversion to poop is not hard-wired genetically but is a product of cultural integration.

An olfactory inquisitive mind can have a field day while adventuring into the Land of Baby Smells: A whole industry is making changing a nappy its focus and every little thing has an odor of its own ~from the paper-mill cedar scent of nappies themselves which remind me of L'artisan's Dzing! to the heliotropin and linalool of scented toilettes/wet-wipes with their nod to Après L’Ondée ; and on to the rosy-almond scent of the nappy cream and the vanilla, geranium and citrus of Johnson's & Johnson's baby powder. The sweet smelling hesperidia and lavender colognes for kids like Tartine et Chocolat Ptitsebon by Givenchy or Petit Guerlain , put on clothes, are not an act of sexing the baby up or hiding their glorious olfactory fingerprint, but a gesture of bien-être dans sa peau, a very European traditional gesture of propriety. My mother did it to me, I do it to my kid!

Yet what I am most interested in is how the child gets to get guided through life from the olfactory point of view. The eyes light up at the smell of food cooking, giggles erupt when warm milk fills the kitchen with its comforting scent, inquisitiveness starts when presented with a new flavor such as sour pineapple, garlicked meat with okra or the earthy aroma of lentils’ soup. How nostrils quiver when out at play and a small flower gets under the nose. How animals, places and people are identified and often compared by smell: “This is the bakery where we’re greeted by the scent of fresh bread- circles with sesame”; “That’s Freddy the tabby who smells like cassie” and “Where is my sweet-smelling papa?” I intend to give that kind of education to my kid and let it form its own olfactory landscape where no smell is bad and no flavor is not to be tasted; and thus hopefully create a sensuous human being who will enrich others.

Happy Mother’s Day to all!

Please visit also Smelly Blog for Ayala Sender's piece, Illuminated Journal for Roxana Villa's piece and Scent Hive for Trish's piece, for more scented thoughts on motherhood!

*translation from the Greek edition by Perfume Shrine.
Art Photography by Spyros Panayotopoulos/eiakstiko.gr and istockphotography.com

The Strange Case of Dr.Oakmoss and Mr.Citrus (part 1)

We have been discussing the latest perfumery restrictions on ingredients these past few days. [You can catch up here and here]. Today's post is useful and practical advice before you rush to buy everything tagged "vintage" on Ebay or stores, especially on anything that says it has a "note" of oakmoss (many of them do not have oakmoss to begin with, as a "note" is not an actual ingredient ~meaning the effect of "oakmoss smell" can be replicated aproximately with other ingredients, some synthetic, some natural). To set things straight therefore, let me say the following.

Oakmoss is ~according to the latest restrictions applicable from January 2010~ only resticted, not prohibited. Let me repeat: oakmoss is not being completely eliminated from perfumes! The direction simply states that it needs to be drastically lowered. What that means: it's allowed to 0.1% of the formula compound AND at the same time the oakmoss extact has to contain no more of 100ppm atranol and chloroatranol (those two are the sensitising parts of the natural essence) But oakmoss has been steadily getting lowered in the last 10 years at least! Even if it means perfumes with high levels of it in the formula have to change again, those are the very perfumes which have already changed a lot, sometimes to the point of unecognisability as many fans have noticed! (Miss Dior, Ma Griffe, Cabochard etc.). After all the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) adopted the following during the 2nd plenary meeting of 7 December 2004: "The European Commission received a letter from the University Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, with data demonstrating that chloroatranol is a potent fragrance allergen in cosmetic products. The European Flavour and Fragrance Association (EFFA) submitted a study “Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) – Sensitisation dossier on Atranol and Chloroatranol” and information on the levels of these substances in oak moss and tree moss" (the latter is exactly the study on which Dr.Rastogi was featured and please read on to find out more). Therefore this is known since at least 2004! In fact there is a very brief post on this link that announces it (with an email to the proper recipient, so it's not like they couldn't have been contacted!): Department of Environmental Chemistry and Microbiology, National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark. (scr@dmu.dk) And another from 2003!
So do you think perfume companies hadn't already wisened up seeing the developments that were impending? Surely not! They were already doing reformulations!

On what concerns Mitsouko in particular Mme Sylvaine Delacourte (artistic director for Guelrain) had the good grace to provide a quote regarding the reformulation of Mitsouko with only tree moss, setting things straight (and I translate):

"Our house has honoured two values for decades: Tradition and Modernity. Tradition denotes the quality of olfactive construction of each of our perfumes with savoir-faire and heritage. Modernity denotes the scrupulous and rigorous respect of the European regulations in the constant concern for our clients. Mitsouko has benefited in 2006 from the most recent olfactory innovations which respect our heritage while at the same time repressing the incomfort tied to certain raw materials. Therefore current Mitsouko responds to the European directives".

Perfumes can theoretically still include oakmoss (evernia prunastri or mousse de chêne) in the formula at the approved levels and I quote from the 43rd amendment of IFRA:

“For this material, for pragmatic reasons, restrictive levels allowed by the QRA for certain categories but actually being higher than those already in place before applying the QRA, will temporarily not be implemented until the end of a 5 year monitoring phase. At the end of the 5 years the position will be reevaluated again. […]Introduction of an additional purity requirement in the Standards on Oak moss extracts and Tree moss extracts.”

And category 11 (encompasses all non-skin contact or incidental skin contact products) is unrestricted! If we solemnly swear to only spray on clothes? This is why Luca finished his article with the wittisism “don't spray on skin”.

The "black" point is that since 2007 IFRA accepts big boys as members and this is the real news: Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF, Takasago etc. can be members who have a say in the regulation of perfumes. The perfumes which they themselves produce. Is it about the concern for consumers' health? It might but most importantly it's about money. How could this happen?
Like Anya McCoy told me:

"Perfumery is being forcibly mutated into a beancounter-driven business with an extremely limited palette. Afraid of lawsuits from consumers if they dare refuse to reformulate classics or create new fragrances with the limits placed upon them, big perfume houses have capitulated. This is a quote from a retired perfumer I interviewed two years ago, the one who blithely answered "we were asleep at the wheel" when I queried why the perfume industry allowed so many regulations to pile up. IFRA, at first golden and shiny with the promise of providing an industry regulatory system that would give the world of perfumery professional and governmental status, botched the deal ~badly!"

There is a PDF available for download (mail me if you want to read it!): It’s the study that Luca talked about in his article, the one I referenced above and of which Dr Rastogi is one of the paticipants. It opens with:

"Based on the submission by EFFA1 of a study "Local nymph Node Assay(LLNA)-Sensitisation dossier on Atranol and Chloroatranol", the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) adopted at its 2nd plenary meeting of 7 December 2004 an opinion (SCCP/0847/04) on Atranol and Chloroatranol present in natural extracts (e.g. Oakmoss and Treemoss extract) with the conclusion:“Because chloroatranol and atranol are components of a botanicalextract, oakmoss absolute, it has been impossible to trace exposure. Chloroatranol was shown to cause elicitation of reactions by repeated open exposure at the ppm level (0.0005%) and at the ppb level on patch testing (50% elicit at 0.000015%). As chloroatranol and atranol are such potent allergens(and chloroatranol particularly so), they shouldnot be present in cosmetic products."

The study talks about 2 ppm though and I quote:"The main identified allergens in oakmoss are chloroatranol and atranol. The ‘typical’ levels of these chemicals have been reduced to levels described". And it concludes with the very logical matter which we tried to explain the other day on why a simple warning label doesn't cover the issue and I quote (bold is mine):

"In recognition of the fact that contact allergy to oakmoss/treemoss is important, product ingredient labelling is required. Such labelling, as a secondary measure to prevent disease, is helpful only to that group of the European population who have a recognised contact allergy to oakmoss/treemoss (following diagnostic clinical patch testing). Labelling is not helpful to the group who have unrecognised contact allergy".

And tree moss which also contains the sensitisers has to be in tandem restricted so that the combined sum of essences does not exceed 0.1% in the formula.
Therefore since oakmoss is again to be reviewed in 2013, this means that there is a window frame for companies to conform and for us to think about this and decide with a cooler head than today's panic.

But there is hope for oakmoss notes yet! Although the patented synthetic Evernyl is not a satisfactory substitute, there is another oakmoss synthetic, Orcinyl 3, which if used together with Evernyl could do the trick.(And it’s only $2400/kilo).
Laurie Erickson, an artisanal pefumer from California for the Sonoma Scent Studio line, also told me: “The big difference for oakmoss with the 43rd amendment is that people who want to use natural moss have to switch to a low allergen moss like the Biolandes product with less than 100 ppm of atranol and less than 100 ppm of chloroatranol (the Biolandes is the only currently available natural moss I know of that meets this standard). If you use the low atranol moss below the maximum usage level and perhaps add a smidge of Evernyl/Veramoss and/or your other favorite mossy ingredients, you can create a pretty nice oakmoss note and still be within IFRA standards; I’m just starting to work with the new moss but so far I’m quite optimistic. I do wish they’d make some exceptions for the old classic formulas and I’m very concerned about the direction we’re heading with all these restrictions on so many materials, but I think we can still create moss notes in new perfumes even under the new guidelines if this low atranol moss turns out to be as promising as it seems right now. I’m just going through all my formulas to substitute the low atranol moss for the regular moss that I was using, and I’ll know more as I continue that process. I had been skeptical before sampling this moss because I’ve been disappointed with the low allergen versions of lavender and bergamot I’ve tried (though I hear better bergamot is available now), but I was pleasantly surprised when I sampled this moss and I ended up buying some.”

Ayala Moriel, another artisanal naturals perfumer has interesting commentary:

"As of the end of last year, neither of my oakmoss suppliers were no longer carrying complete oakmoss absolute. The sensitizing elements were removed, as per IFRA's regulations. Which is not surprising, since oakmoss is grown and harvested in the EU (mostly in former Yugoslavia), and most of the perfume industry at large is still concentrated on that continent. To my pleasant surprise, even at this manipulated state, oakmoss still presented the full spectrum of performance it always had, and was just as good as ever for creating chypres, fougeres and adding nuances to florals, orientals and citrus".

And she likes the Biolandes oakmoss as well! This is what she stated to me:

"1) IFRA is not scheduled to review oakmoss again until 2013, so I have no reason to believe there will be any changes to the current oakmoss regulations before than
2) I checked with my suppliers and they are not aware that this material is about to become unavailable in the near future
3) Since last year, the oakmoss absolute sold in the market was one with the sensitizing molecules removed, namely atranol and chloroatranol and resin acids. This
is also the reason why combining both oakmoss and tree moss is restricted (tree moss contains resin acids, so if it is used in a formula in a conjunction with oakmoss the concentration of oakmoss will be even lower). "

Roxana Villa of Roxana Illuminated Perfume has assured me that she has created an accord that mimics oakmoss sufficiently, composed of natural materials that are within limitations and if her Q is anything to go by on how her woody, green mossy blends go I am very optimistic! Liz Zorn of Soivohle' Perfumes is also another artisanal independent pefumer who is capable of creating oakmoss accords through the combinations of other ingredients: "It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to dupe oakmoss, or even jasmine for that matter. Natural a combination of natural and man made or all man made."

Alex, a perfumery student who writes J'aime Le Parfum had a lovely quote:

"I do not remember whether it was me or a fellow classmate who asked Jean Claude Ellena several months ago about his feeling about IFRA, and he basically said “I don’t really care, and it does not stop me from doing my work.” I think what he says is key here, and it has to do with creativity. You do not need jasmine to give your fragrance “naturalness” or “richness.” You do not need iso e super to do perfumery. You do not need oakmoss to do perfumery.You do not need majantol* to do perfumery." (*majantol is a synthetic lily of the valley ingredient.)

I have personably been in the fortunate position to have smelled the new Biolandes low-atranol oakmoss and compare it to the traditional oakmoss essence and it does seem to perform well, although perhaps not perfectly “photocopied” but a talented perfumer can certainly put it to good use. AlbertCan is also one who has worked with both and corroborates the potential. Technology is on our side if we give it time and who knows what the future holds?
Since reportedly the Chanel Company controls Biolandes, did they just opt for re-creating a chypre with no oakmoss in their 31 Rue Cambon instead of relying on this new low-atranol material? It goes to show how boundaries need to be crossed for something to be created anew or how they cannot be sure on further developments ruining a newly launched product.

The big news is however something else entirely: the raw materials suppliers at Grasse (who mostly dabble in naturals) have been bought out by the big companies! Laboratoires Monique Remy is owned by IFF. Robertet bought Charabot and so on...It figures, doesn't it.
Like Anya Mc Coy says again: "Another wrinkle is the buying up of all the small- to medium- size processing houses, from Charis to Charabot. The pipeline that is in place to bring the extracted aromatics to the perfumer, from the distiller with a field unit in the jungle of Indonesia, to the jasmine plants in Egypt are more and more under the control of corporate conglamorates. If they - the corporations - find it easier and cheaper to use synthetics and the demand for naturals dries up, so will the pipeline. Price fixing, as with vanilla absolute, is firmly in place, in my opinion."

So practical advice: If you need to stock up on favourites from big companies, don't rush to buy whatever has been produced in the last 6-7 years at least. And even then, it's good advice to save up your money for extrait de parfum only, the most concentrated version and therefore the one in which the limitations would pose a greater problem. Do continue to support the artisanal perfumers, now more than ever.
And another suggestion for the perfume industry this time: Have you thought of the vast potential of hair mists and oils?

To be continued with other questionable materials...

Why Crusading Against Perfumery Restictions is an Exercise in Omphaloscepis

In regards to my previous post Perfume Restrictions and Why Everything We Say in Public Matters, Tania Sanchez, the co-author of Perfumes the Guide and a logical mind to be reckoned with, had the good manners and grace to honour me with a direct response. She brought many interesting points to the discussion and although I replied to her in the comments section I do feel that some of my points deserve some air-time for the benefit of those who do not customarily read the comments section. So, bear with me and we might disentangle some finer points.

Tania told me:

"The *future* of perfumery is not the issue. Perfumers have a massive palette and their creativity is proven every time we sit down with new perfumes full of ideas we've never smelled before. It's the obliteration of the past that is the wretched shame. As someone who has suffered all my life from a lot of allergic contact dermatitis (oddly, not to fragrance but mostly to skincare and cosmetics) I understand from my own study and experience that it is impossible to create a product that causes no allergies. The word "hypoallergenic" has no regulated meaning and something that causes rash in one person of "sensitive skin" will be the perfect product for another such self-confessed. We understand, when it comes to all other cosmetics, that when we try something and it gives us a rash, the sensible thing is to abandon it. Not ban it. The question is why these grand works of perfumery art, about which some of us care very deeply and which give us such happiness, must be vandalized solely to prevent some people's rashes, when those people can simply avoid the product by choice. Toxins, carcinogens, and other things that cause irreversible injury absolutely should be eliminated from the perfumer's palette, no question. But skin allergens? Why, when there is a very simple alternative: (1) a full list of ingredients and (2) advising a 24-hour patch test?"

Certainly this is the level-headed approach it is a pleasure conducting dialogue with. So let's take the points one by one, so my ~perhaps nebulous before~ stance becomes clearer.

Since perfumery as an art form has been proclaimed dead, there is of course the rush of panic in an average person's mind of "Hell, what now?? Shall I abandon my pefume hobby? And will everything produced from now on be soul-less?" The focus of my article therefore was to dispel a little of that panic. I think it managed it in some degree, if I say so myself. Then, there is the greater issue of the massacre of classics. There is no dispute on that as I am as much a collector of classics myself, several of them vintage or rare. I collect them, dust them, look at them with dreamy eyes and wear them with a nostalgic pang of someone who was born long after the Summer of Love. A nostalgic pang which is unexplicably shared by many. It is the nature of man (and woman!) to "gloss over" the past and idolise it as better times. Ah, the Golden Age of Cronus...and the continuous decline of man... subject of mythological themes in as far back as 1000BC. Nothing new. We idolise that which we have not experienced first hand. But even if we have, psychology tells us we like to forget the bad, hold on to the good and reminiscence life in idyllic terms. The more we age, the more we do that and it is a sign of our vanity and coming to terms with mortality. We want to be able to say "I had it good, I saw the beauty, reaped its core!". It's understandable.

So what does all this have to do with perfume? It does, in relation to our collecting classics and insisting on their unaltered state of eternal beauty, their own immortality being a small indication of the belief that we, too, can be immortal if only in a small, miniscule piece: that of the beauty ideal we hold. But here is the catch: When wearing a vintage classic I do not claim to re-live an experience of a woman who wore the same juice in the 1930s. It doesn't matter if my juice is authentic, if it is well-preserved, if I am in the right frame of mind or even if I am holding a bakelite cigarette case and wearing a Lelong gown! In essence (no pun intended) I cannot replicate the experience of wearing a classic of that time the way the people who wore it in that age did. Like we discussed with Jean Claude Ellena in our interview, it's not possible to make this "true" to either the maker's intention or the spitit of the era, as numerous factors conspire to make the experience different. How's that? One cannot have read Satre or Genet and go back to seeing things the way people saw them before WWII. The bleak and the existentialist gloom has changed our souls, even if though the memory of written, not lived, word. One cannot have lived through women's movement or reaped the benefits of it in their personal and professional lives and graft themselves back to the time of La Belle Epoque when women didn't always think for themselves. One cannot see the vintage classics (and for our purposes here I mean the ones which are bought in this almost contraband business of ebaying and antiques scouring) as anything else as a glimpse of history. Are they accurate? They are only in the degree which we allow them to be; which we are able to allow them to be. Seeing (even carefully touching, if you're on the inside frame of the business) the Cloisters Apocalypse manuscript at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is not the same as being a monk fixing the gold-leaf in a musty, wooden bank-seat at Cloisters wearing the monk's cloak. The experience is vastly different! Imagine therefore how much more different the experience is when a classic pefume's formula has been already adjusted numerous times through its history ~sometimes even right after its official launch!~ and not only in the last 10-15 years!! Those reformulations, which ALL the classics have endured at some point or another, are due to other factors than the latest IFRA regulations: lack of "bases" for the perfumers ("bases" are ready-made and commercially available "accords" that give a specific "note" or effect, so that the perfumer doesn't have to sit down and start from scratch each and every time); loss of materials due to suppliers' changes; arid or wet seasons influencing the naturals' quality, yield or vibance, much like in wines; adjustments that have to do with economizing or tastes when the brand changes hands.... The hunt for the perfect photocopy of a 1919 Mitsouko (or any such) is therefore impossible! Unless we were transpoted back to 1919 à la H.G Wells ~while being at an age with our full capacities intact~ sniffed some, taken a little with us and then being transported back to the present to analyse, see how to replicate 100% and manage to actually do it, everything else is basically an exercise in futility. We can regard the classics not as the classics that were, but as the classics we loved. The one version which we have liked, which we have come to love ~whatever that might be and however time-specific it might be. (You all realize that it is getting more and more difficult, now I broke this down in those terms, huh?) Man and woman loves what they are familiar with. They love that which has first touched their heartstrings and even if it was not perfect it will always hold a dear place in their memories. It's almost impossible to pin down what version each of us loves however, so perfume companies adjust to the widest denominator. And plus, not even L'Osmotheque has the 1921 Ernest Beaux Chanel No.5 and that's a fact!

So, what do I propose? Eradicate the classics? Of course not! But insisting on our part, our perfume enthusiasts' part, our perfume connoisseurs' part (call it whatever you like) that we want the real Joy, the real No.5 etc is a populist stance that reminds me of a kind of "free fragrance!" activism. Is this viable and what's more is it effective? I think on the whole pefume companies want to please the consumers, if only because they rely on them for sales -yes, even the discerning ones sometimes!- and if they see an interest they will adjust to the best of their margins from a business point of view (I realize miracles cannot happen). Therefore it's good to provide some actual means of voicing that concern, which is what I did by providing some data on how to reach some people. I'm sure more people will chime in and offer theirs as well.

I don't know if the authors of the Guide are already lobbying in a "free fragrance" campaign and therefore are preparing us for something on which they will need our support in whatever form. I only recall the now defunct blog of Luca in which he had said something along the lines of there being an hierarchy of worries: First you worry about the really big things: war, death, famine, etc. Once those are out-of-mind, we start to worry about smaller things: cars, safety seats, allergens. In a turmoiled world in which the economic crisis is having several people sacked and jobless with families to raise and when earthquakes destroy whole blocks of flats collapsing in L'Aquila, Italy while the Baths of Carakalla in Rome suffer damages, the matter of IFRA and reformulating is becoming small potatoes. But even if there is a crusade going on concerning the irrationality of the spirit of the restrictions, the latest Spring Supplement to the Guide which is full of mentions of reformulations is proof positive that the previous pleas by the authors, in the first edition of Pefumes the Guide and before, have met with deaf ears.

Concerning allergens there is some confusion among the public. Let me straighten it out to the best of my non-medically trained ability. Allergen is something that causes an allergy. Allergy is according to Medicine Net:"A misguided reaction to foreign substances by the immune system, the body system of defense against foreign invaders, particularly pathogens (the agents of infection). The allergic reaction is misguided in that these foreign substances are usually harmless. The substances that trigger allergy are called allergen. Examples include pollens, dust mite, molds, danders, and certain foods. People prone to allergies are said to be allergic or atopic". Allergies are largely hereditary and usually manifest themselves fairly early on in life. Sensitizers on the other hand is a completely different issue and this is what IFRA is trying to regulate. Let's see the definition according to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration: "A sensitizer is defined by OSHA as "a chemical that causes a substantial proportion of exposed people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to the chemical." The condition of being sensitized to a chemical is also called chemical hypersensitivity. Therefore here is the interesting part which a perfumer highlighted in the comments yesterday: "Sensitization is the term used to describe a sudden allergenic reaction to something that you previously tolerated well. The chemical substance builds up in your system, and then, on day 563 of use, perhaps 10 years in (days and years chosen randomly, of course) you get a bad response. It may even occur with a new perfume that you've never worn before, but it contains the lavender oil that you've been using for 10 years, and bingo - now you're sensitized to lavender. You're not allergic to it, you're sensitized."

Potential allergens therefore do not perform in the either/or way suggested. One thing could be perfectly all right for yeas and through repeated exposure it can escalate into becoming a sensitiser. So a patch-test is not enough. Even in hair-dyes where a patch-test is de rigeur, one can accumulate a sensitivity and it might burst at any second (this is why they advise doing a patch test EACH AND EVERY TIME! Even for products which you have been using all the time) Can you imagine that for perfume use? I can imagine the labels "Spray the product on a dot on your elbow or behind the ear each time you want to wear the perfume and if you feel no redness, prickling or burning sensation within the next 24 hours, you can wear your perfume ~THIS TIME!" Yeah, great bunch of help that would be!! So, although theoretically I am agreeing that labelling is allowing an informed choice (and I'm all for informed choices!), the matter is more complex than that. Simplistic "easing it up" along the terms of "just slap on a label, for Pete's sake!" is not very helpful.

Listing the full ingredients list isn't very helpful either. First because of the obvious, as explained above: one can be perfectly fine with something and yet get a reaction out of the blue. Life is scary and then we die. We all take our risks and I don't advocate not to. But perfume companies already list the most common allergens and therefore if one knows about something specific not agreeing with them, they can avoid it. The rest they have to risk. Yet the full ingredients list is not something companies want to do for another two reasons: Even in food-stuff (which is scarier to use compared with perfume) you cannot find out the exact formula down to percentages or origin of any ingredient. And sometimes there are cryptic labellings such as "natural aroma of fruit" (what exactly? how was it derived? how much?) or even misleading "no added salt" (yeah, but the sodium percentage is huge anyway!). Fragrances are not going to list everything because the mystique is a great part of the whole business. And also because the consumer is not at ease or has sufficient knowledge to know what anisaldehyde or Iso-E Super is etc. Several people ~on perfume boards even~ protest "I don't want my pretties converted into a chemistry lesson!". And just think what the listing of a full list of ingredients would do to consumers and a few perfume critics as well: No more smart-ass stuff!!

Basically the outcry for the latest regulations is justified because they stand to close some of the little guys (always a bad thing in a democracy), and they are threatening to have several raw materials suppliers out of business ~and therefore even if the little guys want to construct a perfume that bypasses the regulations they will not have the materials to do so!

But it also opens up two interesting arenae, which to me sound full of job potential for specific people: legislative consultants (people who will deal with all the paperwork necessary for the implementations in big companies and with prior experience in law, insurance, that sort of thing) and an ultimate atbitrer of taste who is equipped in chemistry, has a connoisseurship of perfume and a couple of publications on the subject under their belt.


We will continue with posts on the oakmoss and other ingredients problem and offer some clarification and altenatives.

Perfumery Restrictions and Why Everything We Say in Public Matters

There is a show on Greek TV called “Proof” in which famous journalist Nikos Evaggelatos reveals the scandals of various industries by having reporters infiltrate and report back in audio and video every gory detail to the shock, repulsion and wrath of the audience. Actual names are not revealed, no one is brought to task in practice and although there is an expert’s panel and a participating audience at the studio, no specific solution is proposed at the end of the show and the issues are left hanging there.

In more ways than I would be comfortable with, the latest NZZ Folio article by Dr.Luca Turin, proclaiming “Perfumery, a hundred-year-old art, has taken a long time dying, but on January 1, 2010 it will be officially dead”, reminded me of that sensationalist approach. The issue has been already addressed and the restrictions had been warned of, premonitored and fought against by several writers and activists. It’s not really news, especially to Turin-reading perfume enthusiasts, since he has been writing about it at every opportunity for years. My dissenting voice is not disputing the seriousness of the latest reformulations in the industy (yes, they’re dire and largely irrational) but an attempt to bring logic to what is apparently an impassioned subject that makes us momentarily lose our powers of reasoning.

A brief recap: Regulatory body IFRA (International Fragance Association) regularly issues a catalogue of perfumery ingredients’ guidelines with which major manufacturing companies (ie.the companies who make the juice, such as IFF, Givaudan, Takasago etc. as opposed to those who commision it ~the Lauder Group, LVMH Group who owns Guerlain and Dior among others, the Gucci Group etc.) comply with, so as to minimise potential consumers’ complaints & lawsuits; a stance that has been sanctioned as law by the EU Commission at Brussels, which is the real “news”. Now let’s go back a few years: In Nov.2004 a NZZ Folio Duftnote by Luca warns about the reformulation of one of Guerlain’s masterpieces (Mitsouko). His newly-published blog "Perfume Notes" debuts in 2005, pronouncing "The End of Civilization as We Know it” concerning the changes at Guerlain: the perfume community sounds its barbaric yawp through the rooftops of the world and Guerlain PR Isabelle Rousseau's mail gets spammed. For many this was a first; oblivious to the inner workings of the industry, whatever doubt they had on the altered smell of their favourites was not directly attibuted to reformulation. But the approach created an unprecedented turmoil within the perfume community and it indirectly acted as a test of power. Although in mid-2007 the pneuma of the original Mitsouko was pronounced living on in the reformulated juice (by Edouard Fléchier) by Luca, it seems brought back to task just now in April 2009, along with other perfumes.

What changed in the interim? The perfume community came together tight as a fist (commendable), perfume blogging in general became a springboard for careers (predictable), Luca Turin close a book contract (desirable) and perfume companies have continued –or, should I say, escalated- reformulating their juices regardless on their merry way to the bank (lamentable). If anything the historical scope proves that forceful articles and community outcries do not hold the power to inflict changes in the industry!

All written word in the public domain and transmitted through a network of interested parties should have a purpose. If the purpose is not informational journalism (the issue is well known and addressed in the latest supplement of Pefumes the Guide, while the IFRA amendments are downloadable for all to see) or activism manifestation (to which we have already seen that the corporate world pays little attention to), I am at a loss on what purpose that latest article serves!
A couple of issues obscure the justified plea for change and the criticism on Dr.Rastogi: Demonization (environmentalist chemist Suresh Chandra Rastogi, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, IFRA itself, the perfume companies), argumenting ad hominem (“I am not disputing the veracity of Dr Rastogi’s research, though it makes mind-numbingly dull reading”), argumenting ad populum ( “fragrance has no demonstrable benefit other than beauty” and “beauty cannot be measured” with which readers en masse agree), and of course first and foremost argumentum ad verecundiam, aka appeal to authority ~ that of the author himself! Is the biblical simile of The Man Who Cried Doom lost on everyone but me?

In talking about Dr.Rastogi’s work, Luca says “you discover some real but minor problem in a fragrance ingredient. Nice work and you can tell your family when you get home”. That’s the main difference between Rastogi and Turin: reach! Dr.Turin has been given a public podium read by a specific niche of readership who cares very much for those issues and who accepts any such news with fear, panic and wrath (“In another scientific paper titled “The Composition of fragrances is changing” Dr Rastogi analyses old and new perfumes and notes that his work is having an effect”). Dr.Rastogi has not. For what is worth I can see that he is Senior Reseach Scientist at the National Environmental Research Institute of the Ministry of the Environment at Roskilde, Denmark and he has a solid body of publications on allergens research, so I deduce he is serious. In all probability nevertheless his self-defence will be conducted through closed doors of university laboratories and scientific publications which, as a fellow scientist of another field, I know are only read by a specific niche: namely, scientists in the field ~ergo not the perfume enthusiasts’ community. The fight is thus unequal and it feels like a test of power. I would hate to see it as a Philippic interpreted à la Jacqueline de Romilly (ie. a raison d 'être) and thus I am giving both Luca and Rastogi every benefit of a doubt till further notice.

The 43rd IFRA amendment includes several “threatening” essences: jasmine absolute (both sambac and grandiflorum), ylang ylang, heliotropin, frankincense, eugenol and isoeugenol (spicy notes)…. . Please note nevertheless that Restricted is not the same as Prohibited. Restricted means allowed to be used up to certain levels and under certain circumstances. Costus had no chance in any form (oil, absolute or concrete), nor does masoia bark for flavours; but neither does the very new Majantol (a quite new lily of the valley synthetic). Oakmoss/mousse de chêne however somehow might and we will talk about it and other ingredients in some length in the following post.
IFRA was imposing recommendations for a variety of compounds such as oakmoss for a while, the industry following them resulting in numerous reformulations across the brands for at least 10 years now. Thus, for most modern fragrances these standards are not a big issue.

The dream of bypassing the EU by making perfumes on non-EU soil however is futile: the EU cosmetics legislation would only move to the American FDA. It's all about economics and the location of the target market of any specific house. In the words of independent pefumer Andy Tauer:

“Who are the members of IFRA? You will see that the big industry is in there, as members, like IFF*. Thus, all regulations are basically influenced by the big industry, too. There seems to be a mutual interest (commission/big industry) and the entire process is driven by industry, too. I feel that the EU Commission is just proving once more that it does not really care about economic growth, about the citizens it's representing, or small and medium -sized enterprises ( SMEs) but rather plays its game with the big ones, meeting with the who is who; thus the smaller enterprises have to either accept what comes out of these dances or perish.” *{quote from IFRA page: Since the GA of October 17, 2007, companies may also become Direct Ordinary Members of IFRA"}.

It has to do with papework as well, because several cosmetics and toiletries are produced locally for tax reasons, so not all products of one brand are produced at one place.
IlseM points out on the Perfume of Life board which is ruffled:

“IFF is being sued by hundreds of microwave popcorn factory workers because the diacetyl in their butter flavorings caused those workers to contract the irreversible lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. I remember when Consumer Reports tested fragrances for phthalates after they were supposedly removed from all fragrances. CR found them in many of those fragrances and even in ones where
the companies claimed never to have used pthalates. In a few cases the level was even higher than when testing was done before their removal! It's hard to believe that the fragrance industry is motivated by product safety concerns.”

But the perfume community itself has responsibilities too! When perfume writing broke into the Internet and Press scene in 2005 ~an epoch seemingly as far back as the Pleistocene for most people’s memories~ there was heated discussion concerning the use or not of aromachemicals (ie.materials synthesized in the lab for use in perfumery) as opposed to natural ingredients. Authors breaking into the scene championed synthetics ~deeming them no less important or more important than naturals. I distinctly remember people saying that it didn’t matter what their perfumes were composed of, “as long as they smelled good”. Those words are now coming to kick them in the butt in a not-as-nice way. Why the delayed outcry on the axing of several natural essences? We’re catered for with what we asked!
“Smelling good” is a relative term and perfumers can create new compositions tapping as yet unknown resources and new frontiers -which might produce the classics of tomorrow; it would be both hypocritical and rushed on our part to en masse condemn everything that comes out of the labs of companies as an original composition complying to the newest regulations. After all, some fragrances which have been deliberately constructed to bypass restrictions have already gained critical acclaim. Some, like Futur by Piguet, have even been reworked with the help of Luca Turin himself! As mentioned by the president of Piguet, Joe Garces, on Sniffapalooza magazine March 19th 2009:

"With the help and guidance of the most diverse fragrance critic from across the pond who loved “Futur” from its original launch, I have been fortunate to find the final road map with his guidance to the glamorous fragrance that once was. Because of the genius and passion of Luca Turin we will present the perfect “Futur”.)

Although restrictions have really gone over the edge and this is shared as a concern by all the perfumers with whom I have been in discussion, not everything is doom and gloom. In a previous interview with Sandrine Videault, when asked about it, she told me new perfumers have no great difficulty working with the palette proposed, as they do not feel restraint in not being able to use what they have not worked with before. The creativity will change. On top of that, small niche firms can continue to use questionable ingredients in higher ratios than those complied with by the bigger firms (provided they can still source the supplies, which is the main issue. To quote Tauer again: “The restrictions imposed by EU will kill many suppliers or essential oils and absolutes, as the longer the regulations remain, the more a burden. Thus, I am faced with a narrowing market for high quality essential oils”. Outlaw is like outlaw does! So the real problem is classics coming from big brands. But those have been already seriously altered, which is something we have been witnessing for decades now and reporting. Classics will remain a museum piece by their very evanescent nature; it’s inevitable, alas. In the words of Jean Claude Ellena who is taking the modernist approach (and who makes interesting perfumes with the questionable ingredients, such as Iso-E Super, at well-below recommended ratio, bless his heart) “we can’t build the future only on history”.
If you need to do something about it you can mail Société Française des Parfumeurs: 36, rue du Parc de Clagny 78000 Versailles, France. Tél: (+33) 01 39 55 84 34 Fax : (+33) 01 39 55 73 64. Or the Commission for Cosmetics and Legal devices, mail to: staffdir@ec.europa.eu

Bottom line, obituaries might be a little premature and indignation with no suggestions offered is akin to pissing in the wind.


©Elena Vosnaki for the Perfume Shrine.

The Luxury Market amidst the Recession and Other Bedtime Stories

It's natural to think that in times of downsizing and economic difficulties for the vast majority of people in the western world via a domino-effect of the world economy, prices of goods should follow and adjust to demand and reduced affluence. Interestingly and somewhat perversely, the luxury market differentiates itself from the above mentioned syllogism in its agressive ~yet macroeconomically sane~ swift that seemingly raises prices to truly unatainable levels for most. The crux of the matter is why? What repurcussions is this creating? And where will it stop? In discussing this with online acquaintances, some of which happen to be investors, I came across interesting and eye-opening facts from which I deduct some conclusions concerning the marketing course that is being shaped.

The business headlines were rampant with pessimistic sounding news: Porsche sales skidding by 36%, Daimler sales sliding by 35%, Tiffany cutting forecast, as their post holiday sales declined by 21% and the luxe store Saks Fifth Avenue cutting jobs after facing a decline of their stock from $18 to $2.41 per share. So did Burberrys. "After a holiday season marked by steep discounting, the sector, whose clientele traditionally didn't worry about price, finds itself forced to redefine "luxury" while searching for ways to lure paying customers back into their stores." [source]. The quintessential American group of fragrances and cosmetics, the Lauder Group, cut forecast too, cutting 550million$ of costs by laying off people. And yet, right and left, I have been watching prices get raised in many items that are specifically attached to the point of focus of this very venue, ie.fine fragrance.

There were rumours by the end of last year that luxury brands would lower their prices, but so far nothing in that direction has materialized. Ironically, lowering the prices damages the prestige, the image, the very "unattainability" which is de iuro the very definition of luxury itself. During hardship people will specify their purchases geared by the very notion of prestige and what is perceived as quality, i.e. buying things that are not cheap but also do not lose their value long-term. Brands like Hermès or Chanel are sort of benefiting from this course, treating it to different effects: Whereas Chanel ~having the most recgnisable luxe brand on the planet~ is trying to handle both the wanna-be luxury participants crowding for its more mainstream products and the connoisseurs hankering after the more arcane , Hermès is playing it old-school, patrician sang froid (ie. not seen to be making an effort, although obviously nothing is left to chance). To wit: Their fourth-quarter revenues rose 6.2%, despite a 13% drop in Japan.[source] "The definition of luxury is going to evolve," said Saks Chief Executive Steve Sadove in an interview. "Consumers still want brands and luxury even though they may think of it differently. Anyone that says luxury is dead, they are wrong". Across the board, top-end retailers are trimming costs and inventory and launching initiatives aimed at drumming up business without resorting to profit-eroding discounts. A sense of urgency is evident, as the economic downturn that has been pinching the rest of the retail sector for months finally caught up with the premium end of the market. [source]

Yet the French luxury giant LVMH buoyed by strong performances from Parfums Christian Dior and perfumery chain Sephora, has flouted the global recession by posting full-year global sales growth of 4% and keeping profits despite everything. Which is the probable explanation and rationalisation of the bombardment of launches from their fragrance lion-share holder, parfums Guerlain, which we have been discussing here for some time now and which incidentally raised their prices of their boutique catalogue as of last week. But other players in the field aren't far behind as French beauty giant L’Oréal is set to open its first ever standalone combining two of its brands, the US-based Kiehl’s and Japanese makeup artist and beauty brand Shu Uemura, in Strasbourg, France, this month. A new shop with rather upmarket brands? Who would have thought it a good move. And yet! Diptyque has been issuing new products and is set to raise their prices too. Certain American e-tailers of niche fragrances on the other hand have been cunningly raising their prices without much fanfare while all the while advertising sales to their numerous customers, when the parent company of Euro-origin has not raised their own prices to the same products!

Furthermore, there are subdivisions within the luxury beauty market that is knowing a growth instead of a downturn: "The beauty business may be suffering as a whole in the US and Europe, but the natural personal-care segment posted double-digit growth in both regions, according to new data from US market-research group Kline & Company" [source].

The question of how to price luxury items and the outlook for the sector sparked a lively debate among two top executives attending the Financo event, namely between Mickey Drexler, chief executive of J. Crew Group Inc and Neiman Marcus's Tansky. The latter defended his end of the market with these words: "We've been forced to compete on price and price alone, and we don't like it," he said. "It's essential that we as an industry find a way to put a stop to this. There remains a segment who wants finer things. Unique and special merchandising is still selling better than mundane things. We have to retrain our customers. We are trying to think outside of the box that's not price-driven." To that there are other sympathizers and accolytes: "I don't think people are going to stop aspiring," said Marty Wikstrom, non-executive director of Compagnie Financiere Richemont SA, a founding partner in Atelier Management LLC, which specializes in buying and developing luxury brands. And furthermore, it's spelled out for us by Terry Lundgren, chief executive of Macy's: "It's time to make sure you've got exciting inventory. Certainly industry inventory has to be in line with consumer demand. It's been out of whack for too long. There's too much sameness. You need to have merchandise harder to find and have it special." Trunk shows, designer appearences, pampering of good customers is following too to rekindle the buying desire bug.

So there in a nutshell you have the direction the market is going to in the following months or even next couple of years. It is only the more mid-market brands that will try to interject more affordable new products in their inventory to try to attract and retain spending from their core clientele so as not to lose them. (Low-end market is considered non applicable as the initial outlay doesn't seem that important from the point of view of the consumer). Don't expect cut-backs from your favourite luxury and the select niche brands which will survive unscathed, however; on the contrary do expect them to raise their prices and agressively demand your choice over other competitors' products by making their merchandise -and I quote- "hard to find" and "special"!

It's high time we bring the luxury market back to task and remind them the time-honoured economic law of supply and demand.

CK One new campaign: Musings on an All-Inclusive Marketing Culture

The emblematic fragrance of the 90s, the unisex CK One by Calvin Klein is relaunching with a new television and print ad campaign (shot by the legendary Steven Meisel), a beautiful song written by British musician and model Jamie Burke and a special, limited edition fragrance bottle packaged with an mP3 speaker.
The idea behind relaunch of the CK One fragrance is about bringing people together, regardless of their differences in age, culture, race or gender. It's about coming together, through the common and universal language of music.
From WWD by Julie Naughton (issue 01/09/2009):

"Calvin Klein plans to bring new attention to its CK One franchise with a new TV campaign to be launched Jan. 20. [...]"The CK One ‘We are one’ campaign is inspired by a social movement of people coming together in the spirit of unity,” said Catherine Walsh, senior vice president of American fragrances for Coty Prestige, noting the campaign’s centerpiece is a song commissioned from British musician Jamie Burke — who appears in the print and TV ads for this campaign, as well as two Calvin Klein Jeans spots. “There is such a natural synergy between the message of the campaign and the essence of our new president’s platform that it seemed the ideal moment to share the TV spot. The campaign — and its original song — give voice to an optimistic new generation, that certainly made its voice heard in the latest election. This is a celebration of the power of coming together as one.” Charlotta Perlangeli, vice president of global marketing for Calvin Klein Fragrances, added that the song will be available as a free iTunes download and on Ckone.com. “We believe it will help consumers relate more personally to the campaign,” she said. A print ad, featuring Burke with models of all shapes, sizes and skin tones, will begin running in February fashion, beauty, lifestyle and music magazines in the U.S. The campaign will also be online at CKone.com. Both campaigns were created with Laird and Partners; Francis Lawrence filmed the TV spot, which includes 30- and 60-second cuts. Steven Meisel shot the print ad.
Coty is reinforcing the music ties with a limited edition version of CK One. The bottle, which is emblazoned with the words “We are one” in a number of languages, is set into a base which includes a removable MP3 speaker. In addition, Coty will launch an all-over body spray in the CK One franchise. It is intended to be a lighter version of the CK One scent and is dispensed with an oversize pump, said Walsh. It will retail for $26. While Walsh wouldn’t discuss projected spending or sales figures, industry sources estimated the total media spend globally could top $25 million. Sources also estimated that the two limited edition products and the campaign’s effects could add $30 million to the franchise’s bottom line in the next year. More than 90 million scented impressions are planned globally".

Not coincidentally this relaunch coincides with the optimistic, all-inclusive spirit that has been instilled at the inaugauration of the new US president Barack Obama and his speech. The time is therefore prime for anthropological marketing that takes into consideration the very sensitive sensibilities of a culture founded on the principles of inclusion of all races, all religions and all sexual preferences. Unfortunately for many, the "One Drop Rule" seems to have been a custom in the United States for a long time, ie. "a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black unless having an alternative non-white ancestry which he or she can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, or Australian aboriginal. It developed most strongly out of the binary culture of long years of institutionalized slavery.[...]The one-drop rule was a tactic in the U.S. South that codified and strengthened segregation and the disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites from 1890-1910[..]Legislatures sought to prevent interracial relationships to keep the white race "pure", long after slaveholders and overseers took advantage of enslaved women and produced the many mixed-race children". (The following article is interesting to peruse).

In the historic times we're living, when the president himself is of black ancestry, it makes sense that such customs are better being left behind. Although it is no doubt of great importance to honour one's roots, an individual's human right is to feel however he/she wants to feel about them and not being dictated on how to, the right of self-definition becoming of paramount gravity; choosing to wear a label by ones'self or not choosing to. Subtler and more voluntary than hereditary traits such as religious choices should follow, naturally. And as to whether someone self-defines in the issue of gender, this is something that although still quite controversial is curiously often regarded with more lenience than religious or racial differences, perhaps due to the comparatively much smaller scale of those deviating from what is considered "average". Still, in a time when a transexual man gives birth to a baby, everything seems possible!
So even such a small thing as an advertising campaign that encompasses people of mixed races is a good thing! Nevertheless, I am looking forward to Coty Prestige choosing to show people of all ages in their advertisements, as the concept, placement and execution of the relaunch is clearly geared towards quite young people. As to the tyranny of beauty in advertisng (all the faces and bodies I see on the current advertisements are simply gorgeous) this is a general phenomenon in the market for fragrances and cosmetics. Due to my classical education and ancestry I personally embrace beauty for the ethical value that it definitely is in my own mind; yet I wouldn't be happy considering less than beautiful people excluded from such a thing as an all-encompassing campaign. Food for thought, dear advertisers!

For more information about CK One, you can visit the official ck one Facebook page, as well as the CK One YouTube channel.
The limited edition of CKone packaged with an mP3 speaker is available at Macy's retailing for for 50$US.

News & pics via press release, commentary my own.

La Petite Robe Noire by Guerlain: Say What? (New Fragrance Musings)

Some time ago, last August to be exact, Perfume Shrine had speculated that Guerlain would be issuing new perfumes soon with city/travel names etc. (you can read that article here) Among the already registered, copyrighted names was Habit Noir (=black dress). The name was eerily reminiscent of the classic masculine in the Guerlain range, Habit Rouge. It was perhaps the stroke of unoriginality to name something "noir" amidst a plethora of products on the market termed Black-this and Noir-that. Even Guerlain themselves had recently issued the limited edition bottle Black Mystery for their iconic Shalimar! It took a reader of mine to point out that Aromamundi had been privy to interesting facts:

"This sweet gentleman had access to the new Guerlain Homme quite some time ago, and talks about new Guerlain releases for 2009, including ("including", goodness gracious!), I quote, a "Voyages à ..." series (might be the capitals you spotted?), "Une Petite Robe Noire" centered around a candied cherry note*, and the "Habit Noir" you talked about".

To which I had replied:

"Voyages must be the line with the capital cities, Habit Noir must indeed be another Habit Rouge flanker and the Petite Robe Noire (sounds like an Frenchified Avon that one!! LOL) must be a new feminine limited edition, perhaps".

Une Petite Robe Noire has materialized and is set to go it seems, according to this press release appearing on Vogue.fr, hence the picture:

The fragrance, a fruity gourmand, starts on notes of Sicilian citron, licorice and almond*, over a heart of rose and smoky tea to finish on a musky and vanillic background ~translation by Helg

*{NB: Please remember how often the cherry-pie note and almond are referenced in heliotropin-based fragrances, which is one of the key ingredients in Guerlain fragrances}.
The bottle is the classic Mitsouko and L'Heure Bleue design with a sketch of a negligée-looking black dress on it that reminds me of several things: for starters Plum Syke's heroines of the chic-lit novel "Bergdorf Blondes" (English mid-maintenance girl goes to NYC and conforms to high-maintenance lifestyle aiding her "catch" the perfect romantic suitor where she leasts expect it); then the illustrations by Ruben Toledo in Laren Stover's delightfully light and fun "The Bombshell Manual of Style" (a beauty boards' afficionados best-seller); and finally the "girly" stationnery that looks like something coming out of a Sex & the City old filofax.
If I judge by comparable "guides" to looking elegant or looking French (tongue-in cheek or not) or even more weirdly living a la Francaise there is a wide market for that sort of thing! (I urge you to click on the links and see for yourself; one of the basic taglines for the book is "perfect black dress". Come to think of it, it's interesting to search "little black dress" on Amazon by itself!). And no nation wants to be Frencher than the North-Americans (the love-and-hate between those two cultures is well-documented). It's interesting to note that all those guides are written by English-speaking individuals with various degrees of competency or indeed fashion sense/knowledge (this one commits the grave faux pas of attributing an emblematic Givenchy dress worn by Audrey Hepburn to Coco Chanel for instance!)

The above observations are completely my own and Guerlain is not corroborating (nor refuting yet) any of the above. Yet, they're there! A direction towards the American market seems Guerlain's latest strategy it seems, as discussed in detail in The Guerlain Conundrum article here. But more importantly I sense a further disorientation in strategic mapping out: As succinctly our guest writer AlbertCan noted on Now Smell This :

"The little black dress? How is this referencing the Guerlain heritage?(Getting into Chanel marketing territory--yet again)".

Another reader comments on the heels of that:

"As for the "invention" of the black dress which has become a classic, I think this is now in the public domain. Most designers put them out and black is worn ubiquitously outside of funerals."

and another

"there is some book cover with a little dress... and it's a white dress, but it reminds me of that bottle"

and yet another

"Is it just me or did Guerlain just scoop up a name that would have been perfect for a new Chanel perfume instead?"

Aside from the well-known fact that Avon already has a fragrance exploiting the concept of the "little black dress" since 2001 in -you guessed it!- Little Black Dress by Avon, the name alludes clearly to what is considered a "chic" French classic. Vogue.fr presents the new Guerlain fragrance with the tagline "un parfum déjà culte" (an already cult perfume). Clearly the "cult" is the harvesting of the iconic status of the little black dress, a concept synonymous with images from another era.

But the thing is, the little black dress matched with the set of pearls and the red lipstick is such a cliché now that no truly chic woman in French-inspired Europe (or at least in the circles I move in!) readily chooses to wear it any more. I am not disputing the ease, comfort and elegance of the little black dress idea. I even have several in my own wardrobe. It is a landmark in the history of fashion for a reason! I am merely commenting on the over-analysed, over-simplified "trickling down" of its appeal which has conspired to ultimately cheapen it ("wear this and feel like Audrey Hepburn" proclaim all the rock-bottom and mid-price lines ~sorry, that ain't gonna happen that easily..). Personally, Hepburn physique non-conforming aside, I would never pick a little black dress for a semi-formal/formal occasion now exactly because it's so expected, nor would I pick a fragrance "to go with it" as a result.

But here is the really interesting part and pay attention, dear readers: One of the quite frequent questions appearing on fragrance-discussing fora on the Internet is about what fragrance to match with a certain "look". There was this example on a very popular forum a while ago, which I am linking here for your perusal and no doubt interesting deductions. The question was paused by a lovely American lady from New Jersey:

"This Saturday I will be attending a pretty swanky wedding. Guests have been asked to wear black and white attire. A friend gave me a gorgeous designer cocktail dress which I had fitted perfectly. It's very Audrey Hepburn and I can't wait to wear it. My mother had vintage heels and a bag which are the perfect compliment to the dress. I have not been this excited to dress up since my own wedding. Now that my clothing and jewelery are selected I've turned my attention to fragrance. What shall I wear? So, dear POL members, what fragrance would you wear with your "Little black dress"? I hope to be inspired by some of your suggestions."

I will save you the trouble of wading through the thread if you lack the time. I did it for you: The resounding answer is "something from Chanel" amidst other recs, very few of which happen to be Guerlains.
Something tells me headquarters are paying very, very close attention to what is being discussed online (the new marketing is taking note of online communities) and trying to come up with the tricky part of reconciliating the appeasal of the core fans of the Guerlain brand with the commercial potential of their new products. The task is Herculean, it's easy to lapse, alas and I am not unsympathetic: We LOVE Guerlain around here, if you've been reading Perfume Shrine regularly. And until I get my own share of juice to judge I cannot proclaim whether it is good or bad naturally.
But the news of the launch do give pause for thought, so I decided it's interesting to bring it into the open discussion arena and therefore I would be genuinely interested in your opinion, dear readers; here in the comments or privately if you prefer. As always rest assured that Perfume Shrine is respectful of every range of opinion.

Oh, and I almost forgot: of course La Petite Robe Noire is going to be an exclusive at Guerlain boutiques starting February at 100 euros for 50ml., which I have to admit is not unreasonable (Should you be concerned for Habit Rouge, there is a Sport version out shortly, see our previous news)