- Apr 1, 2019
- 5,594
- 3,780
We're living in a 'fast' world.
Fast fashion, fast food, and fast film are all common cultural facets across much of the world in 2021. They are both easily accessible and quickly disposable. Even Warhol's 15 minutes of fame seems relatively ambitious in the age of Vine and TikTok.
But what about "fast fragrance"?
Fragrances are by their nature ephemeral, of course. Once you apply a perfume, you've set the oils on an unstoppable march towards their own dissolution. It is during that march where the 'magic' of perfume occurs: the experience of (what is hopefully) sensual pleasure as the combined oils release their aromas. But there's a difference between ephemera and 'fast' in a cultural sense. A fragrance may be 'gone' the morning after the night before, but 'fast' refers to more than just a timespan: it's a mindset and an economic practice as well.
Fast fashion: "Fast fashion is ‘fast’ in a number of senses: the rate of production is fast; the customer’s decision to purchase is fast; delivery is fast; and garments are worn fast, usually only a few times before being discarded. It is a model that is entirely unsustainable. According to the Fixing Fashion report (...) the fast fashion business model is “encouraging over-consumption and generating excessive waste".”
The explosion in the perfume market over the last 20 to 30 years is phenomenal. In 2013, the global market was worth $28bn, and despite the pandemic it is forecast to keep rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how does 'fastness' relate to the world of perfume? To mind mind, many of the markers of cultural 'fastness' found in other industries can be seen as fundamental to the boom in the perfume market over the last 30 years or so. These are a few of the key components as far as I can see:
- Top notes v drydowns: When I was growing up, it seemed like fragrances with 'rough' openings were the norm. 'Strong and alcoholic' would be the normal experience, and waiting at least several minutes for a fragrance to settle was a necessary expectation. In an era of duelling department store booths and roving salespeople, top notes became an all-important way to entice a potential customer who isn't likely to wait the obligatory hour or so for the fragrance to dry down. As such, top notes are more immediately gratifying and thus far better at selling a fragrance if your average customer only spends a few minutes considering whether or not to purchase a perfume. The sacrifice, of course, has been made in the mid and base notes of fragrances - particularly for men, as the loss of sandalwood and oakmoss due to changes in legislation and fashion has left a paltry choice between Iso E Super/clear woods, amberwood, ambroxan, cypriol/oud, and/or sweet-gourmand accords as the ubiquitous bases of the present day. Those legislative changes cannot explain the trend towards 'fastness' on its own, though: it is a deliberate and profitable exercise for companies and their perfumers to create scents that are temporarily impressive, prioritising top notes, in order to make a sale. No brand exemplifies this better than the L'Oreal-owned Atelier Cologne, with fresh and realistic citrus openings that can be timed by the second rather than the minute. As first impressions go, prioritising top notes over a more holistically accomplished perfume appears to be a profitable tactic, and one that is unlikely to change any time soon.
- Vast number of new releases, customers discouraged from sticking with a 'signature' scent: In a brief search online I couldn't actually find any concrete, quantitive info on the increase over the last 30 years in the number of perfumes being produced. However it goes without saying that it is vast. Not only are 'new' releases growing by the year - with flankers quickly released and discontinued if they do not sell as well as anticipated, and new companies springing up to tap in to profitable world of perfme - but there has also been an increase in the total number of sales for inidividual fragrances. Chanel was prohibitively expensive for the majority of the globe in the 1980s, but in the 2020s their fragrances are considered affordable luxuries from Bangkok to Belo Horizonte via Berlin. This cannot solely be explained by emerging markets, although they do play a major part in the increase. It is also driven in large part due to western buyers simply buying more. The huge quantity of perfumes available has discouraged customers from settling for a signature scent or two, with the ability to constantly buy a new release (even in a global pandemic and huge global recession!) offering novelty for the fashion-conscious who wish to avoid the indignity of wearing a fragrance that is deemed to be 'out of fashion'. With both niche and designer brands releasing luxury fragrances almost every week and certainly every month, it is possible to simply 'buy, buy, buy' in a manner that replicates the 'easily gained, easily disposed' mindset of the fast clothing world. The rate of production, incredibly, seems to only be increasing.
- 'Collecting': a fast rotation of fragrances and a less discerning consumer: Following on from the olfactory arms race that is occurring in labs and dept. stores, we get to customer attitudes. Among enthusiasts, undoubtedly normalised and encouraged by social media, 'collecting' fragrances (i.e. owning a lot, never settling, buying/selling in quick succession) is something of a norm. The idea of 'rotating' fragrances by more than just the season or occasion (i.e. one for warm weather, one for cold; one for work, one for 'going out') is likewise 'normal'. Wearing a different fragrance every day is feasible if you own dozens of fragrances. As such, the concerns of the individual consumer have also changed: a fragrance doesn't have to do many things well anymore, it simply has to do a small number of things in a manner that meets whatever the individual desires (luxury, novelty, superiority, difference, among some of the 'wants'). This is most evident in the niche world - the cutting edge of the designer world (e.g. Dior's Sauvage) still seems to be aiming for the middle ground of universal appeal and doing 'many things well'. If a customer is quickly rotating through fragrances then they are always experiencing an individual fragrance on something approaching 'novel' ground - the aromatic novelty of something fresh and different every day is instantly gratifying and in many ways is separate from the utility of the fragrance as a beauty product. Once a fragrance 'collection' passes a certain point (for example, 90 different fragrances), it is possible for someone to have owned a perfume for 5 years yet to only have worn it 15 times. The ease of buying fragrances, as is possible with the sheer number of new releases, creates a less discerning customer, at least in some matters such as performance, price, originality, or even structural expertise and material quality. This is because it is so easy to ignore any of these failings if you are rotating fragrances. If you encounter one or several of these issues, it becomes far easier to overlook bad spots in a fragrance if you not only don't have to wear it tomorrow, but it might be weeks or months until you wear it again. An equivalent could be found in the durability of clothing, and how you can mask the inferiority of a piece of fast fashion if you wear it sparingly as one item in a large wardrobe, as opposed to something which is made to last and worn frequently as a result. Any 'issue' with the fast fashion item renders it useless when used in this manner. While the practical function of fragrance isn't identical to clothing it is an analogy that bears thinking about. The less discerning customer is now quicker to buy and quicker to replace (or add) than in the past, without ever really having to make a conscious choice about what to own/wear (and perhaps more importantly, what not to!).
- Data-focused marketing/research and development: This is the reciprocal model of modern marketing and research, where data can be used to discover and provoke trends. From analysing internet searches, to which fragrances receive the most visits on a forum like fragrantica, data is a highly useful tool for discovering what people really want without the normal filters that apply to typical market research. Legacy media like fashion and style magazines play their part by publishing search enginge-friendly 'listicles' on a near-weekly basis, partly funded by the brands whose products dominate the lists in question. This form of marketing is at its most brazen in Fragrance One's use of SEO (search enginge optimisation) terminology to market their products ('best office fragrance for men' will return with 'Office for Men' fragrance on the front page or even the top result of most search engines). The problem with data is that it can be incredibly 'dumb' - it reveals only what it reveals, and an awareness that women enjoy 'sweet scents' on men or that women are increasingly interested in orris produces a huge variety of copycat or identikit fragrances attempting to profit on the back of this information without forecasting how oversaturation could kill the interest or appeal. Like musical trends, this produces a culture that is 'sped up', and trends are increasingly short-lived due to what is popular swiftly becoming unpopular once it is develops negative associations - such as becoming too visible or popular, which is antithetical to the ideals of the fashionable. As a consequence of short-lived trends the creative process is also sped up in order to make a quick buck while the trend is still 'live'. It follows that this produces inferior products - that is contestable, I suppose, but given the many complaints about 'blue ambroxan' fragrances or sweet gourmands, the inferiority appears to be somewhat true, at least when it comes to male fragrances. Whether standards are declining or not, the search for swift success in a pressurised market is aiming to appeal to customers desiring instant grafitication on some level.
- Ecological concerns and overharvesting raw materials: This is the big one. With more products comes more waste. As with the fast fashion industry, with efficiency savings and speed of release being all important to get a product to market and make profit while the trend is still 'hot', ecological concerns fall by the wayside. While the new Hermès fragrance may pay lip service to ecology and sustainability, it is only able to do so as it is appealing to wealthier, urban, and therefore ecologically-concerned customer who can afford to live by such ideals, and the expertise and established position they hold allows them to minimise the higher costs by taking less destructive methods of production. However, all manufacturing is energy intensive, and byproducts ranging from toxic chemicals to water consumption in poor parts of the world are all considerations for a customer buying a new fragrance. The harvesting and overconsumption of raw materials is also unsustainable. While sandalwood has already fallen by the wayside, other raw materials like patchouli can be found in many fragrances, and if the demand for fragrance increases, then the demand for natural materials will likewise grow irrespective of the damage caused. One final point to consider is the conditions the people who work in the manufacturing of perfume have to endure.
- The easy method of consumption: Much of this wouldn't be possible if the internet didn't make shopping online so easy. Fragrances that would otherwise have been inaccessible to people 15 years ago are now available at the click of the button. One of the fundamental successes of 'fast' culture is the speed of transaction; or, how quickly one is able to order, pay, and receive their goods. Whether that's a drive through takeaway (now something on an anachronism compared to takeaway food apps) or online checkouts with highly efficient courier services, the reduction in time and effort it takes to purchase something no doubt plays a huge part in all of the above - from less discerning customers to more data for market research. It's not just full bottles, either, as sampling services also allow consumers to experience a vast array of fragrances. 'Buying to try' is a fundamental part of the fast fashion world. To reflect the 'free returns' mindset that has permeated other industries, some brands like Mizensir and Diptyque send out samples of their perfumes with a full bottle purchase under the proviso that the customer can return the fragrance within a period of time if they do not like the sample. Obviously, the evidence shows that this type of 'second chance' option encourages more purchases under the notion that one can return the item for free, yet less discerning customers evidently return the fragrances at such a low rate that it is profitable for brands to offer this service. Phones by their very nature are designed to hijack the neurology of human beings so our reactive behaviour is both predictable and managed, and it's hard to argue against the idea that online shopping - anywhere, any time - doesn't play its part in allowing instant gratification to become central to the business of perfume.
- The rise of clones, and notions of status: The final point is one that exemplifies the 'fast' mindset in relation to offering inferior, derivative versions of what is desirable and 'in fashion'. Brands like Zara offer seasonal fragrances that are on trend and designed with few concerns other than how to smell 'in fashion' - or perhaps more importantly, how to offer novelty and avoid smelling out of fashion. These fragrances are swiftly replaced with a new product once they are sold out, which is the sole aim - low cost, high profit products. Other clones operate on a slightly different model to retailers like Zara yet they only provide more evidence for the 'fastness' at the heart of the current market. There is now a Creed Aventus for everyone, for any price. Cheap perfume oils, knock off middle eastern clones, and even higher end attempts to imitate the profile of Aventus are all available for sale within years of Aventus's release - this would have been highly impractical even 15 years ago yet is now an almost instant and seamless expectation given the ability to market and sell even the most basic and poor quality clone with the savvy use of algorithms and social media. While the Zara model offers 'fast fashion' fragrances to non-enthusiasts who simply want to fit in, the more overt clone model from companies like Sterling are appealing to a mental perception of status that seems to exist among enthusiasts. It's not really about the fragrance, it's about the idea of the fragrance. In tying this all together, I'll put it in terms that encompass the aforementioned 'less discerning fragrance customer'.
To my mind, the whole thing counts. All of it. Everything about a fragrance matters and if it has any glaring failing, irrespective of its other qualities, the actual fragrance is deficient. Some of these deficiencies aren't immediately obvious and take time and repeated wearing to reveal themselves, particularly in clones which are attempting to imitate often very expensive and well-constructed fragrances that have been created in order to appeal to a customer on the basis that the fragrance avoids any 'glaring failing'. Cheap clones, however, all have a fundamental 'cheapness' to them which belies the inferior quality of the fragrance, most notably in the materials used. This is different to simply disliking a fragrance on the basis of a note, or a style of fragrance. Think of it like achovies on a pizza. One can think of a pizza as being 'awful', and describe it in such terms, even if you love sauce, cheese, and dough - because it has achovies. But that might not be fair, as that is fundamentally a matter of taste and subjectivity. However, there are (albeit slightly contestable) ways of objectively measuring the quality of a fragrance - namely in its materials and the quality of its construction. In this sense, cheap clones are a perfect indictment of 'fast fragrance' - they are like a cheap, nasty, frozen pizza made with artificial and heavily modified substitutes for the simple ingredients of a real, fresh pizza. That fast food pizza is 'pizza'...in a sense; yet it is evidently inferior to a freshly made pizza with natural (or in the perfume sense - 'high quality', which may not solely be natural) ingredients, made by a skilled pizzaiolo (perfumer). You don't have to endure achovies on a pizza and in this sense no one should have to suffer while wearing a fragrance they dislike; however, much of the appeal of cloning seems to inherently rely on the 'fast fashion' nature of modern perfumery. Inherent within this is the search and desire for a mental sense of status - Aventus being an obvious example, where something like the once-exclusive and truly regal eau de Cologne (actually worn by Napoleon) is dismissed as anachronistic. Without the often arbitrary and cynical mores of fashion, would there be the same level of 'fastness' in perfume?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it time for a backlash to "fast fragrance"? Or, if not a backlash, than at least a conscious staking out of an alternative to 'fastness', and all that entails, within fragrance 'communities'? Greater concern around sustainability, ethical practice, less waste, less over indulgence, and of course only buying fragrances that please us over a long duration of time instead of simply titillating through novelty seems, to my mind, a positive thing.
Maybe 'fastness' is merely an explosion of the market to reflect the wants and wishes of a varied and swiftly changing global population? If people want Aventus, then give them Aventus in the form and price they desire?
Yet I'm not sure it's that simple. On the matter of perfumery, it's my belief that novelty is at least somewhat deceptive and unfulfilling when it comes to appreciation and enjoyment of perfumery, and there is a happy middle ground between 'sameness' and 'newness' that is lower in number of perfumes than most people would be willing to entertain. More importantly, perhaps, are the negative consequences that impact perfumery as is the case with 'fast' fashion and food, too - most notably, environmental damage and extreme amounts of waste. The health impact of both regulated and, in particular, unregulated perfumes (i.e. clones) is something to consider as well, mirroring the health consequences of fast food.
If instant gratification is 'normal' then does it (has it?) inevitably become desirable, above and beyond less immediate (yet perhaps more fulfilling) forms of pleasure? That seems like a contemporary question that extends far beyond just fragrance. However, if even a global pandemic where people are locked in their homes and maintain physical distance from one another isn't enough to significantly stall the market, perhaps it's a sign that instant gratification is really what people are seeking (and receiving) from fragrances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks. There are of course many benefits to 'fastness' so if you support the developments or could offer a less critical viewpoint, that would be great as well. Hopefully it's something to think about, anyway.
Namaste.
Fast fashion, fast food, and fast film are all common cultural facets across much of the world in 2021. They are both easily accessible and quickly disposable. Even Warhol's 15 minutes of fame seems relatively ambitious in the age of Vine and TikTok.
But what about "fast fragrance"?
Fragrances are by their nature ephemeral, of course. Once you apply a perfume, you've set the oils on an unstoppable march towards their own dissolution. It is during that march where the 'magic' of perfume occurs: the experience of (what is hopefully) sensual pleasure as the combined oils release their aromas. But there's a difference between ephemera and 'fast' in a cultural sense. A fragrance may be 'gone' the morning after the night before, but 'fast' refers to more than just a timespan: it's a mindset and an economic practice as well.
Fast fashion: "Fast fashion is ‘fast’ in a number of senses: the rate of production is fast; the customer’s decision to purchase is fast; delivery is fast; and garments are worn fast, usually only a few times before being discarded. It is a model that is entirely unsustainable. According to the Fixing Fashion report (...) the fast fashion business model is “encouraging over-consumption and generating excessive waste".”
The explosion in the perfume market over the last 20 to 30 years is phenomenal. In 2013, the global market was worth $28bn, and despite the pandemic it is forecast to keep rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how does 'fastness' relate to the world of perfume? To mind mind, many of the markers of cultural 'fastness' found in other industries can be seen as fundamental to the boom in the perfume market over the last 30 years or so. These are a few of the key components as far as I can see:
- Top notes v drydowns: When I was growing up, it seemed like fragrances with 'rough' openings were the norm. 'Strong and alcoholic' would be the normal experience, and waiting at least several minutes for a fragrance to settle was a necessary expectation. In an era of duelling department store booths and roving salespeople, top notes became an all-important way to entice a potential customer who isn't likely to wait the obligatory hour or so for the fragrance to dry down. As such, top notes are more immediately gratifying and thus far better at selling a fragrance if your average customer only spends a few minutes considering whether or not to purchase a perfume. The sacrifice, of course, has been made in the mid and base notes of fragrances - particularly for men, as the loss of sandalwood and oakmoss due to changes in legislation and fashion has left a paltry choice between Iso E Super/clear woods, amberwood, ambroxan, cypriol/oud, and/or sweet-gourmand accords as the ubiquitous bases of the present day. Those legislative changes cannot explain the trend towards 'fastness' on its own, though: it is a deliberate and profitable exercise for companies and their perfumers to create scents that are temporarily impressive, prioritising top notes, in order to make a sale. No brand exemplifies this better than the L'Oreal-owned Atelier Cologne, with fresh and realistic citrus openings that can be timed by the second rather than the minute. As first impressions go, prioritising top notes over a more holistically accomplished perfume appears to be a profitable tactic, and one that is unlikely to change any time soon.
- Vast number of new releases, customers discouraged from sticking with a 'signature' scent: In a brief search online I couldn't actually find any concrete, quantitive info on the increase over the last 30 years in the number of perfumes being produced. However it goes without saying that it is vast. Not only are 'new' releases growing by the year - with flankers quickly released and discontinued if they do not sell as well as anticipated, and new companies springing up to tap in to profitable world of perfme - but there has also been an increase in the total number of sales for inidividual fragrances. Chanel was prohibitively expensive for the majority of the globe in the 1980s, but in the 2020s their fragrances are considered affordable luxuries from Bangkok to Belo Horizonte via Berlin. This cannot solely be explained by emerging markets, although they do play a major part in the increase. It is also driven in large part due to western buyers simply buying more. The huge quantity of perfumes available has discouraged customers from settling for a signature scent or two, with the ability to constantly buy a new release (even in a global pandemic and huge global recession!) offering novelty for the fashion-conscious who wish to avoid the indignity of wearing a fragrance that is deemed to be 'out of fashion'. With both niche and designer brands releasing luxury fragrances almost every week and certainly every month, it is possible to simply 'buy, buy, buy' in a manner that replicates the 'easily gained, easily disposed' mindset of the fast clothing world. The rate of production, incredibly, seems to only be increasing.
- 'Collecting': a fast rotation of fragrances and a less discerning consumer: Following on from the olfactory arms race that is occurring in labs and dept. stores, we get to customer attitudes. Among enthusiasts, undoubtedly normalised and encouraged by social media, 'collecting' fragrances (i.e. owning a lot, never settling, buying/selling in quick succession) is something of a norm. The idea of 'rotating' fragrances by more than just the season or occasion (i.e. one for warm weather, one for cold; one for work, one for 'going out') is likewise 'normal'. Wearing a different fragrance every day is feasible if you own dozens of fragrances. As such, the concerns of the individual consumer have also changed: a fragrance doesn't have to do many things well anymore, it simply has to do a small number of things in a manner that meets whatever the individual desires (luxury, novelty, superiority, difference, among some of the 'wants'). This is most evident in the niche world - the cutting edge of the designer world (e.g. Dior's Sauvage) still seems to be aiming for the middle ground of universal appeal and doing 'many things well'. If a customer is quickly rotating through fragrances then they are always experiencing an individual fragrance on something approaching 'novel' ground - the aromatic novelty of something fresh and different every day is instantly gratifying and in many ways is separate from the utility of the fragrance as a beauty product. Once a fragrance 'collection' passes a certain point (for example, 90 different fragrances), it is possible for someone to have owned a perfume for 5 years yet to only have worn it 15 times. The ease of buying fragrances, as is possible with the sheer number of new releases, creates a less discerning customer, at least in some matters such as performance, price, originality, or even structural expertise and material quality. This is because it is so easy to ignore any of these failings if you are rotating fragrances. If you encounter one or several of these issues, it becomes far easier to overlook bad spots in a fragrance if you not only don't have to wear it tomorrow, but it might be weeks or months until you wear it again. An equivalent could be found in the durability of clothing, and how you can mask the inferiority of a piece of fast fashion if you wear it sparingly as one item in a large wardrobe, as opposed to something which is made to last and worn frequently as a result. Any 'issue' with the fast fashion item renders it useless when used in this manner. While the practical function of fragrance isn't identical to clothing it is an analogy that bears thinking about. The less discerning customer is now quicker to buy and quicker to replace (or add) than in the past, without ever really having to make a conscious choice about what to own/wear (and perhaps more importantly, what not to!).
- Data-focused marketing/research and development: This is the reciprocal model of modern marketing and research, where data can be used to discover and provoke trends. From analysing internet searches, to which fragrances receive the most visits on a forum like fragrantica, data is a highly useful tool for discovering what people really want without the normal filters that apply to typical market research. Legacy media like fashion and style magazines play their part by publishing search enginge-friendly 'listicles' on a near-weekly basis, partly funded by the brands whose products dominate the lists in question. This form of marketing is at its most brazen in Fragrance One's use of SEO (search enginge optimisation) terminology to market their products ('best office fragrance for men' will return with 'Office for Men' fragrance on the front page or even the top result of most search engines). The problem with data is that it can be incredibly 'dumb' - it reveals only what it reveals, and an awareness that women enjoy 'sweet scents' on men or that women are increasingly interested in orris produces a huge variety of copycat or identikit fragrances attempting to profit on the back of this information without forecasting how oversaturation could kill the interest or appeal. Like musical trends, this produces a culture that is 'sped up', and trends are increasingly short-lived due to what is popular swiftly becoming unpopular once it is develops negative associations - such as becoming too visible or popular, which is antithetical to the ideals of the fashionable. As a consequence of short-lived trends the creative process is also sped up in order to make a quick buck while the trend is still 'live'. It follows that this produces inferior products - that is contestable, I suppose, but given the many complaints about 'blue ambroxan' fragrances or sweet gourmands, the inferiority appears to be somewhat true, at least when it comes to male fragrances. Whether standards are declining or not, the search for swift success in a pressurised market is aiming to appeal to customers desiring instant grafitication on some level.
- Ecological concerns and overharvesting raw materials: This is the big one. With more products comes more waste. As with the fast fashion industry, with efficiency savings and speed of release being all important to get a product to market and make profit while the trend is still 'hot', ecological concerns fall by the wayside. While the new Hermès fragrance may pay lip service to ecology and sustainability, it is only able to do so as it is appealing to wealthier, urban, and therefore ecologically-concerned customer who can afford to live by such ideals, and the expertise and established position they hold allows them to minimise the higher costs by taking less destructive methods of production. However, all manufacturing is energy intensive, and byproducts ranging from toxic chemicals to water consumption in poor parts of the world are all considerations for a customer buying a new fragrance. The harvesting and overconsumption of raw materials is also unsustainable. While sandalwood has already fallen by the wayside, other raw materials like patchouli can be found in many fragrances, and if the demand for fragrance increases, then the demand for natural materials will likewise grow irrespective of the damage caused. One final point to consider is the conditions the people who work in the manufacturing of perfume have to endure.
- The easy method of consumption: Much of this wouldn't be possible if the internet didn't make shopping online so easy. Fragrances that would otherwise have been inaccessible to people 15 years ago are now available at the click of the button. One of the fundamental successes of 'fast' culture is the speed of transaction; or, how quickly one is able to order, pay, and receive their goods. Whether that's a drive through takeaway (now something on an anachronism compared to takeaway food apps) or online checkouts with highly efficient courier services, the reduction in time and effort it takes to purchase something no doubt plays a huge part in all of the above - from less discerning customers to more data for market research. It's not just full bottles, either, as sampling services also allow consumers to experience a vast array of fragrances. 'Buying to try' is a fundamental part of the fast fashion world. To reflect the 'free returns' mindset that has permeated other industries, some brands like Mizensir and Diptyque send out samples of their perfumes with a full bottle purchase under the proviso that the customer can return the fragrance within a period of time if they do not like the sample. Obviously, the evidence shows that this type of 'second chance' option encourages more purchases under the notion that one can return the item for free, yet less discerning customers evidently return the fragrances at such a low rate that it is profitable for brands to offer this service. Phones by their very nature are designed to hijack the neurology of human beings so our reactive behaviour is both predictable and managed, and it's hard to argue against the idea that online shopping - anywhere, any time - doesn't play its part in allowing instant gratification to become central to the business of perfume.
- The rise of clones, and notions of status: The final point is one that exemplifies the 'fast' mindset in relation to offering inferior, derivative versions of what is desirable and 'in fashion'. Brands like Zara offer seasonal fragrances that are on trend and designed with few concerns other than how to smell 'in fashion' - or perhaps more importantly, how to offer novelty and avoid smelling out of fashion. These fragrances are swiftly replaced with a new product once they are sold out, which is the sole aim - low cost, high profit products. Other clones operate on a slightly different model to retailers like Zara yet they only provide more evidence for the 'fastness' at the heart of the current market. There is now a Creed Aventus for everyone, for any price. Cheap perfume oils, knock off middle eastern clones, and even higher end attempts to imitate the profile of Aventus are all available for sale within years of Aventus's release - this would have been highly impractical even 15 years ago yet is now an almost instant and seamless expectation given the ability to market and sell even the most basic and poor quality clone with the savvy use of algorithms and social media. While the Zara model offers 'fast fashion' fragrances to non-enthusiasts who simply want to fit in, the more overt clone model from companies like Sterling are appealing to a mental perception of status that seems to exist among enthusiasts. It's not really about the fragrance, it's about the idea of the fragrance. In tying this all together, I'll put it in terms that encompass the aforementioned 'less discerning fragrance customer'.
To my mind, the whole thing counts. All of it. Everything about a fragrance matters and if it has any glaring failing, irrespective of its other qualities, the actual fragrance is deficient. Some of these deficiencies aren't immediately obvious and take time and repeated wearing to reveal themselves, particularly in clones which are attempting to imitate often very expensive and well-constructed fragrances that have been created in order to appeal to a customer on the basis that the fragrance avoids any 'glaring failing'. Cheap clones, however, all have a fundamental 'cheapness' to them which belies the inferior quality of the fragrance, most notably in the materials used. This is different to simply disliking a fragrance on the basis of a note, or a style of fragrance. Think of it like achovies on a pizza. One can think of a pizza as being 'awful', and describe it in such terms, even if you love sauce, cheese, and dough - because it has achovies. But that might not be fair, as that is fundamentally a matter of taste and subjectivity. However, there are (albeit slightly contestable) ways of objectively measuring the quality of a fragrance - namely in its materials and the quality of its construction. In this sense, cheap clones are a perfect indictment of 'fast fragrance' - they are like a cheap, nasty, frozen pizza made with artificial and heavily modified substitutes for the simple ingredients of a real, fresh pizza. That fast food pizza is 'pizza'...in a sense; yet it is evidently inferior to a freshly made pizza with natural (or in the perfume sense - 'high quality', which may not solely be natural) ingredients, made by a skilled pizzaiolo (perfumer). You don't have to endure achovies on a pizza and in this sense no one should have to suffer while wearing a fragrance they dislike; however, much of the appeal of cloning seems to inherently rely on the 'fast fashion' nature of modern perfumery. Inherent within this is the search and desire for a mental sense of status - Aventus being an obvious example, where something like the once-exclusive and truly regal eau de Cologne (actually worn by Napoleon) is dismissed as anachronistic. Without the often arbitrary and cynical mores of fashion, would there be the same level of 'fastness' in perfume?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it time for a backlash to "fast fragrance"? Or, if not a backlash, than at least a conscious staking out of an alternative to 'fastness', and all that entails, within fragrance 'communities'? Greater concern around sustainability, ethical practice, less waste, less over indulgence, and of course only buying fragrances that please us over a long duration of time instead of simply titillating through novelty seems, to my mind, a positive thing.
Maybe 'fastness' is merely an explosion of the market to reflect the wants and wishes of a varied and swiftly changing global population? If people want Aventus, then give them Aventus in the form and price they desire?
Yet I'm not sure it's that simple. On the matter of perfumery, it's my belief that novelty is at least somewhat deceptive and unfulfilling when it comes to appreciation and enjoyment of perfumery, and there is a happy middle ground between 'sameness' and 'newness' that is lower in number of perfumes than most people would be willing to entertain. More importantly, perhaps, are the negative consequences that impact perfumery as is the case with 'fast' fashion and food, too - most notably, environmental damage and extreme amounts of waste. The health impact of both regulated and, in particular, unregulated perfumes (i.e. clones) is something to consider as well, mirroring the health consequences of fast food.
If instant gratification is 'normal' then does it (has it?) inevitably become desirable, above and beyond less immediate (yet perhaps more fulfilling) forms of pleasure? That seems like a contemporary question that extends far beyond just fragrance. However, if even a global pandemic where people are locked in their homes and maintain physical distance from one another isn't enough to significantly stall the market, perhaps it's a sign that instant gratification is really what people are seeking (and receiving) from fragrances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks. There are of course many benefits to 'fastness' so if you support the developments or could offer a less critical viewpoint, that would be great as well. Hopefully it's something to think about, anyway.
Namaste.
