2022 Price Hikes?

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
My general rule is if I'm 100% sure I want something, I try to buy it as soon as possible to save money. People like to blame inflation, but this is really more than just inflation. This is the brands trying to out compete each other, and taking advantage of how the average luxury consumer thinks more expensive is better. It feels like a sucker to pay more for the same product that they happily charged less before.

The most egregious example of this is Guerlain adding existing fragrances into their l'Art & la Matiére line. Herbes Troublantes costs $550 for 200 mL.
unknown.png


This is actually Un Dimanche à la Campagne repackaged. That was originally priced at $161 for 250 mL when released in 2016.
unknown.png


They give you 50 mL less but charge you almost $400 more for the same juice. I'm 100% sure they will be able to sell more of Herbes Troublantes than they've ever sold of Un Dimanche à la Campagne. I haven't smelled it yet, so I can't judge the scent on how it actually smells like. Since I'm sick in the head, I'm still willing to give it a chance as I have a weakness towards Eau de Cologne-style fragrances.

 
Last edited:

GoldWineMemories

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
My general rule is if I'm 100% sure I want something, I try to buy it as soon as possible to save money. People like to blame inflation, but this is really more than just inflation. This is the brands trying to out compete each other, and taking advantage of how the average luxury consumer thinks more expensive is better. It feels like a sucker to pay more for the same product that they happily charged less before.

The most egregious example of this is Guerlain adding existing fragrances into their l'Art & la Matiére line. Herbes Troublantes costs $550 for 200 mL.
unknown.png


This is actually Un Dimanche À La Campagne repackaged. That was originally priced at $161 for 250 mL when released in 2016.
unknown.png


They give you 50 mL less but charge you almost $400 more for the same juice. I'm 100% sure they will be able to sell more of Herbes Troublantes than they've ever sold of Un Dimance À La Campagne. I haven't smelled it yet, so I can't judge the scent on how it actually smells like. Since I'm sick in the head, I'm still willing to give it a chance as I have a weakness towards Eau de Cologne-style fragrances.


Yeah Guerlain's all but dead to me. I'd get the new Jicky EDP bottling when hopefully it's cheaper like the classic Guerlains used to be, but all this new stuff is mostly mediocre, and way too expensive.
 

yourthemannowdog

Well-known member
Jan 22, 2021
Price hikes? Yes, as usual, every 2-3 years.
.
What concerns me the most is that less great deals will be found on ebay from private sellers. Indeed, new federal tax regulations now requires any seller that has generated more than $600 of sales from ebay (or any platform selling 'goods", like Mercari, but also Paypal G&S payments) to file a form 1099, and will be taxed on the income resulting from these sales (that is: profits made on the resale of a product). That will unavoidably generate a price increase of roughly 10-15%, that I personally already noticed.
i stopped selling last year on ebay when ebay forced manage payments across my selling pages . i mostly only sold cologne perfumes on my accounts. i dont care too much about the lowering to 600 but all the more reason to leave
 

cheapimitation

Well-known member
May 15, 2015
Guerlain's hike is more egregious but at least it came with a whole new relaunch and repackage. I guess it doesn't bother me personally because I didn't find any of the Art and Materials interest me enough even at the old price.

Chanel really hurts because it is one of those brands where I still have a list of several from the line I would like to get. I expected some kind of increase in the new year but this is wayyy more than I thought and really makes me not want to support the brand by buying anything else going forward.

It definitely feels like way more than adjusting for inflation and supply issues caused by COVID. Rather, a race to see how much they can get away with.

I went to Saks and Bergdorf today with the foolish hope maybe they hadn't updated the price in their system since it just happened. But no, of course they are asking the same price as the Chanel website.

I suppose like all things the initial outrage with subside and we all get used to the new price brackets, but you gotta think at some point the bubble has got to burst.
 

cheapimitation

Well-known member
May 15, 2015
Looks like Harrods is the one European website that will ship Les Exclusives and their price for Americans is what the prices here were before Jan 1. So I went ahead and ordered 200ml of my remaining wants: Eau de Cologne and Rue Cambon.

Their shipping is expensive, but I figure no more than NYC sales tax I would pay here.
 

Brooks Otterlake

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 12, 2019
The increases are certainly due more to luxury pricing games than inflation. Prices were climbing long before COVID. The COVID impact just makes things worse.

I don't think the industry is all that healthy overall. Every time the retail price rises the target consumer base narrows, and so does the competition. Luxury brands are fighting over a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.

Serge Lutens abandoning the US market and dumping stock to discounters may be just an isolated example of poor brand management, but my gut says it's a harbinger of things to come. The biggest players will survive, but many of the other players will not.
 
Last edited:

slpfrsly

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
All the more reasons not to get back in. I've been more disappointed then pleased with quality overall from many of the iconic brands.
Exactly right. It really feels like multiple doors are slamming shut all around the world. Be Indiana Jones, get out when you still have the opportunity to do so. When one door closes etc.

Chanel, Dior etc. have no other option to price themselves alongside and above the boutique niche brands that are trying to siphon off profits by appealing to a certain type of customer. Their long term survival depends on an identity as a luxury brand. That means exclusivity and going where a certain type of customer wants to be.

Despite protestations, this is just more evidence that easily affordable, good quality, mass market perfume is/was a blip in history. Chanel et al are not meant to be accessible to the whole population. They're desirable, aspirational brands that offer a mass market option - Bleu de Chanel e.g. - in the same way that some people buy Ferrari paraphernalia without ever purchasing a Ferrari vehicle. But, as we're also seeing with ICE vehicles being lawfared in to obsolescence, even the cheaper options are going to become more and more difficult for the average person to acquire (and the product itself will be inferior to what they used to be able to buy).

Line go up is the mantra of the merchant. That doesn't mean quality goes up. This move will impact even the more traditional and craft-focused perfumers as I suspect even the genuinely established and competent artisanal perfumers will be forced to compete with these price rises or fade in to obsolescene. Both options would lead to a shrinking of their market. This is fine if you merely want to consolidate your brand and keep selling to loyal customers, but it is a death knell for any ambitious brand or house that wants to expand yet relies on certain numbers of perfume being sold at a certain price. It is also a hindrance to any new house or perfumer that wants to build on traditional perfumery - sans algorithmic-creation, sans viral marketing campaign - but needs to establish itself as a profitable business. This might be a positive thing if the smaller market meant greater exclusivity and a more discerning customer but I see literally no evidence that this is happening, a change that goes way beyond perfume. The cultural elitism of perfumery has been lost, as mentioned elsewhere, and it cannot be recovered. Any attempt to do so is either a LARP or a misidentification of the role of consumerism in the process. Everything is naturally gravitating towards the middle and this means both the incentive and the receptive audience is not going to be found in the exceptional fringes - if they are, they are probably not available for public purchase.

Chanel and brands like Chanel are now primarily catering to the global middle class; new customers are mostly being sought in Asia. Their motivations and tastes are quite different to the Euro-American sensibility that was commercially catered to for the last 70 years or so (east wants light, clean, and almost unidentifiable, expensive fragrances to be used as gifts that are never worn; west typically wants something louder, stronger, more Eurabic e.g. oud made by western fashion designers). Transatlanticism just about worked (in a way, and due to America's cultural domination of Europe after 1945) but I can't see how a traditional French brand can retain anything of itself as it also tries to appeal to both east and west Asia in addition to America. It merely becomes a vessel for mechanisms to use the 'Chanel' brand like a skin suit, with other brands offering a slightly different shade of the same stuff. I'm not sure how much interest brands like Chanel will continue to hold for fragrance enthusiasts - as in, people primarily interested in the perfume, not the perfume-as-product - despite the fact they are in the vanguard of the beauty and fashion world and have a longer legacy than most. At least, their boutique-niche releases will probably be more and more like Tobacolor than Cuir de Russie, which to my mind means they will be of less interest to people on forums like this. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though, who knows. However, with increasing homogenisation of everything, when 10 other companies sell a version of a sweet-floral-tobacco - or, to use another recent release, Paris-Edinburgh, a salty-brackish green fougere that smells very similar to a major part of Creed Viking - what is the point in paying Chanel prices if you find it difficult to do so? For those who don't ask the price, this isn't a concern in the slightest, but I assume the vast majority of people seek out the best experience for the best price out of necessity. Price rises like this are a great way of repositioning Chanel et al as the luxury brands they were prior to the rapid globalisation in the 1990s. Events of the last 3 years provide an excellent and integrated justification for doing so but this is a trend that has been happening for a long time. Chanel doesn't have to compete with the likes of Calvin Klein or Ralph Lauren like it used to, that battle has been won with its mainstream mass-seller (same goes for Dior, Prada etc.). Now they can successfully start chipping away at the boutique market who have been drawn to the Rojas, Tom Fords, and Creeds during the last 20-30 years, and they also have brand desirability which works very well in China.

I can see why this would be disappointing for people who liked owning a little dash of Chanel luxury in the form of a fragrance. It's a lot cheaper, longer-lasting, and more accessible than buying a bag or a dress. But there's lots of very good perfume out there at lower prices. Take away the branding, the exclusivity, and everything else, and I think equal if not greater aromatic satisfaction can be found for a lot less than this sort of price tier. What will it mean to buy a Chanel perfume, as opposed to one from another house, when homogenisation means that brand identity and fragrance difference is being erased for the sake of mercantile operational mechanisms? Marketing alone cannot add back the gloss of something 'being' Chanel - like a narrative about Coco travelling to Scotland, for instance - when the products are becoming increasingly similar to other, existing products on the market.

Sadly, one thing that happens when prices go up like this is fraud and fakery becomes more common/successful as the incentives are greater.
 

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
Their motivations and tastes are quite different to the Euro-American sensibility that was commercially catered to for the last 70 years or so (east wants light, clean, and almost unidentifiable, expensive fragrances to be used as gifts that are never worn; west typically wants something louder, stronger, more Eurabic e.g. oud made by western fashion designers).
This exactly describes how I feel Hedi's fragrances have changed from Dior to Celine. Although his Celine fragrances share similar ideas as his Dior fragrances, they differ in execution. His Dior fragrances were punchy, loud, complex, spicy, herbaceous, and unisex masculine-leaning; whereas, his Celine fragrances are ethereal, diaphanous, minimalistic, softer, rounder and unisex feminine-leaning. I can see that "Eurabic" facet in the form of exotic smelling spices in both his Eau Noire and 30 Montaigne. My sensibilities lean towards lighter smells, and I recoiled when I smelled the air inside the glass cloche that was covering the 30 Montaigne candle at a Maison Christian Dior boutique. Rather than feeling gloomy about it, I see this change as an inevitable update to what the modern idea of luxury smells like.

This is just like how the 80s rebelled with their powerhouse scents. The younger generation will always rebel against the previous generation in everything. I see the Euro-American market changing their tastes with how popular Baccarat Rouge 540 is. Baccarat Rouge 540 feels like the epitome of modern mainstream luxury perfumery, and it is airy, light, clean, diffusive, and apparently very recognizable. Chanel's 1957 might be considered light, clean, but it is surprisingly diffusive and long-lasting. Due to my sensibilities, I much prefer it over the others in the Les Exclusifs range and No. 5.
It's a lot cheaper, longer-lasting, and more accessible than buying a bag or a dress.
I'm skeptical if the fragrances would be longer-lasting than a bag. I would agree it is cheaper and more accessible, however.
What will it mean to buy a Chanel perfume, as opposed to one from another house, when homogenisation means that brand identity and fragrance difference is being erased for the sake of mercantile operational mechanisms?
I think creative directors will finally have more pressure to really create a strong identity, narrative, and aesthetic in their fragrances. While it is easier to justify buying another "blue" fragrance instead of Bleu de Chanel, I find the case harder to make for something like 1957. I think brands are smart with their two-tiered lines as long as it doesn't dilute the brand identity and prestige. Chanel has built too much prestige over the years that the average mainstream fragrance consumer would probably feel good knowing they're wearing a "blue" fragrance from Chanel instead of one from another brand that has a less expensive "blue" fragrance. Celine, on the other hand, is unable to have a lower tier line as it will dilute the prestige it is trying to build right now.
 

Minotauro

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
With 200 USD I bought recently a 75ml pre 95 Egoiste splash, a 50ml pre 95 Antaeus and a big Loewe Homme in a brown box, fragrances that are more interesting, more long lasting, with more sillage and of course that smell better than the continuous mediocrities that the big brands usually offer us.

Now 90% of what I buy is vintage. (and growing). Vintage is the new future lol.

Don't count on me anymore for the shenanigans of these people.
 

Nihilist

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2008
Don't want to cause alarm, as I don't know of any. But does anyone know for sure of price hikes that will be coming in the new year?

I remember last year several brands raised prices $10-20 shortly after the new year. I wonder if it has always been this way and it's just the first time I noticed, or if it's also partly due to the impact of COVID.

I want to know most about Chanel, as they did raise European prices last year but the U.S. price never changed. There are a couple Les Exclusives I still want to pick up and I'm wondering if I should try to buy them before the New Year or not. Unfortunately, I'm not close enough to any Chanel SA to get any advanced info about this because I'm not super loyal about where I buy Chanel. Anyone know?
General Mills has announced a 25 percent price increase across the board soon. I got a 3.4 of TdH before it goes totally out of reasonability. This time next year, I expect a quarter increase on luxuries, easily.
 

cheapimitation

Well-known member
May 15, 2015
Finally some good news! (but bad news for me)

I just bought Hermes Cardamusc from Saks, and I noticed on Selfridges it came back in stock in new packaging which looks better, has an application wand, AND it is now 25ml while the old packaging was just 20ml. And all without a price increase!

First time I've seen more value for money from a luxury house, way to go Hermes! 5ml is quite significant too for a perfume oil, now I just wish I had known before I bought the older packaging. :cry:
 

slpfrsly

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Apr 1, 2019
This exactly describes how I feel Hedi's fragrances have changed from Dior to Celine. Although his Celine fragrances share similar ideas as his Dior fragrances, they differ in execution. His Dior fragrances were punchy, loud, complex, spicy, herbaceous, and unisex masculine-leaning; whereas, his Celine fragrances are ethereal, diaphanous, minimalistic, softer, rounder and unisex feminine-leaning. I can see that "Eurabic" facet in the form of exotic smelling spices in both his Eau Noire and 30 Montaigne. My sensibilities lean towards lighter smells, and I recoiled when I smelled the air inside the glass cloche that was covering the 30 Montaigne candle at a Maison Christian Dior boutique. Rather than feeling gloomy about it, I see this change as an inevitable update to what the modern idea of luxury smells like.

This is just like how the 80s rebelled with their powerhouse scents. The younger generation will always rebel against the previous generation in everything. I see the Euro-American market changing their tastes with how popular Baccarat Rouge 540 is. Baccarat Rouge 540 feels like the epitome of modern mainstream luxury perfumery, and it is airy, light, clean, diffusive, and apparently very recognizable. Chanel's 1957 might be considered light, clean, but it is surprisingly diffusive and long-lasting. Due to my sensibilities, I much prefer it over the others in the Les Exclusifs range and No. 5.
Yes, I think because perfumery is becoming more and more a middle class product, it becomes more in keeping with more nouveau riche sensibilities. That also relates to global territories, and the sort of Gulf extravagance clearly has a big pull on the fragrance world. I think this is a more general trend that goes beyond the way that we veer between tastes by generation - from fresh and light, to strong and sweet, and back again. The higher up the social scale you go, after a certain point, you're unlikely to find people even wearing fragrance. Or, at least you're unlikely to smell it on them. Light and clean fragrances were an interesting fusion of more moderate European aristocratic tastes with a sort of Calvinist American aversion to the very idea of perfume. This era seems to be over in Europe, but strangely enough it survives in east Asia (first in Japan with brands like Kenzo and Miyake, and now in China).
I'm skeptical if the fragrances would be longer-lasting than a bag. I would agree it is cheaper and more accessible, however.
Yes, this is my bias coming in to play here. I get through clothing in a fairly short period of time whereas I take a lot longer than most people to get through a bottle of fragrance (at least according to previous discussions, it takes me years to finish a single bottle of perfume even if I wear it regularly).

I think creative directors will finally have more pressure to really create a strong identity, narrative, and aesthetic in their fragrances. While it is easier to justify buying another "blue" fragrance instead of Bleu de Chanel, I find the case harder to make for something like 1957. I think brands are smart with their two-tiered lines as long as it doesn't dilute the brand identity and prestige. Chanel has built too much prestige over the years that the average mainstream fragrance consumer would probably feel good knowing they're wearing a "blue" fragrance from Chanel instead of one from another brand that has a less expensive "blue" fragrance. Celine, on the other hand, is unable to have a lower tier line as it will dilute the prestige it is trying to build right now.
This is true, yet in relying on history to fill in the gaps that are left by the product itself, you're also eroding and replacing the brand's legacy as something chic, market-leading, luxurious, fasionable, classy etc. Chanel (or any other luxury brand) does not have a guarantee of retaining its reputation and this is why I think it's a short term strategy that cannot be relied on in the long term. Either the big houses will demand (and pay) for more proprietary compounds or perfumes, or they will have to hope they can differentiate themselves from the brands just below them through other means. At the moment, part of their allure relies on general ignorance among customers, in my opinion, of just how the perfume world operates and how Chanel etc are not particularly 'special' in any sort of in-house way comapred to, I don't know, someone like Salvatore Ferragamo for example. Or Versace. These are brands that produced fragrances that are very similar to Chanel's and maybe some people prefer them, but there will be lots of people who will gravitate towards Chanel out of perceived luxury. The biggest threat to this is the internet, where people can get together and, in a very short period of time, share their assessments and come to conclusions about value or prestige. If the product doesn't match the price or heritage, the legacy alone won't carry the brand forever.
 

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
The biggest threat to this is the internet, where people can get together and, in a very short period of time, share their assessments and come to conclusions about value or prestige. If the product doesn't match the price or heritage, the legacy alone won't carry the brand forever.
Yeah, I think you nailed the head 100% on this. On the fashion side, there is already a building narrative by online enthusiasts that the current creative director sucks compared to Karl. I can see a real possibility of Chanel losing its prestige.
 

Nom de Guerre

Well-known member
Jan 2, 2020
Finally some good news! (but bad news for me)

I just bought Hermes Cardamusc from Saks, and I noticed on Selfridges it came back in stock in new packaging which looks better, has an application wand, AND it is now 25ml while the old packaging was just 20ml. And all without a price increase!

First time I've seen more value for money from a luxury house, way to go Hermes! 5ml is quite significant too for a perfume oil, now I just wish I had known before I bought the older packaging. :cry:

Ahhh, I'd love to have that applicator. I feel guilty every time I use my freshly washed finger to apply.

The new one is actually cheaper. Old on the left (hermes.com), new on the right (harrods.com):

YFOKRyf.png
 

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
I see infinite upsides for brands to increase their prices:
  • Those who were already wanting to buy it are more motivated to buy it now to avoid another round of increasing
  • Those who are indifferent in the first place aren't going to be more or less interested in buying it even if they decrease the price, so their opinions don't matter to a brand even if the fragrances increase in price
  • Those who have never heard of the fragrance before, will hear of it due to people bringing it up in the context of it being more expensive than before and might now be more interested in trying the fragrance to see what all the fuss is about
I'm curious how many people are interested in picking up Cardamusc after realizing that the brand is deciding to charge less for more juice now. A permanent price decrease doesn't feel like it has the same effect as a temporary discount. I think psychologically, many consumers are attracted to the idea of a time-sensitive "steal".
 

cheapimitation

Well-known member
May 15, 2015
Ahhh, I'd love to have that applicator. I feel guilty every time I use my freshly washed finger to apply.

The new one is actually cheaper. Old on the left (hermes.com), new on the right (harrods.com):

YFOKRyf.png
To be fair I think the lower price is due to European conversion since Hermes et all is always 10-20% cheaper ordering from Europe to the U.S.

I think the price went up just slightly, if I remember correctly Selfridges had the old version for maybe $335 or 340, I can't remember exactly. But still even with a small increase the extra 5ml makes it a better value.

I wonder when the new packaging will reach the U.S. and if the price will go up slightly. Still I applaud them for improving the product with minor or no price hike.

I imagine cardamusc really doesn't sell well. It is extremely expensive and very subtle. The first few times I tried it I thought "this is it?" and had trouble smelling it in the store. But after trying it more it really is a gorgeous scent that lasts and lasts but with very low projection, as is expected from a perfume oil.

I really appreciate that instead of simply discontinuing a poor seller, Hermes improves it/makes it a better deal for the consumer. It really shows integrity and belief in their product and perfumer.
 

GoldWineMemories

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
Finally some good news! (but bad news for me)

I just bought Hermes Cardamusc from Saks, and I noticed on Selfridges it came back in stock in new packaging which looks better, has an application wand, AND it is now 25ml while the old packaging was just 20ml. And all without a price increase!

First time I've seen more value for money from a luxury house, way to go Hermes! 5ml is quite significant too for a perfume oil, now I just wish I had known before I bought the older packaging. :cry:

Bourdon claims that Hermes turned down a bestseller (I believe it was Cool Water) saying that they knew it would sell too well, and that wasn't the direction that the brand wanted to go. They're one of the few brands that aren't owned by a conglomerate, knows what they want out of their perfumers & fragrance, and seem to actually still care.
 

ScentSensei

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Aug 21, 2020
Plenty of posts affirming the same issues but in most facets of my industry(flooring manufacturers in particular) price increases always greet the new year but this year they have been giving us MONTHLY increases since end of last summer. We can't even rely on a price sheet from a month ago without risking a loss of profit due to missing an increase. It makes it impossible to pre-sell/advance sell for new construction or remodels that won't need materials for awhile because materials take up too much limited space to store for months and waiting means price increases nibbling at profit.

I'm glad I finally reached/slightly exceeded the physical limits of adding new bottles as the prices for the fragrances I bought went crazy. Versace Pour Homme Oud Noir was $46 on FragranceNet in September or so, now I see it at $126! Virgin Island Water was $230 when I bought it last summer and not it's up to $350 or more.
 

naylor

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2011
Bourdon claims that Hermes turned down a bestseller (I believe it was Cool Water) saying that they knew it would sell too well, and that wasn't the direction that the brand wanted to go. They're one of the few brands that aren't owned by a conglomerate, knows what they want out of their perfumers & fragrance, and seem to actually still care.
Yes, I believe you're remembering that exactly right. I just read it earlier this week.
 

cheapimitation

Well-known member
May 15, 2015
The more I think about it, I really respect the way Hermes runs their fragrance line.

They have kept the entire Hermessence collection in production and as far as I know, almost no one complains of reformulation. They all smell fantastic to me today and they have been around awhile. It could just be they aren't popular/hyped enough for ppl to nitpick over batch difference, which is also a huge plus for me.

There are some weird and very unloved scents in the line, I can't imagine more than 5 ppl in the world buy Paprika Brazil in a year LOL. Yet it remains!

I also think they aren't afraid to play the long game. I don't think H24 has been anything like a blockbuster since its release, but I think it will be a sleeper hit and the kind of thing that people will get really attached to as a daily driver/signature scent.
 

JBHoren

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Apr 25, 2007
Looks like my favorite "inspiration" house, Alexandria Fragrances has eliminated the 30 ML size effectively raising prices. Business is business, but for a guy my age (cough, wheeze) a 30 ML bottle basically is a lifetime supply.
I'm facing the same problem. I've been pricing 50ml bottles of frags that I don't yet own, but either they no longer exist, or they do, but are priced within $10-$15 of the 100ml bottle. Buying multiple 10ml decants might end-up being the answer, but without the elegance of the original bottle, it's just not the same.
 

Minotauro

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
The small bottles or "travel sprays" is just a shame; it always has been, but now there is more.
Without going into the consideration that travel spray bottles are usually different (cheaper, it is not even the "original" bottle, often just tubes with a sprayer), the difference in price per ml is often outrageous.

For example, 3 brands (you can check more):

Frederic Malle French Lover
100 ml = 295$ ........ 2.95$ per ml
50 ml = 210$ .......... 4.92$ per ml
30 ml (3 tubes) = 150$ ........ 5.00$ per ml
10 ml (1 tube) = 58$ .......... 5.80$ per ml

49% higher

Acqua di Parma Leather
180 ml = 282$ ........... 1.56$ per ml
100 ml = 225$ .......... 2.25$ per ml
20 ml (20 ml not the usual 30 ml... nice shot AdP) = 98$ .......... 4.90$ per ml

68% higher

Tom Ford Fucking Fabulous
250 ml = 940$ ........... 3.76$ per ml
100 ml = 500$ ........... 5,00$ per ml
50 ml = 375$ ............. 7.50$ per ml
30 ml = 216$ ........... 7.20$ per ml (a bit cheaper than 50 ml, another nice move Mr Ford)

50% higher

Please, just think about it.

lkjlkjlkj.jpg
 

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
Small bottles make sense for people who like small bottles, even if they cost more money per millilitre of juice. I'm sure smaller bottles exist partially to help people justify buying the bigger bottles. Feels like a supersize me kind of thing where the bigger bottles don't cost as much as you think they do, and the company wants people to buy the biggest size.
 

Minotauro

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
Absolutely imm0rtelle, I think you are righ and I think most of us will agree that this strategy is persuasive and acts as a "stimulus" for the customer to buy a large bottle; in fact, I think now many fragrances that used to be sold in 50ml and 100ml are only sold in 100ml, right?
But what interests me is not so much the point of view of the seller but of the consumer.

I know that there are many different types of consumers with different purchasing power so I do not want to generalize at all.
So I will simply proceed to expose some thoughts that come to my mind as a consumer - some will feel identified and others will not.

The face that one gets when you see in a store that the price of a small bottle is twice or more than the big one is priceless.
Of course, anyone logically understands a price difference between a larger and a smaller format in favor of the former, but in many cases we are talking about 50% or more: it is like buying a 100ml bottle and only being given half.
Isn't it already too much? (It's a rhetorical question, I know it's never too much lol).

Tom Ford's price list has amazed me: in the 30ml bottle the ml is cheaper than in the 50ml; all consumer trends are analyzed to the millimeter.
Is it a bit shameless? Maybe, but that is to have everything well tied, chapeau! Hats off.

Travel sprays or special/small formats - at least before - were designed for people who travel a lot (like me) and who want to "save space" in their luggage. It seems silly but it is not the same to put a 100ml or 200ml bottle than a 10ml tube for example. That there are also decants? Of course, but then if they do not sell travel sets as travel sets but as "luxury miniatures" or "haute perfume tubes", what do they call travel sets?

And the most important thing for me: I really like fragrances, but on many occasions I don't need 100ml or 200ml of many of them... I wouldn't finish them in 20 years! Because some of them are very powerful, because I have many and I don't use them daily or even monthly, etc...
I prefer to buy two different 50ml fragrances for 200$ than a single 100ml fragrance for the same 200$ for example, because I like to collect and and because my income is not as much as others.
And someone may tell me: "Well, you should not buy luxury items that are out of your reach "- and they may be right.
But that is not the point I want to highlight, what I want to highlight is the change, the trend: these differences were not so marked years ago, they have been increasing and they continue to do so...

Pardon my clumsiness in explaining.
 

Paddington

Marmalade Sandwich Eater
Basenotes Plus
Jun 17, 2021
Small bottles make sense for people who like small bottles, even if they cost more money per millilitre of juice. I'm sure smaller bottles exist partially to help people justify buying the bigger bottles. Feels like a supersize me kind of thing where the bigger bottles don't cost as much as you think they do, and the company wants people to buy the biggest size.
I always saw the emphasis on price per ml as a way to convince people to buy the biggest size cause "its a good deal" and the question of do I need this much?, never comes up.
I saw it with say the recent sauvage elixir (a fragrance I do not like but anyway) the mere fact it wasn't in 100ml form was a deal break for some despite being (an obnoxiously so) strong fragrance.
 

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
Travel sprays or special/small formats - at least before - were designed for people who travel a lot (like me) and who want to "save space" in their luggage. It seems silly but it is not the same to put a 100ml or 200ml bottle than a 10ml tube for example.
I think expecting more from brands is fair. If they want to charge so much for a travel spray, they better make it feel luxurious and worth it.
 

imm0rtelle

Well-known member
Apr 2, 2021
I always saw the emphasis on price per ml as a way to convince people to buy the biggest size cause "its a good deal" and the question of do I need this much?, never comes up.
I saw it with say the recent sauvage elixir (a fragrance I do not like but anyway) the mere fact it wasn't in 100ml form was a deal break for some despite being (an obnoxiously so) strong fragrance.
It is interesting that those consumers didn't understand how Dior chose a smaller volume to make it feel more precious. Eau de Colognes are often in larger bottles to signify they're meant to be used often, for example.
 

Brooks Otterlake

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 12, 2019
I always saw the emphasis on price per ml as a way to convince people to buy the biggest size cause "its a good deal" and the question of do I need this much?, never comes up.
I saw it with say the recent sauvage elixir (a fragrance I do not like but anyway) the mere fact it wasn't in 100ml form was a deal break for some despite being (an obnoxiously so) strong fragrance.
I find 30 ml to be the preferable size for everything that isn't a forever favorite.
 

naylor

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2011
I always saw the emphasis on price per ml as a way to convince people to buy the biggest size cause "its a good deal" and the question of do I need this much?, never comes up.
Yeah, at a certain point, if you have a very large collection you'll just never use up any size bottles. The lower cost of entry for smaller bottles makes sense in that case, which is how I've looked at it for years. But for the avid user who plans on actually going through multiple bottles, the larger size is more economical.
 

Latest News

Top