Blogging on Meds

According to Natasha Singer in today’s NY Times Thursday Styles, high-end fragrance sales are on the decline. Luxury perfume sales often slip when money is tight because it’s easier to justify spending $26 on your favorite Chanel lipstick than $110 on a new fragrance. But the editor points out that this new trend is due to some unique factors rarely considered in the industry:

“People are shying away from fragrances not for the traditional reasons that you’d expect, that it is too expensive or that they are wearing alternative products like body sprays or lotions,” Ms. Grant said. “Many people said it bothers them that fragrance has an effect on other people, that they are trying to be considerate by not overcoming others with scent.”

Ok, so I’ll buy for a minute that 2% more women won’t wear fragrance this year because they’re afraid of offending other noses. But I doubt there will be a long-term effect on the perfume industry. As long as marketing and advertising exist, a substantial number of people will invest in fragrance.

Here’s why:

All brands – Prada, Gucci, Chloe, even P. Diddy – sell us an image. It begins with the clothing and is confirmed and sustained through ads. We want to be the jetsetter. Or Diddy’s love slave.


Or even Tom Ford’s co-star in a 70’s-style porn as shot by Terry Richardson
(but hey, that’s my issue, not yours).

For the majority of us, luxury fragrance is often the only piece of an aspirational brand we can afford. We want the Chloe life but we still want to pay our rent, so we’ll skip the $2,100 tank dress and go for the Eau de Toilette instead. It’s the same reason handbags and shoes – not clothing – account for the majority of Louis Vuitton sales.

So maybe there is a trend toward going fragrance-free. But I think in the long run, as long as they’re selling us a life we want, we’ll be buying the scent.