There are many things about the science of scent that I don't completely understand. For instance, why is it that every time I walk through the perfume section of a department store (which somehow manages to be at every entrance of a department store, even if I try to outwit the perfume counter by taking the parking garage entrance reserved solely for those who enjoy a good mugging), I am assaulted with the overwhelming scent of a flower gone terribly, terribly wrong? Are there no other pleasing scents in the world other than the reproductive systems of plants? I mean, really. Michael Kors' "Island?" Smells like flowers that you would find an island (or, at the very least, imported to an island resort). Elizabeth Taylor's "White Diamonds?" Smells like white flowers that have gotten drunk on too many gin and tonics. My secret hypothesis is that the lab geeks in charge of creating scent have finally gone crazy from too little exposure to natural light and have started importing flowering plants to the lab to be gunned down by a semi-automatic rifle while a malevolent robot captures the flowers' dying essences in a bottle. It could happen.
Moreover, if one does manage to find a scent that doesn't smell like a rotting, alcoholic flower and also manages to actually last on the skin (Demeter fragrances – I heart your "Laundry" and "Cucumber" scents, but they last all of about .02 seconds after I spray them on me), the perfume fails to appropriately attract one's target audience. Case in point – after much research into finding a scent that would not make most of my would-be dates sneeze, retch, or run screaming in unholy terror, I settled on Lucky Brand cologne. That's right, I wear a scent that can be purchased with corresponding after-shave. Some of you will no doubt associate this coincidence with my love of pick up trucks and softball, but I say it is in defense of flowers. Anyway, given that the majority of the population is heterosexual and that at least one of the aims of cologne and perfume is to attract a mate (being capitalists, we like to brand, mass produce, and market our pheromones), I would have thought that my choice of fragrance would be optimal for my pursuit of womankind. Alas, all my Lucky cologne has brought me is a bevy of men who think that I smell fantastic! That is not the kind of lucky I was trying to get, mmkay?
You scent researchers need to start human trials on this stuff and give me a little marketing perspective. I mean, pharmaceutical companies give me a nice fact-sheet with the percentage of adverse events on it when I buy their drug – how sick to my stomach or anxious or subject to priapism I might be after ingesting the drug. That's all I'm asking for Mr. Kors and Ms. Karan - a little adverse event info on your perfume - what percentage of wearers attracted men, attracted women, and made passerby collapse in an asthmatic attack. This would save me and my nose a lot of effort the next time we try to make our way through the great floral massacre section of Macy's.
1 comment:
If the perfume companies started gathering (or, more likely, publishing) statistics on the effectiveness of their products, most of them would go out of business. The market the companies with crappy products are trying to exploit is human weakness and insecurity. They need people to think it's glamorous to wear something that Elizabeth Taylor endorses, because they know their product is junk. So keep up with the trial and error. And eat lots of fruits and vegetables.
Post a Comment