IFRA North America launch series of educational videos

by Grant Osborne, 15th June, 2011

IFRA North America have launched the first of a series of educational videos about making fragrances. The first video, titled "Making Scents," explains the different types of fragrance ingredients, research and safety testing of ingredients and the work that goes into creating a new fragrance.

"Fragrances and scents are part of the daily lives of people around the world, yet most people don't understand the research and artistry that goes into making a single fragrance. A fragrance artist must work with a specified palette of tested ingredients to create a new scent. It takes years to design the perfect fragrance, so it makes sense that fragrance makers do not share the unique recipes for their creations," said Jennifer Abril, IFRA North America Executive Director.


  • Share this


Advertisement — comments are below


    • hirch_duckfinder | 15th June 2011 22:33

      Quite misleading. Makes it sound like naturals are the majority ingredients. Also implies that any natural can be recreated nature-identical.

      IFRA not helping improve their grim repuation amongst perfumers and informed consumers here.

    • RHM | 16th June 2011 04:30

      booooo, next!

    • Redneck Perfumisto | 16th June 2011 04:50

      I thought it was pretty good at explaining the basics. Breaking it down into the three categories was a particularly good thing. I personally didn't see it as implying naturals as majority ingredients, although I see hirch's point on how things might look if people take group 2 as equivalent to group 1 and come up with 2/3 "natural or identical". It's a delicate point, and I agree that it has to be done carefully to avoid being misleading, but also to not be intentionally grim, when the truth is that limonene itself is limonene, regardless of whether it was from romantic source A or cheaper source B.

      Just a couple of constructive criticisms. (1) Squeezing 3 flowers is a good animation shortcut, but it would be nice to use a fruit and a leaf / wood / whatever to have the visual diversity match the stated diversity, which is a nice point. (2) Just a minor change addresses what hirch_duckfinder sees as misleading - more emphasis on the fact that the "second type" are nature-identical COMPONENTS - and NOT the "oils" themselves. Admittedly, the story is carefully avoiding criticism of naturals (bravo), and trying to keep it simple (bravo again), but I think it is better all the way around to emphasize that nature-identical aromachemicals are what is behind door number two, not some kind of (even inadvertently implied) perfect reconstitution, which the wording and animation somewhat implies. (3) It's only a couple of added seconds, but the fact is that the manmades are very, very similar to the natural components is worth mentioning. Manmade aromachemicals are generally much closer to their natural analogs than are many other organics such as surfactants, dyes, etc. You don't have to throw these other manmade things under the bus, but a little bragging is deserved, IMO.

      Overall, however, I think it's great. Educating consumers is a good thing, and compared to the things which one often hears at the counter ("Brand X is 100% natural! 100%!"), it's nice to hear something which is essentially fact, and only debatable on spin content. The latter being rather light, IMO.

    • hirch_duckfinder | 16th June 2011 13:55

      Sorry Red but I strongly disagree.

      "The creation of a fragrance begins with nature" - rubbish. The creation of a fragrance (usually) begins with a marketing brief. Most fragrances contain little or no naturals. This is, in my opinion, intended to mislead people that naturals are the biggest part of a fragrance.

      "They can make exact replicas of any natutral oil" - rubbish. This is a lie, and a deliberately misleading one in my opinion.

      "Before ingredients are used in fragrance they are checked for safety" - by whom? With what agenda?

      The whole thing is a misleading propeganda exercise.

    • maa | 16th June 2011 15:56

      Cool little video but not really accurate.

      'The creation of a fragrance (usually) begins with a marketing brief.'

      Almost always! In commercial fragrances, 3% of your money goes to the actual perfume content, the remaining 97% to the branding and marketing etc.

    • calero | 20th June 2011 03:30

      Rubbish. As much BS of a video as the duck and cover ads for the atomic bomb were.

    • Brielle87 | 20th June 2011 03:33

      Spin, spin, spin. Oh, how the tales are spun. Poppycock!!

    • nonnative | 25th June 2011 12:47

      If it is true that the video is inaccurate (I let you decide as I'm not an expert) I believe it is a good idea to disseminate videos about making perfumes. On you tube much of what you can find is simply users' comments. I've been looking for years for a video about parfume industries. This is just animation an not really charming, but it's a first step.

    • Irina | 25th June 2011 17:30

      Brilliant!, agree with Red: it's greatly educational!

    • Redneck Perfumisto | 26th June 2011 18:45

      Thanks, Irina! I was beginning to feel totally outgunned on this one! :wink: (The fact that there is still some easily detectable spin in the video was NOT helping on that score. :grin:)

      I'm have some more to say on the topic, but perhaps too much for here. I think I'll be kind to people's scrollbars and blog it. I'll try to remember to add the link later.

    • Nymphaea | 27th June 2011 17:56

      Propaganda justifying their outrageous restrictions and justifying the equally outrageous pricing structure / profit margin that the industry has in place. Simplistic and biased!

    • pluran | 27th June 2011 18:56

      The organization is a complete joke and so is the video. It's run by puppets who couldn't care less about perfume and no one with any credibility within the perfume industry will have anything to do with them.

    • the_good_life | 27th June 2011 20:28

      I'm in the skeptics's camp. Simplification does not sufficiently explain the amount of distortion here, there's an obvious ideological agenda.