i'm aware that much controversy has transpired on these boards with regards to fragrances being, to varying degrees, targeted towards a gay demographic, and i hope that this thread doesnt blow on the embers of that unpleasantness. however....
In a couple of the magazines i purchased this month (AXM and Attitude) i noticed ads for a new fragrance called Army Red ( http://www.armyred.co.uk ) which is, according to their site's blurb, 'a gorgeous and brand new fragrance with the handsome and intelligent gay man in mind.'
the copy is, as is evidenced from the small exerpt above, woefully poor, as are the imagery used and the frankly apalling bottle design - an abhorrent uber-muscled attempt at a Le Male-style masculine form, with the laughable addition of some badly sculpted jeans. (seriously, have a look - it's really awful!)
what is interesting, however, is the way they describe the fragrance - in quite 'fragrancey' (for want of a better word!) terminology,
'Top notes of tamarind tree leaves and coriander and lemon open this fragrance, which then lead to a spicy warm heart and a woody base with hints of amber and leather.'
So - has anyone smelt this? if so, is it as horrifyingly low-grade as the bottle design and marketing?
from what i understand, discussion of what is/is not 'gay' isnt well tolerated on the boards, so i'll try to keep my opinions brief and un-inflaming:
i'm intruiged to see products targeted at a demographic of which i am a part, which mainstream advertising tends, by and large, to pussyfoot around. whilst this particular product seems to have R&D and advertising budgets akin to what's currently in my wallet, it does seem to fit the very 'scene'-oriented target audience who are also the demographic for clothing brands such as Rufskin. (ArmyRed's website lists future product releases such as lubricant, condoms and underwear).
whilst this is product from a small manufacturer, targeted at not only a small demographic but indeed a very particular sub-category of it, it superficially seems to mark a social shift in terms of the very existence of gay-targeted products.
One view: this is as ridiculous as such (hypothetical) products as an Asian fragrance, or a Stupid fragrance. ('Moronia - a basic scent for those who can't read this'. [fragrance notes: crayons, rubber bedsheets, kerry katona])
Another view: almost all fragrance houses use sexually-themed imagery within their advertizing, and this is almost* exclusively heterosexual in theme. why should this be so? sure, a White fragrance or a Fat fragrance would be simply unacceptable (hilarity aside), but gay people are a minority in quite a different respect in that we differ from other people in a way which is overlooked by much of the advertising world.
but...
gaultier is a good example of a house which has flirted with adrogynous and sexually ambiguous imagery, to great commerical success i might add. i guess this, though, strikes an agreeable balance - this is not 'representation', nor is it dismissing or ignoring the gay audience. moreover, whilst homosexuality is never explicitly referred to, the exposed male form, external to heterosexual confines, abounds within fragrance marketing.
---- i hope this doesnt turn into too heated a discussion, i mainly wanted an exercise in thinking-out-loud to clarify my own opinions. i hope my little mini-essay provides some food for thought. ----
In a couple of the magazines i purchased this month (AXM and Attitude) i noticed ads for a new fragrance called Army Red ( http://www.armyred.co.uk ) which is, according to their site's blurb, 'a gorgeous and brand new fragrance with the handsome and intelligent gay man in mind.'
the copy is, as is evidenced from the small exerpt above, woefully poor, as are the imagery used and the frankly apalling bottle design - an abhorrent uber-muscled attempt at a Le Male-style masculine form, with the laughable addition of some badly sculpted jeans. (seriously, have a look - it's really awful!)
what is interesting, however, is the way they describe the fragrance - in quite 'fragrancey' (for want of a better word!) terminology,
'Top notes of tamarind tree leaves and coriander and lemon open this fragrance, which then lead to a spicy warm heart and a woody base with hints of amber and leather.'
So - has anyone smelt this? if so, is it as horrifyingly low-grade as the bottle design and marketing?
from what i understand, discussion of what is/is not 'gay' isnt well tolerated on the boards, so i'll try to keep my opinions brief and un-inflaming:
i'm intruiged to see products targeted at a demographic of which i am a part, which mainstream advertising tends, by and large, to pussyfoot around. whilst this particular product seems to have R&D and advertising budgets akin to what's currently in my wallet, it does seem to fit the very 'scene'-oriented target audience who are also the demographic for clothing brands such as Rufskin. (ArmyRed's website lists future product releases such as lubricant, condoms and underwear).
whilst this is product from a small manufacturer, targeted at not only a small demographic but indeed a very particular sub-category of it, it superficially seems to mark a social shift in terms of the very existence of gay-targeted products.
One view: this is as ridiculous as such (hypothetical) products as an Asian fragrance, or a Stupid fragrance. ('Moronia - a basic scent for those who can't read this'. [fragrance notes: crayons, rubber bedsheets, kerry katona])
Another view: almost all fragrance houses use sexually-themed imagery within their advertizing, and this is almost* exclusively heterosexual in theme. why should this be so? sure, a White fragrance or a Fat fragrance would be simply unacceptable (hilarity aside), but gay people are a minority in quite a different respect in that we differ from other people in a way which is overlooked by much of the advertising world.
but...
gaultier is a good example of a house which has flirted with adrogynous and sexually ambiguous imagery, to great commerical success i might add. i guess this, though, strikes an agreeable balance - this is not 'representation', nor is it dismissing or ignoring the gay audience. moreover, whilst homosexuality is never explicitly referred to, the exposed male form, external to heterosexual confines, abounds within fragrance marketing.
---- i hope this doesnt turn into too heated a discussion, i mainly wanted an exercise in thinking-out-loud to clarify my own opinions. i hope my little mini-essay provides some food for thought. ----
It was a rhetorical question. Ashikarazu.
