Price =/= Quality

This was taken from a post I made in another thread, but I think deserves its own thread. I often hear things like - "Well, this CK frag is nice, but obviously not Hermes quality" or something like that. Or, people question how a $10 or $20 frag could be as "high quality" as a $60 frag. Well, here's something to think about (quoting myself from that other thread, with a few minor changes and addendums )

"Price does not neccesarily relate to or imply quality. Old Spice is dead cheap and still smells higher quality than a lot of stuff out there, imo. Grey Flannel, too. Just about every mainstream juice is going to be working within a similar budget, probably less than $2 in ingredients per bottle. In fact, possibly much less (my guess is $0.50-$1.00, and this is based upon pricing out my natural blends and taking into consideration the lower concentration of most designer EDTS, and the overuse of quite cheap synthetic musks and such that can comprise a huge portion of the scent (iso e super, anyone?)). Terre d'hermes is like 55% Iso E super, and is an EdT, so maybe a 10% concentration. That means that in a 100ml bottle, 10ml = actual perfume, and 5.5 of those are iso e super. Now, you can buy Iso E super for $10.50 for 80ml, and that's from a middleman (Perfumer's Apprentice).. surely the big houses get it much cheaper buying in massive bulk quantities.

Even at this marked up price, 5.5ml of iso e super comes out to $0.72. Many of the other ingredients are in the same price range as iso e super. Yes, some of them are more expensive, some of the musks are say, $50 for 80ml, but they usually only comprise small portions of the overall blend, and so they don't contribute huge costs to the formula.

Even if we assume the rest of Terre is made up of ingredients averaging twice as expensive as Iso E Super, the cost per 100ml bottle is still only $0.72 + $1.18 (the rest is only 45% of the solution).. so, exactly $1.90 a bottle. And that is when we purchase the aromachemicals from a middleman. I imagine the large houses can get them at least 30% cheaper, if not considerably more so. If they can get them half as cheap, the juice in a 100ml bottle of TdH in this example would cost $0.85.

It's silly to discriminate based on price when it comes to the designers. Even many many niches are dead cheap per bottle. Ironically, those with lower longevity often times use more naturals and hence more "quality ingredients." Many Montale's just smell cheap to me (and if the oud and other ingredients were really so expensive, do you think they'd offer to increase the concentration by nearly half, for free?) - blended with a heavy hand - but their oft-times overbearing power and sillage seems to equate to 'quality' to many here. I don't get it."

Well, if you enjoy it and can afford it, buy it. I'm not against that at all! I don't have much of a frag budget myself these days (poor student ) but I'm considering splurgin on Bois de Turquie. I'm just not under any illusion about it being inherently higher quality or utilizing any fewer synthetics than anything else I own.. I just love the smell!

I just think that the more we know about the industry the better. Many are either under the illusion or willfully deceiving themselves that higher price inherently = higher quality, and I think that is why many designer scents don't get a fair shake (although yes, there is a lot of derivative drivel out there, too!).

On the flipside, just for thought, consider this: a 20% EDP strength 100ml all natural perfume (which will still likely be weaker in regards to longevity and sillage than a 7-10% synthetic based EdT) composed of just 5% Neroli oil (at about $125 an ounce bought in bulk) already costs $4.17.. now figure in the other 95% of the composition.

Well, I do realize there are a lot of other extraneous costs, especially for the big name launches that have a huge marketing push. I'm sure companies pay money to have the SAs push their product at launch, etc. But what I am saying is.. all of that money doesn't make a fragrance smell any better or worse. I originally pointed this out when someone said that Halston Unbound, at about $15 a bottle, was obviously not as high quality as Aqua di Gio. Whether it is or isn't, I"m not going to debate, but I am just raising the point that just because it is priced lower does not guarantee that it is lower quality. There are many approaches to profitablity in the perfume industry.. high profit margins and low volume (something like By Kilians, perhaps?) and low profit margins and high volume (Old Spice, Brut, etc).

I'm not saying a company isn't justified in charging whatever they want; just that the price really shouldn't affect our perception of the fragrance.

Scentophile!

I was hoping you'd chime in. I admit that I am drawing conclusions from a very limited set of info - I'd love to be intimate with TdH's or any other mainstream frag's structure - alas I have to try and make educated guesses from the outside.

Anyhow, I know you can't divulge too many of the insider secrets, but can you perhaps tell us what the average cost of ingredients is per bottle, or what the typical budgets are for various houses (or mainstream houses as a whole?). Any info you can divulge on the topic would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't think I made this thread with the intent of saying so many fragrances are overpriced or anything like that. My point was more that the price that you pay for a bottle does not necessarily have anything to do with the price of the ingredients, and hence it is fallacious to assume that a $15 scent can't be of "equal quality" to a $60 scent. I think it is that kind of thinking that leads so many to dismiss designer scents (along with other extraneous things like the celebrity who's endorsing it, etc), or cheaper scents in general.

Now, what Hirch says is, I believe, true:

But from that we can not deduce that everything that is expensive is a good quality composition with excellent ingredients. Surely something that costs $20 in raw materials per bottle will fetch a hefty price (and still may have a lower profit margin %!) but not all things that fetch hefty prices are composed of expensive formulas. Scentemental had surmised that Fumidus by Profumum was likely composed of primarily javanese vetiver oil. Turin remarked that Acqua Di Sale was an overdose of Helional (his two word review of AdS: Helional Alone). If either of those are true, that means the juice in those scents is likely a few dollars or less, for a bottle that is fetching $240. I've no problem with them charging what they will for their product - I just have a problem with the disillusionment the perfume community as a whole has in regards to the price and name = quality issue.

It seems like the majority of reviews on the perfume blogs will point out the few redeeming qualities of a banal release by a big name, while a similar or even more interesting release by a house who garners little respect gets quickly dismissed after a cursory sniff. It's that prejudice I have a problem with, and I thought that pointing out some behind the scenes pricing as best as I could surmise would help make a dent in the issue. (perhaps TdH wasn't a great example. I used it simply because it is documented that it is comprised of a huge dose of Iso E Super. I did take some liberty in guessing the price of the rest of the formula, but tried to guess fairly based on the cost of the many synthetics out there. Also, I was working with the prices of the materials bought in small quantities from a middleman, and I am sure that these ingredients are significantly cheaper when bought in massive bulk for large production runs.)

I really don't have any problem with a company charging what it will - we just need to stop smelling with our eyes and our wallets, and instead only with our noses.

An aside: Alex, does that pink pepper cost 100 times more than the price of the Iso E Super I have listed, or the price that the companies pay for Iso E Super? Or rather, can you just tell us about how much that pink pepper costs per ounce, and how much of the composition it accounts for. If not that, could you tell us approximately how much is spent on pink pepper for each bottle of TdH without going into its per ounce cost and compositional amount. Thanks! .

I have no idea. I can tell you that I've priced out various all natural blends that are heavy with some expensive ingredients (say, 2.5% rose otto, 1% champaca absolute, 5% neroli, 5% orris root, etc) and the cost for a 20% dilution 50ml has fallen in the range of $10-40 (of course it can go higher, but it would have to be a quite economical formula to get under the $10 mark.. and this is for a 50ml size!). That is calculated with ingredients purchased at a small scale production size (maybe enough for 50-100 bottles at a time) and so does not figure in the bulk savings the larger companies would surely enjoy.

Given the ridiculous longevity of the Nasomattos, I am sure they are loaded with synthetics. I believe most Montales are at 20% concentration to start with (can anyone confirm this?), so the Nasomattos are probably in the 20-25% range. Given that they're only 30ml bottles though, i'd wager that the cost of ingredients in the average Nasomatto is < $10, and probably less than $5. In fact, it wouldn't even surprise me if some of their formulas were cheaper than some of the designer scents out there.

The Creeds *seem* to use a higher portion of natural ingredients from what I can smell, and based on their low longevity despite being EDPs, but I wouldn't doubt that you are still on the mark or even quite high with your estimates.

For the same reason that Microsoft didn't install $0.50 bumpers to prevent a spinning disc in the Xbox360 from bouncing up and hitting the laser mechanism, thereby ruining the disc. When you factor in the huge number of units moved (millions, in this case), that 50 cent savings per unit becomes noticeable.

Reducing a formula from say, $2.00 per bottle to $1.25 is a noticeable change, especially considering the packaging and other things are going to be as cheap or cheaper than the cost of the juice (and also, a relatively fixed cost).

If you move 60,000 units a year, that $0.75 cent savings just pocketed you an extra $40,000.

Tons of industries bring in bean counters to help them cut costs (and corners!) wherever they can. Unfortunate but all too common.

I agree entirely with your points TwoRoads. I just don't understand the reasons why people who are aware of this still buy into the hype and marketing of so many niche houses, etc (I'm not saying there aren't houses out there that are generally "higher quality" than various designer scents, but *none* of that changes how something smells. On the other hand, research shows that our expectations and preconceptions DO change how we perceive things. If we can get rid of the House X = junk and Cost > X = some guarantee of quality ingredients mentalities, we could be more objective in our assessment of fragrances, and that is what I'm really hoping and fighting for, here.

Again, I didn't start this thread with the intent to bash TdH or to bash houses that charge more than others. The primary reason I made the thread was to reiterate the fact that there is no direct or permanent correlation between price or brand and quality of ingredients or cost of composition. Sokkou's comments in particular are the kind of thing I'm talking about.. the assumption that because something is from Bond it is unquestionably "higher quality." That may be true in that specific comparison - I don't know and don't care as it's not relevant to my point - the point is that it is not guaranteed to be true. And yet, the belief that correlation does exist and is permanent when regarding one house vs another or one price group vs another only diminishes our ability to be objective and in turn, our ability to fully appreciate any and all scents we come across.

Sorry, I shouldn't have singled you out as I generally agree with your views (I find MPG and Creed generally smell of higher quality, for instance), but I still think it fallacious to assume that that is always the case.

My stance is more like that of Hirch's - a certain price point does not guarantee quality, but a sufficiently low price point (especially on a recent release which still needs to recoup its development costs) does lower a frags upper bound on quality of ingredients (but not necessarily its composition.)

I think the blind sniff thread offers a first hand look into how are perceptions are being shaped by bottle, brand, and our associated preconceptions.

Didn't Alex (Scentophile) mention a well known and raved about niche Vetiver that contained basically NO vetiver at all? And what is the reference for 'amber' and how we compare against it? And what does an orchid note smell like (considering there are 100s of different orchids with different - or no - scents). I only point these examples out as more examples of the ambiguity involved in deciphering perfume that we routinely ignore or circumvent with the preconceptions we allow ourselves to believe in.

As I sit here and sniff the drydown of Bois de Turquie, I realize that had I been sprayed with this at random and without knowledge of what it was, I could imagine the drydown being from a designer scent. Is it quantifiably "better" than cheaper/designer scents? No. But I like it. And that's what matters. It doesn't need to be 'objectively better' (if such a thing can exist in art) than anything else for me to subjectively like it more.

It would be silly to sell off TdH or Encre Noir or another similar iso e super laden frag that you happened to love just because iso e super is overused and perceived by us who know what it is as 'cheap.' Yet often times people are convinced they need to find some niche alternative that is 'better' than something they love. Now, I've no problem with seeking out frags that are similar and potentially better (to you, subjectively, of course) than the ones you currently love, but the pressure and general consensus from the community can - I believe - actually convince people that X is better than the Y they have even though if they listened to their nose alone they'd realize they happen to like Y better.

While I am inclined to agree with you personally, I'm not sure the same can be said objectively.

People who grew up with black and white television programming may feel that something was lost when color tv's hit the market. Many who grew up surrounded only by color television can't see the charm or appeal in b&w. Are either of them right, objectively?

(This is an odd argument for me to make as I personally work only with natural ingredients for a couple of reasons. But when it comes to purchasing or enjoying something, I really try my best to rid myself of all preconceptions. It remind me of the parable of the student who asked the zen master what the first principle was, to which the master replied "If I answer that, it will become the second principle." The first principle is just reality, the objective truth, and in relation to our scenario, how the objective reality of the scent interacts with our brain.)