New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A New Way to Classify Fragrances

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Like others, I have been frustrated by the limitations of "designer fragrance" vs. "niche fragrance" dichotomy. I'm also a bit of a compulsive classifier. So I came up with a seven-class system, presented below for your discussion.

A couple of caveats: the marketing issues are based on the U.S. market and things may be somewhat different in other parts of the world; I am a man so my experience is mostly with masculine fragrances.


Seven Perfume Categories:

Class 1. Mass-Market Heritage

Profile: Formerly popular or fashionable fragrances now marketed through low-cost outlets, often to older customers who used them when young. Contemporary products are often cheaper, re-formulated versions of the classics.
Channels: Drug stores, discount chains, overstock stores, on-line, some direct sales.
Price points: Low
Examples: Dana Classic Fragrances, some Coty brands, Old Spice, Brut, Avon.

Class 2. Celebrity Mass-Market

Profile: Fragrances produced to capitalize on a famous celebrity name, which is used to market the product line in similar fashion to designer names though the celebrity in question may have little to do with the fragrance besides promoting it. These fragrances clearly aim to be popular but they often wind up on the same shelf as the Mass-Market Heritage.
Channels: Drug stores, discount chains, on-line, overstock stores, mass-market department stores.
Price points: Low to Moderate
Examples: Elizabeth Taylor, Brittany Spears, Tim McGraw, Paris Hilton, Beckham, Ussher.

Class 3. Designer Mass-Market

Profile: Fragrances marketed under the name of a famous fashion house or high-profile retail brand but produced for a broad-based, mass-market audience by a division of a large conglomerate. The designer in the brand name may have long since ceased to have anything to do with the company or the name may actually be licensed. These products are aimed at middle-of-the-road taste and their companies have the resources to promote their brands. Designer Mass-Market firms thus typically produce a high proportion of the fragrances in top 50 best-seller lists, though some of their products can also be appreciated as classics of their type.
Channels: Drug stores, some discount chains, on-line, overstock stores, specialty retail stores, department stores, specialty boutiques.
Price points: Moderate
Examples: Calvin Klein, Geoffrey Beene, Abercrombie and Fitch, Joop, Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Givenchy, Tommy, Davidoff

Class 4. The Jewelers Brands

Profile: Fragrances marketed as a product line of a well-established, famous luxury jeweler, high-end accessories or fashion house, appealing to a more sophisticated and discriminating audience, in the sense of a bijoux house. This category is similar to Designer Mass-Market but the manufactures take more risks, are more original in approach, control quality and distribution more closely, and take pains to assure their brand image is consistent with the high-end, exclusive image of their main lines. Exclusivity is especially emphasized although the firm itself may be large or part of a larger company. Much of the Jewelers Brands output is inevitably aimed at broad consumer audiences and their products can land in the upper reaches of the best-seller lists. Market channels are usually well controlled and these companies are less often found in drug stores or discount chains, a significant difference form the Designer Mass-Market brands, which are often marketed through lower-cost channels. Many of these Jeweler Brand fragrances are much appreciated by fragrance connoisseurs.
Channels: More up-scale and high-end department stores, specialty boutiques, gray-market on-line.
Price points: Moderate to Expensive
Examples: Cartier, Van Cleef and Arpels, Tiffany, Dior, Gucci, Tom Ford, Hermes, Versace, Armani, Prada, YSL.

Class 5. Les Grandes Maisons

Profile: Fragrances created by houses whose high reputations were established before World War II and have been consistently maintained to the present. These houses are traditionally family-run or independent (though they may no longer actually have that status). Some are more than a century old and most emphasize a long and distinguished history as part of their brand image. They are either specialists in fragrance or fragrances have long been a central part of their business and image. Their product lines are usually mixtures of long-established, traditional favorites and new entries, which can be quite trend-sensitive. Some also market specialty line fragrances (see below). Fragrances from these houses are often called classics and can sometimes be described as old-fashioned but in fact appeal to a wide range of ages and seem to find new fans in each generation. Most are based in Paris. Market channels and brand images are often very closely controlled.
Channels: Up-scale and high-end department stores, specialty boutiques, company-owned boutiques, company websites, specialty websites, some gray-market on-line.
Price points: Moderate to Very Expensive.
Examples: Guerlain, Creed, Chanel, Caron, Knize, Acqua di Parma.

Class 6. Specialty Lines

Profile: Fragrances created by houses established since World War II who specialize in highly distinctive, innovative, and worldly fragrances created for a discriminating and sophisticated audience, often aspiring to artistic and innovative status. These houses tend to be fragrance-specialized, are often controlled by their creators or their immediate successors, and take pains to promote an exclusive image appealing to tastes sophisticated about fragrances. The category also applies to the specialty lines of some larger houses. Some of these products are described as modern classics. For various distribution reasons, these fragrances can be hard to find in ordinary retail stores and that can even be a deliberate part of their market image.
Channels: High-end department stores, specialty boutiques, specialty websites.
Price points: Expensive to Very Expensive.
Examples: Annika Goutal, Andy Tauer, Montale, Amouage, Frederic Malle, and the specialty lines of other houses such as Tom Ford and Chanel.

Class 7. Avant-Garde

Profile: Fragrances from companies that aim to create radically original, unexpected, even offensive or shocking fragrances aimed at highly sophisticated, mostly urban audiences interested in contemporary fashion; sometimes associated with fashion lines appealing to similar tastes. Promoted as modern and anti-establishment brands.
Channels: A few high-end department stores and specialty boutiques, specialty websites.
Price points: Expensive to Very Expensive.
Examples: Comme des Garcons, The Different Company, Etat Libre dOrange.
post #2 of 28
Nicely thought out and well-defined. Have to say, for me, I'm content though with the designer-niche dichotomy and anything that falls between. Doesn't seem to work my nerves.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
Designer seems petty clear cut: anything with a fashion designer's name on it. But, to me, "niche" is all over the map. including everything from 200-year-old companies with a mass following to a company vented last week that has produced two dozen bottles sold only by Albanian secret agents from puce-colored hover craft. And a whole lot falls between the stools.
post #4 of 28
A nicely crafted post. Makes sense. My shopping takes place in Class 4, 5 and 6.
post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursula View Post

A nicely crafted post. Makes sense. My shopping takes place in Class 4, 5 and 6.

Thanks! I think 4, 5, and 6 are Basenotes home territory.
post #6 of 28
Great post! Thanks.
post #7 of 28
Yes, I like these classes. They match up well with my perceptions, too. You should try to work these into your discussion - it will help them catch on. (May take a while - be patient. But I think people hunger for more specificity than "niche" and "designer".)
post #8 of 28
Really well thought out! I am missing one category, the indie guys: the back alley perfumers, the down-on-the farm, made-this-in-my-living-room brands. They have a very limited distribution, but are available online, they are not necessarily expensive. I am thinking of brands like Kerosene, Olympic Orchid, Lucy B, Tokyo Milk, Slumberhouse.
post #9 of 28
have you ever seen the Phil Hartman sketch from SNL called "The Anal-Retentive Fisherman" ?
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by furrypine View Post

Really well thought out! I am missing one category, the indie guys: the back alley perfumers, the down-on-the farm, made-this-in-my-living-room brands. They have a very limited distribution, but are available online, they are not necessarily expensive. I am thinking of brands like Kerosene, Olympic Orchid, Lucy B, Tokyo Milk, Slumberhouse.

l was wondering about the indie guys, too. But otherwise, l agree this is very well thought out!
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
I'm not sure how to place these smaller houses. There are some, like Hove, that are as old as some of the Grandes Maisons and might actually fit there. My sense is that they would mostly fit into Classes 6 and 7 as they are more or less doing the same sorts of things, just on a smaller scale. There is probably also an underground or off-the-radar group of perfumers who only produce for themselves and a few neighbors and friends, like the backyard wine makers. The categories are less based on scale and volume than target market and artistic intent.
post #12 of 28
Thread Starter 
Problem with working these into discussions is that you would need to refer back to the original thread if anyone is going to understand them. Could use a basic reference collection on the site for technical stuff. The problem I keep running into with "designer" is that it covers a huge amount of territory; "niche" on the other hand seems to be largely a snob category, meaning roughly "expensive stuff of heavenly quality that ordinary people have never heard of."
post #13 of 28
Very nice post BrgundyMarsh, really, but personally I find any kind of "general" classification a bit restrictive and subjective even if you divide fragrances into billions and billions of sub-cathegories (it is probably just me).

I try to give you an example of what I mean. You list Bond No.9 in the Class 7. Avant-Garde (Fragrances from companies that aim to create radically original, unexpected, even offensive or shocking fragrances...). Well, I guess this description is probably appropriate for Comme Des Garcons but surely not for Bond No.9. Givenchy is listed in Class 3. Designer Mass-Market while Gucci is in Class 4. The Jewelers Brands (to me they should both be in Class 3). As you can see it's very subjective, questionable...

Don't get me wrong, my post is not aimed to go deep into details or "linguistic" quibbles, it is just to say that I presonally stick with a "two-types" classification method: good fragrances and bad ones. That's it.
post #14 of 28
You have Designer houses that once belonged in "The Jewelers' Brands" category, but with most of their recent releases have turned more "Designer Mass-Market" - Givenchy is a good example.
post #15 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfarom View Post

Very nice post BrgundyMarsh, really, but personally I find any kind of "general" classification a bit restrictive and subjective even if you divide fragrances into billions and billions of sub-cathegories (it is probably just me).

I try to give you an example of what I mean. You list Bond No.9 in the Class 7. “Avant-Garde” (Fragrances from companies that aim to create radically original, unexpected, even offensive or shocking fragrances...). Well, I guess this description is probably appropriate for Comme Des Garcons but surely not for Bond No.9. Givenchy is listed in Class 3. “Designer Mass-Market” while Gucci is in Class 4. “The Jewelers’ Brands” (to me they should both be in Class 3). As you can see it's very subjective, questionable...

Don't get me wrong, my post is not aimed to go deep into details or "linguistic" quibbles, it is just to say that I presonally stick with a "two-types" classification method: good fragrances and bad ones. That's it.

These are all just possible examples of their types-- by no means a definitive list. Deciding what brand goes in which class is the fun part. Houses do move from one class to another. I thought of Givenchy as a "Jeweler's Brand" until I noticed they were selling in chain drug stores, which Gucci still is not. Bond No. 9 comes across as at least aspiring to "Avant-Garde" status, e.g., their in-your-face, anti-classical bottles, though they probably seem mainstream now to some. A lot of houses are trying to be mass market now, even Chanel, so more companies could end up in that big, amorphous "Designer Mass-Market" group where most of the money is. The differences between "Designer Mass-Market" and "Jewelers' Brands" is a subtle and shifting one, which I think says interesting things about where the fragrance market is going.

Any classification system is, in the end, a subjective and arbitrary but often useful way to look a range of things (e.g., Baroque painting, Chippendale furniture). I just found the old two-tier system left out a lot of the detail and put things together that didn't really belong together (e.g., I think Chanel has more in common with Acqua di Parma, Creed, and Knize than with Calvin Klein). Everyone has their ideas of good and bad but semi-objective classifications at least helps keep you from comparing apples and oranges. Is it fair to judge English Leather on the basis of Tabarome Millesime?
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Guyer View Post

You have Designer houses that once belonged in "The Jewelers' Brands" category, but with most of their recent releases have turned more "Designer Mass-Market" - Givenchy is a good example.

That's exactly what happened to Gucci since Frida joined the brand

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurgundyMarsh View Post

These are all just possible examples of their types-- by no means a definitive list....

I get what you mean (and I thoruoghly enjoy this kind of debates) but, IMO, the problem with niche snobism is that it starts exactly when we start to cathegorize fragrances....
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfarom View Post

That's exactly what happened to Gucci since Frida joined the brand



I get what you mean (and I thoruoghly enjoy this kind of debates) but, IMO, the problem with niche snobism is that it starts exactly when we start to cathegorize fragrances....

The classes do look hierarchical, but that isn't really my intent. The quality doesn't necessarily go up with the class number. There are obviously great fragrances in every one of these groups with the possible exception of the celebrity brands, which I have not tried and of which I have heard no good things.
post #18 of 28
Taxonomy is beneficial and though i don't agree with yours I appreciate the effort put in assembling it.
post #19 of 28
Bond No.9 as 'avant garde'? Lmao. Sorry but nice April's Fools joke there!
Good job on these classifications btw. It certainly beats the lumps out of the broad ill-defined 'niche' category.
post #20 of 28
Congrats for giving it shot and laying it out there for all to see!

The arrow will probably never land with this one but it's nice to see a more considered shot at defiing thngs. I have always tended to think of designer, niche and established as the three basic general categories.

From where I'm sitting designer runs the gamut of fashion, jewelry and other business who have incorporated perfume into their product line - Dior, Chanel, Gucci, Comme, Armani, Tom Ford, Cartier, Tiffany etc. etc.

Niche, for me, is the smaller companies that sprung up in the late 70's and 80's like Diptyque, L'Artisan, Villoresi, Nicolai, MPG and the host of similar lines since with people like Frederic Malle leading the charge. I sometimes wonder which of these companies might still be around (and actually relevant) in a 100 years time. Who (to paraphrase LT) might be the new Guerlain?

Established (maybe Heritage is a better term) are the companies that were making perfume first and foremost from earlier last century or before that and still have relevance, notably Guerlain & Caron. There are also Shiseido, Coty and some othersl but the lines between actual perfumer and faceless corporate entity begin to blur pretty quickly.

Anyway - in the end you just have to dig in and see who is making good stuff.
post #21 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondflame View Post

Bond No.9 as 'avant garde'? Lmao. Sorry but nice April's Fools joke there!
Good job on these classifications btw. It certainly beats the lumps out of the broad ill-defined 'niche' category.

O.K. Bond No. 9 gets bumped off this list. (I think Basenotes sophisticates have a high standard for "avant-garde.")
post #22 of 28
Only discovered this thread now but, in my opinion, I found myself "defining scents alternatively" too, in ways often different/dissonant in comparison to the mere designer/niche divide, not that different from the original post

Well-documented and insightful work!
post #23 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Russell View Post

Only discovered this thread now but, in my opinion, I found myself "defining scents alternatively" too, in ways often different/dissonant in comparison to the mere designer/niche divide, not that different from the original post

Well-documented and insightful work!

Thanks very much, Mr. Russell. The work continues...
post #24 of 28
the first four are just the price levels of mass-market/"designer" (heritage, celebrity, designer and luxe) and the second three are just subsets of what people call niche. It's still the old basenotes way of classifying fragrances. I thought you had invented a new way of classifying the genres of scent! Because I'm certain that work needs to be done too. The old fougere, chypre, etc. descriptors are being stretched so thin, I can barely figure out what they mean.
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
No, you are right, this particular system is mostly market-based and socio-economic. The big difference from the old designer-niche system is separating out the "Grandes Maisons" which ended up divided between both groups and providing some differentiation between the huge range of houses lumped together as "designer."

My sense of the old "fougere," "cologne," "chypre," type classifications is that they are 19th-century classes, like the old European wine classifications, that have been stretched out of shape trying to apply them to things that happened after World War II (the mass-produced varietals and EU regulations have pretty much pushed out the old fake Burgundys, Chiantis, and Champagnes). The fragrance houses seem to gradually be creating a new system because they all tend to want at least one fragrance of each type, e.g., aquatic, sports-fresh, vetiver, oud-based, leather, oriental, etc. Probably could work something out based on the notes and structure of fragrances that would give people a better idea of what to expect. But it would be a lot of work...
post #26 of 28
Thread Starter 
O.K., here's what I would suggest for a new classification of how fragrances actually smell:

A dyadic system, where the prime descriptor denotes a dominant note (fruit, rose, rum, vetiver, ozone, marine, white floral, oud, musk, greens, citrus, incense, leather, tobacco, vanilla, evergreen, etc.) and the modifying descriptor is borrowed from weather terms (wet, raw, cool, dry, warm, fresh, etc.).

So you would get dry vetivers (Red Vetiver, Incre Noir, Sycomore), raw vetivers (Vetyver Molinard), fresh citrus (cK One), wet citrus (Guardian Eau de Cologne Imperiale), dry evergreen (Yatagan), cool greens (GIT), dry ozone (Acqua di Gio), dry incense (Avignon), warm vanilla (Caron pour home), wet marine (Bulgari Aqua Marine), etc.

For complex scents with several prominent notes, you would hyphenate the primary descriptor, e.g., wet vetiver-citrus-tobacco (Guerlain vetiver).

Obviously, there will be endless debates about whether a fragrance is "fresh" or "cool" and so forth but the idea is to give some general impression of the fragrance and then argue the fine points for fun. These terms are all in general use but not applied systematically. Eventually you could have glossaries and examples of all the terms so people could use them for reference.
post #27 of 28
Thread Starter 
[duplicate post]
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
What I like about the above system:

1. I can tell you "I like dry vetivers and wet greens" and you will have some idea of what I am saying even without definitions of these terms.
2. It allows me to imagine fragrances I have never smelled, e.g., a dry vetiver-rose (which I think might be quite nice), a wet white floral, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: