Why Do Manufacturers Discontinue Great Fragrances?

[JaimeB]

If the supply excedes the demand, then it is not economical to produce. In short, they are related.

The cost of materials must be factored into this equation. Sometimes scents may be retired from the market because the cost of production becomes prohibitive as certain ingredients become rarer or more expensive, and there isn't an apparent way to keep the character of the fragrance with substitutions.

You can add to this the EU's recent laws regarding the control or banning of allergens in perfumes affecting the use of many natural materials, which are claimed to have a high proportion of the controlled substances. In Annick Le Guérer's book, Le Parfum: Des Origines à nos jours (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2005), the better part of a chapter on the economics of perfume production deals with the banning or control of certain substances derived from natural sources. She details the effect of these new regulations on perfume ingredients from natural sources. They fall most heavily on substances found in natural citrus oils (limonene and citronellal) and florals (linalool, geraniol, citral, and various benzoates). She writes that if these bans continue as they have been going, only woody and fruity constituents from nature will remain in the perfumer's palette. "An end to citrus, florals, green notes, and spicy notes" (p. 261).

Some of the noses and designers of perfumes feel that the pressure on the EU to control or ban natural perfume ingredients comes from the synthetic aromatics industry. That may just be another conspiracy theory, but then again, there may be something to it. Many companies want to avoid the listing of suspected allergens on their boxes (now required by EU law) because they feel that will discourage some consumers from buying their products.

So what will happen to Sicilian lemon essence, or Calabrian bergamot oil, or clove oil from Amboina, or nutmeg essence form the Banda Islands? All the florals from Grasse are becoming more suspect, orange flowers and many of the rest. Oakmoss resinoid, classical staple of perfumers, is now restricted to a very low percentage of finished scent products.

Perfumers are faced with more and more difficult choices. I'd like to post in greater depth on this in my blog when I can find time. That may not be too soon, given that I'll be grading midterms for a while starting soon. Even so, this topic is certainly worth thinking about for people who love fragrances.

[AZsmells]

If it is all about economics and making the most money possible then I have an idea. If a company has no intention of ever producing the product again then why not sell the formula to someone else. That way they could squeeze out some money at the end rather than just sitting on the formula forever.

[smeller]

Yes, it's all about economics.

If you go to the Christian Dior site, for instance, there's a big link named "financial results".

As any company in the stock market, they want to please their investors, more than our demanding noses.

[jdnba]

shit for brains and the ole invisible hand...it sucks but the fragrance industry seems to aim their sights on teenie boppers and the non-discriminate...i wish nicole miller and dk fuel were still available

[thenmarcher]

If the supply excedes the demand, then it is not economical to produce. In short, they are related.

I disagree on concept here; beyond supply and demand, it may be too hard to produce a product despite the demand (per Jaime's explanation). That is, just because something is in demand doesn't mean it can be supplied.

TNMA

[Scentologist]

I disagree on concept here; beyond supply and demand, it may be too hard to produce a product despite the demand (per Jaime's explanation). That is, just because something is in demand doesn't mean it can be supplied.

TNMA

I see your point. However, the harder something is to produce, the more expensive a good gets. The more expensive a good gets, the likelihood that the demand will decrease becomming uneconomical to produce. So, the price reflects the difficulty of procurement and the quality. I still say they are related. Beyond economics, it is a demographical issue as well. Although there may be a certain cult following in concentrated, stratified areas, it may not be enough to offset production costs to continue the brand. Just thinking.

[Jkidd]

Agree with ZZTOPP

[Stayclose]

Yep its all about the money. I must had seen five d&g light blue commercials the other night. Looks like that one will be around for a while.

[hednic]

My guess is economics and difficulty in sourcing certain materials.

[Birdboy48]

The charitable explanation would be that current formulation regulations makes it impossible to continue making them smell as they once did, and so regretfully they must be discontinued.

But I suspect the real reasons are a lot less romantic than that.

[senore01]

I'm certain it has to do with cost. If the profit margin is not up to par with the manufacturer, no matter how great the fragrance is, it will be discontinued.

[silentrich]

All about money and that's why instead of making a new fragrance they'll go with flankers. Even worse when they put out so many flankers that they devalue the original. YSL anyone.

[Ken_Russell]

I also tend to agree that the profit margins on great scents might not comply with the company's business plans.

[martinijo]

It's all about economics. Every bit of it, without exception.

Exactly.
Manufacturers discontinue great fragrances in an attempt to make more money by doing so.

[Greek Trojan]

Exactly.
Manufacturers discontinue great fragrances in an attempt to make more money by doing so.

This. The fact that so many people here are still able to obtain discontinued fragrances years after discontinue is a testament to how slow sales are of some of these fragrances. Why make something if its going to take the better part of a decade to move one production run?

[soldanovht]

its real simple why they discontinue great fragrances, two reasons....MONEY and people who don't know any better. why would they keep making a more expensive quality cologne when all they have to do is discontinue it and use junk for ingredients, people will still buy them. and the classic colognes they do keep are a joke, paco rabanne for one example, was a great unique cologne. the new(CHEAPER) version is horrible. bijan, now bought out by five star fragrance,ruined, kouros, same thing. I could go on but I wont. the poor excuse for cologne they are passing off today is a disgrace. hey, you really cant blame them. they are, have, been getting away with it for years. why stop if people keep buying the junk. laughing all the way to the bank.

[kumquat]

its real simple why they discontinue great fragrances, two reasons....MONEY and people who don't know any better. why would they keep making a more expensive quality cologne when all they have to do is discontinue it and use junk for ingredients, people will still buy them. and the classic colognes they do keep are a joke, paco rabanne for one example, was a great unique cologne. the new(CHEAPER) version is horrible. bijan, now bought out by five star fragrance,ruined, kouros, same thing. I could go on but I wont. the poor excuse for cologne they are passing off today is a disgrace. hey, you really cant blame them. they are, have, been getting away with it for years. why stop if people keep buying the junk. laughing all the way to the bank.

It's kind of like a celebrity that is known for one or a few good roles/hits, then starts pumping out drek. They still have a massive fan base and sell-out crowds. Everyone keeps hoping for a repeat performance.

I'm amazed there are as many classics that are still good and available as there are. They are never advertised and they are costly. Creed is one example. I never see ads for them. Tabac Blond, many Guerlains, etc. when was the last time you saw an ad for 'Vol du Nuit'?

[cc1987]

Lack of sales maybe?

[btlgrl]

Are fragrances really different from other consumer products? If not, profitability is the key. Unfortunately, profit maximization, not pleasing perfume aficionados,is the goal of most fragrance manufacturers.

Yes. I understand the whole profitability aspect, but when these fragrances are first introduced to the consumer, they are appealing to the senses. Once you get someone "hooked" it's kind of nasty to pull it away from them.
What I, personally, noticed was the introduction of Ciara by Ultima II back in the late 70's, early 80's. Ciara was the first fragrance of it's kind. It smells like a sickening gum drop. Since then, that's all we seem to get; that sickening sweet cotton candy smell (odor). Absolutely everything is based on that fragrance. The one I am missing is Dioressence. A heady, spicy, but florally sweet fragrance that smells like real perfume should smell. When I go to fragrance.net to look for it, I see all kinds of comments asking about how to get this fragrance. So I'm thinking the company is missing out on some good old profitability right there. it's too bad because fragrance can feed your soul and we all know how THAT'S not supposed to happen!

[chypre]

Yes. I understand the whole profitability aspect, but when these fragrances are first introduced to the consumer, they are appealing to the senses. Once you get someone "hooked" it's kind of nasty to pull it away from them.

I have to agree with that.

Regarding Dioressence, Dior has re-released it under the "Creations de Monsieur Dior" range, and you can find it on the Dior website as well as stores like Saks and Neiman Marcus. It has been reformulated but the most recent reformulation is pretty good, not as deep and spicy as the original but thankfully still recognizably Dioressence. I used to use Dioressence too years ago and I'm looking forward to buying the new one soon.

[stchman]

A "great" fragrance does not necessarily mean a "profitable" fragrance.

The reason that a fragrance is discontinued is that it is no longer makes the company money.

[gandhajala]

New regulations and changes in supply could also be to blame.

[David Ruskin]

A "great" fragrance does not necessarily mean a "profitable" fragrance.

The reason that a fragrance is discontinued is that it is no longer makes the company money.

This, and only this.

[worldcomingdown]

I think it's a scam by evil corporations where they buy back a bunch of their stock, keep it in a warehouse guarded by dogs who shoot bees from their mouths and then send out androids to sell their perfumes at 3-4x the original retail value.

[Pollux]

Because cosmetic companies are run by mean people.

Seriously, due to marketing (fashion), financial (manufacturing costs affecting revenues and profits) or manufacturing reasons (raw materials becoming scarce, impossibility of replacement, safety policies by regulatory agencies, etc.).
Sent telepathically from a mobile device located in the South Pole.

[kumquat]

A "great" fragrance does not necessarily mean a "profitable" fragrance.

The reason that a fragrance is discontinued is that it is no longer makes the company money.

There was one instance when Tom Ford simply withdrew his copyright permission or contract or whatever the correct term would be, when he pulled his Youth Dew Nude from the Esteé Lauder shelves.

[btlgrl]

I have to agree with that.

Regarding Dioressence, Dior has re-released it under the "Creations de Monsieur Dior" range, and you can find it on the Dior website as well as stores like Saks and Neiman Marcus. It has been reformulated but the most recent reformulation is pretty good, not as deep and spicy as the original but thankfully still recognizably Dioressence. I used to use Dioressence too years ago and I'm looking forward to buying the new one soon.

Thank you Chypre! I will, be sure to look for that.