Vintage dogs and modern canines...

Are we trained to like perfumes? I mean like Pavlov's dogs?

Are we susceptible to anyone telling us stuff like "This is what you should like now. Everything else is either dated, old-lady, or hackneyed." or "If you wear this, girls will be at your feet, if you wear that, boys will love you. But only this and that, not these and those. These and those belong to the past and they'd better stay there."

According to this point of view, there must be something wrong with me. My coming of age took place during the late '80s, but I didn't think that fragrances launched 20 years ago were dated, old-lady or hackneyed stuff. On the contrary, I thought that a good deal of them ranged from gorgeous to breathtaking, and I still think they do, even if it's been already half a century since their launch date as we speak.

Supposing that today's young consumers are indeed trained by advertisement and marketing to lean towards fruity-sweety-happy scents, otherwise they wouldn't be so popular, does that mean we were trained too to like powerhouses and femme fatale perfumes of past decades? I think not, since the much lesser degree of advertisement and marketing penetration back in the day wasn't enough to guide is into mechanical and unconsidered buys. I've seen it happening nowadays, as I've watched people choosing a perfume in 15 minutes or less. Comparing this situation with the half an afternoon we used to spent in order to choose a new fragrance, I can't help but wonder about what's going on. All the more reason that there were way less fragrances to choose from back then.

And what has happened to aesthetics? How did we get from the minimalistic and elegantly discreet presence on the left to this mayhem of flamboyant tackiness on the right?

I guess it depends on which of the two men would someone like to be. But believe me, this many tattoos would automatically render someone a menace to society a few decades ago. I don't agree with this kind of prejudice, I never did. I've experienced it personally and I know how it is. So I don't judge a book by its cover, but honestly, which of the two men looks smarter and like someone who has something to say? Is this a matter over mind attempt? Or is it maybe the fact that as a result of a conditioned reflex, we won't buy Invictus for what it truly is in aromatic value, but for the bell it rings in our minds, changing food with sex in this new take of a Pavlovian respond? Should I point out what the two sylphs are actually touching? Or the fact that they are emerging from the base of the conveniently shaped and placed bottle and appear to be somehow bound on it? I know that fragrances are always connected with sex one way or another, but there's subtlety and chivalry and there's braggadocio and overkill.

So OK, the companies wished to offer new categories of fragrances and change the perfume map. Accepted. But why? I'm quite familiar with the applied marketing rules, but the whole thing just doesn't make much sense in my mind. Given that the number one goal of every company is to make money, and taking under consideration that the already existing fragrances were hugely popular, what was the purpose of venturing into this "a new fragrance every six months" situation? Doesn't that mean extra money spent for every new fragrance created and without any guarantee that it will bring this money back whatsoever? What would be the problem if Paco Rabanne hadn't launched since 2000 thrice as many fragrances as he had launched in 30years (1969 to 1999)? What would be the problem if there were not 19(!!!) flankers of Dior's Addict in 12 years? Can you imagine 19 flankers of Diorella till 1984? Even in the case of Poison, which has 13 flankers already, the first one was launched only after 9 years of the original's launch had passed. Unless it's all about production costs, and there's some shady plan for the the old perfumes to be eventually discontinued, leaving the road open for newcomers mainly made with cheap chemicals. If you had never thought that a conspiracy theory could be applied to the perfume industry, well, now you have it...

I understand that there's always room for improvement in any product, but fragrances are not cars. They can't be made any faster, bigger or safer (although EU and IFRA are obviously thinking differently about the last adjective). They can only be made more evoking. Perfumery is definitely a high art, it may also be science, given the amount of chemistry and biology involved in its techniques, but it's not engineering. And thus, flankers are not technological marvels, but rather rip-offs and way too far-fetched attempts to squeeze yet another penny out of a long empty pouch. Otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for, let's say, Black Opium to have "Opium" included in its name. No matter what the marketing department of YSL may claim in its lame attempt to convince us that elephants can fly, apparently thinking of us as Dumbos.

"In September of 2014 Yves Saint Laurent launches Black Opium, the new fragrance announced as a rock'n'roll interpretation of the classic that should highlight the dark, mysterious side of the YSL brand."

Yeah, right...Since when opium and rock'n'roll can be even loosely connected totally eludes me. As if the original Opium was not a dark or mysterious enough facet of YSL, and thus the house needed to be "highlighted"at all costs. Sorry guys, but your interpretation sounds like painting the Eiffel Tower in bright pink to honour Nicki Minaj's visit to Paris.

On the other hand, the exact same dangers can be also lurking in nostalgia sprees and unconditional surrender to vintage fragrances. Only this time, there's not any marketing "luminaries" behind it, but self-appointed defenders of vintage-lore, claiming arbitrary authority and omniscience that no one cares to hear for that matter. "It was made during the '80s, so it's got to be good." No it doesn't! More than a few of past decades' fragrances were rubbish. But at least they didn't try to shove their presence down our throats, and this makes them failed but at least honest attempts.

So after all, are we trained to like perfumes like Pavlov's dogs? It seems that we are, but it also seems that some dogs will always be more dogged than others...