In your opinion, has the democratising impact of the internet on perfumery been a net-positive or a net-negative?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Can only speak for myself, and for me, the impact has been a net-positve one.

Besides employee productivity gains for corporations, I'd be lost to find net-positives with information overload and devaluing efforts that the boom has afforded in any area of life. I live in the present, so would indulge in it to a certain extent, but that doesn't equate to value.

From a personal viewpoint alone, a net positive, both due to the sheer size and quality of information but also of newer, more diverse, more easily available purchasing/testing/swapping/sampling etc. options become more beneficially democratized on an increased scale and level.

I chose net negative but only regarding the state of perfumery. I think I liked the industry better when it was asleep and perfume was a personal matter of no particular general interest or attention, including not of interest to greedy multinationals or zealous regulators.

That said, a very positive aspect for me has been the exchange possible with like-minded enthusiasts and new and wonderful friends and acquaintances met on the internet through perfume.

There has been loss on the perfume side and.gain on the human side but that doesn’t equate to “neutral” because I feel strongly and anything but neutral about both aspects.

Ken_Russell said:

From a personal viewpoint alone, a net positive, both due to the sheer size and quality of information but also of newer, more diverse, more easily available purchasing/testing/swapping/sampling etc. options become more beneficially democratized on an increased scale and level

Click to expand...

Pretty much my thoughts. I have been able to pick up all sorts of things not available in HK and Basenotes has always been a good source of info on stuff - informed comments and reviews. Also a degree of competition is healthy - I can get Lutens, L'Artisan, Guerlain, Malle and others (not necessarily the whole range) on Strawberrynet at discounted prices from local retail + 20% off for local HK delivery. Not complaining

I suppose the increased awareness via the net has helped spawn a lot of opportunistic 'board room brands' but it doesn't take long to see what's what on that score . . .

The fact that we’re gathered here sharing notes and opinions on a hobby we enjoy speaks volumes. It’s not all hunky dory of course (what is?) but it’s still a net positive for me. Back in the 1980s you only got to test or buy whatever’s on display in the stores.

The Internet has given a voice to anyone who wants one. There are definitely some negatives: Internet trolls, bigots and Influencer-led (fake) hype trains sponsored by big money. Sometimes the Internet can destroy people and things, especially with Cancel Culture, for better or worse.

But overall, the plethora of information, and misinformation, is better than none. Perfume reviewers are getting better at describing scents (they can usually pick out big molecules like calone, oakmoss, iso e super, ambrox, cashmeran and white musk) and I've gotten to the point where I can shape a really good idea of perfume by reading 10-20 reviews on BN or Fragrantica.

That wasn't possible 10 years ago. I used to find it exhausting to try and figure out what a fragrance smells like from it's often misleading note pyramid.

When you have the chance to read and hear about hundreds of different perfume lover's opinions, you have more to work with in coming to your own conclusions. But you have to give everyone a voice, otherwise it becomes an echo chamber.

Net neutral,
Houses that would never leave the confines of there only country finding people with the same interests and access to the whole world and stuff thought long gone.

downsides are Echo chambers, fragrant conspiracy theories, misinformation ,subjective opinions being taken as facts etc all of these reinforced cause ull eventually find enough people who toot the same flute.

and crazies fuck me there a lot of crazies u wouldn't see without the internet

The noses I'm guided by most are all reviewers on Basenotes, so very positive in the sense of a trustworthy evaluation of fragrances. But in terms of impact on perfumery, it has been quite negative in terms of creating a sort of obsession based on mass-appeal about what notes or fragrances are good. So now the whole thing is becoming a huge argumentum ad populum IMO, which is of course fallacious: "Well, how can so many people possibly be wrong?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

After sampling a fragrance recently, I think that 95% of the reviews I read prior to smelling it were actively misleading in that they didn't/couldn't analyse the actual scent and instead analysed and reinforced the idea of it (partly the given 'notes', partly the branding). I wonder if the govt-enforced shutdowns has played a part in this, attracting more novices to perfume who are more likely to simply repeat what other people have already said as a means of fitting in rather than standing out (particularly in a 'bad' way), but I doubt it's the only reason. Whatever it is, I think the groupthink of reviewing is fundamentally a net negative. This is something that's come up over the last few weeks, starting with chat about Luca Turin, and I'm convinced the democratised 'free to review' system of fragrantica (and, sadly, even basenotes, particularly with more recent reviews) is a net negative to both the average customer and the perfume enthusiast who wants to gain an impression of the fragrance prior to smelling it. The analysis requires some sort of exclusivity to avoid the dual pitfalls of oversocialised groupthink and commercial shilling that makes up the bulk of most reviews. This is why Turin deserves credit, as he does sidestep those problems.

slpfrsly said:

I'm convinced the democratised 'free to review' system of fragrantica (and, sadly, even basenotes, particularly with more recent reviews) is a net negative to both the average customer and the perfume enthusiast who wants to gain an impression of the fragrance prior to smelling it. The analysis requires some sort of exclusivity to avoid the dual pitfalls of oversocialised groupthink and commercial shilling that makes up the bulk of most reviews.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. If it were up to you, what would you change about it to reduce so much negativity?

slpfrsly said:

This is why Turin deserves credit, as he does sidestep those problems.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but how Turin avoids these problems? I didn't quite catch it. Could you briefly explain it to me please?

My 2 cents say net-positive

-Mark

Rodolfo said:

Very interesting. If it were up to you, what would you change about it to reduce so much negativity?

Click to expand...

Good question. Hard to know how given the direction of culture/commerce and the internet. But basically, focus on what would be the right way to do things: informative analysis married to competence of both communication and understanding/interpreting perfume (and/or the chemistry of perfume). It almost certainly requires something more exclusive than the collectivised social credit system of online reviewing (on fragrantica, your reviews can be deleted if enough people vote it down for wrongthink - this is the tyranny of the majority in action) that provides no direct benefit to the reviewer. A better way of doing things is unlikely to beat the neurochemical stimulation gained from engaging with youtube or fragrantica, but it would produce superior information, which would be the point. Blogs do this fairly well (Kafkaesque stands out as the best IMO) but are a remnant of the old internet/suffer from lack of visibility and are also prone to falling in to the pitfalls of groupthink (particularly newer blogs, which inceidentally are better at exploiting SEO to be visible on google etc, despite the paucity of the content). Ultimately this is a result that is far downstream of much bigger problems tbf. I would not start here or limit myself to trying to improve fragrance reviewing if I were to change something. This is just a symptom of something else, and it's been ushered in under the guise of things like consumerism.

Rodolfo said:

Excuse me, but how Turin avoids these problems? I didn't quite catch it. Could you briefly explain it to me please?

Click to expand...

He's neither shilling for a brand, like Jeremy Fragrance or Demi or the rest of the youtube influencers, nor is he trying to win friends and influence people for neurochemical feelies and validation, like many online reviewers do on sites like fragrantica. He provides a model for what good reviewing could/should look like, undercutting the 'received wisdom' that is picked up from marketing and advertising by describing the basic, raw process of perfumery and its aromachemicals. Importantly, he achieves this due to the customers who buy his books (via publisher), as opposed to receiving advertising payment that would incentivise him to review certain brands (or perform in a certain way to attract more views). His analysis also precedes the internet, so he has credibility that his interest is divorced from the current millieu where people congregate to review perfumes (primarily fragrantica and youtube). Given his professional background, all of this means he can give competent, honest, informative reviews of perfume that avoid the two main problems discussed i.e. video influencers and freely written reviews.

L'Aventurier said:

The Internet has given a voice to anyone who wants one. There are definitely some negatives: Internet trolls, bigots and Influencer-led (fake) hype trains sponsored by big money. Sometimes the Internet can destroy people and things, especially with Cancel Culture, for better or worse.

But overall, the plethora of information, and misinformation, is better than none. Perfume reviewers are getting better at describing scents (they can usually pick out big molecules like calone, oakmoss, iso e super, ambrox, cashmeran and white musk) and I've gotten to the point where I can shape a really good idea of perfume by reading 10-20 reviews on BN or Fragrantica.

That wasn't possible 10 years ago. I used to find it exhausting to try and figure out what a fragrance smells like from it's often misleading note pyramid.

When you have the chance to read and hear about hundreds of different perfume lover's opinions, you have more to work with in coming to your own conclusions. But you have to give everyone a voice, otherwise it becomes an echo chamber.

Click to expand...

This, in every respect. I spend hours reading reviews on Basenotes and favorite perfume blogs, and then comparison shopping for fragrances I wouldn't have even known existed years ago. The most obscure vintages are traceable online, in addition to heads-up about new perfumes (and updates about houses). I don't mind wading through some polluted streams to get to the full body of water.

Net-positive. Not just on a personal level - because I might have never gotten into perfume without basenotes, and thus never involved in olfactory culture or teaching sensory studies at university etc. pp.

I also think the internet saved perfumery, since it clearly provides the infrastructural backbone for the kind of small scale artisan outfits which are now at the forefront of creative perfumery (here I fully agree with Turin/Sanchez position in their intro to the last guide). Mass and "niche" perfumery would have died their death at the hands of turbo-consumerism and profit maximization with or without the internet.

Expert communities, such as basenotes and various blogs have enriched perfume discourse, perhaps even created it, even if the internet is unquestionably full of marketing bots these days that simply replicate engineered PR. As in all other fields, the good stuff is there for those willing / able to discern it.

Super Positive. So many great perfumers have emerged from the internet.

A net-positive for me as well.

the_good_life said:

I also think the internet saved perfumery, since it clearly provides the infrastructural backbone for the kind of small scale artisan outfits which are now at the forefront of creative perfumery (here I fully agree with Turin/Sanchez position in their intro to the last guide). Mass and "niche" perfumery would have died their death at the hands of turbo-consumerism and profit maximization with or without the internet.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. I'd like to hear more on this. How do you think it would have gone without the internet? What do you think niche would be without it/beholden to commercialism?

slpfrsly said:

After sampling a fragrance recently, I think that 95% of the reviews I read prior to smelling it were actively misleading in that they didn't/couldn't analyse the actual scent and instead analysed and reinforced the idea of it (partly the given 'notes', partly the branding). I wonder if the govt-enforced shutdowns has played a part in this, attracting more novices to perfume who are more likely to simply repeat what other people have already said as a means of fitting in rather than standing out (particularly in a 'bad' way), but I doubt it's the only reason. Whatever it is, I think the groupthink of reviewing is fundamentally a net negative. This is something that's come up over the last few weeks, starting with chat about Luca Turin, and I'm convinced the democratised 'free to review' system of fragrantica (and, sadly, even basenotes, particularly with more recent reviews) is a net negative to both the average customer and the perfume enthusiast who wants to gain an impression of the fragrance prior to smelling it. The analysis requires some sort of exclusivity to avoid the dual pitfalls of oversocialised groupthink and commercial shilling that makes up the bulk of most reviews. This is why Turin deserves credit, as he does sidestep those problems.

Click to expand...

It seems to me a very bold and inelegant comment. The people who write reviews on internet are people just like you and me, and mentioning that 95% of the reviews of a fragrance that you have read are misleading means calling most of them a bunch of deceitful or fakers, whether this is intentional or the product of "ignorance" or the influence of "groupthink".

What happens is that behind all theory there is practice, and to show us all here the reasons why you believe that you should show us the reviews of that fragrance (or the link where they can be read), also attaching your own review. This way you can show us these 95% of misleading reviews, the 5% that are not and yours, and discuss about it.
If not, some will think that what you are doing is only reinforcing a preconceived idea that you now have, fresh, latent and powerful, about how negative and misleading online perfume reviews are, which is curiously the same thing that you are criticizing in that 95% of people who follow the preconceived ideas of the brand or the notes of a perfume to the letter.

On the other hand I guess that 5% is anecdotal since you only associate it with a specific fragrance. However it gives me the feeling that the belief you hold is general, and that by default most of the reviews on internet you think they are misleading.
Since it was you who mentioned percentages, I ask you: in general terms, what percentage of average reviews do you consider negative or misleading for example in Basenotes? More than 50%? 90%?

If you consider that these types of reviews are misleading because they do not focus to "analyzing the real aroma" and focus only on partially regurgitating the notes and comments of the brand, then you are inferring that the notes of a perfume or the information that we can find of it coming from the brand is mostly a pack of lies, which doesn't say much about the industry itself, by the way.
I am not going to discuss this. But I see a parallel between the perfumes that come out on the market and the reviews that are published on the web: they proliferate more and more and are of very very variable quality and density. I think it's great! We may not have any decision-making capacity in relation to which perfumes are launched on the market and which ones disappear, but at least we have the ability to choose between what is available, which is something. And seems to me to be something positive. I think Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

slpfrsly said:

Good question. Hard to know how given the direction of culture/commerce and the internet. But basically, focus on what would be the right way to do things: informative analysis married to competence of both communication and understanding/interpreting perfume (and/or the chemistry of perfume). It almost certainly requires something more exclusive than the collectivised social credit system of online reviewing (on fragrantica, your reviews can be deleted if enough people vote it down for wrongthink - this is the tyranny of the majority in action) that provides no direct benefit to the reviewer. A better way of doing things is unlikely to beat the neurochemical stimulation gained from engaging with youtube or fragrantica, but it would produce superior information, which would be the point. Blogs do this fairly well (Kafkaesque stands out as the best IMO) but are a remnant of the old internet/suffer from lack of visibility and are also prone to falling in to the pitfalls of groupthink (particularly newer blogs, which inceidentally are better at exploiting SEO to be visible on google etc, despite the paucity of the content). Ultimately this is a result that is far downstream of much bigger problems tbf. I would not start here or limit myself to trying to improve fragrance reviewing if I were to change something. This is just a symptom of something else, and it's been ushered in under the guise of things like consumerism.


He's neither shilling for a brand, like Jeremy Fragrance or Demi or the rest of the youtube influencers, nor is he trying to win friends and influence people for neurochemical feelies and validation, like many online reviewers do on sites like fragrantica. He provides a model for what good reviewing could/should look like, undercutting the 'received wisdom' that is picked up from marketing and advertising by describing the basic, raw process of perfumery and its aromachemicals. Importantly, he achieves this due to the customers who buy his books (via publisher), as opposed to receiving advertising payment that would incentivise him to review certain brands (or perform in a certain way to attract more views). His analysis also precedes the internet, so he has credibility that his interest is divorced from the current millieu where people congregate to review perfumes (primarily fragrantica and youtube). Given his professional background, all of this means he can give competent, honest, informative reviews of perfume that avoid the two main problems discussed i.e. video influencers and freely written reviews.

Click to expand...

Let's look at some examples of Turin's capabilities as a perfume reviewer.

Or des Indes (Maître Parfumeur et Gantier) ★ ★ ★ classic oriental
MPG does Shalimar. Get Shalimar. LT

Where is the perfume analysis capacity here? Information about notes, accords, colors, volume...? Longevity, sillage? Any historical data or useful information? If this review, instead of being signed by Luca Turin and appearing in a book had been signed by Tuca Lurín and published in Basenotes, what would readers think of it?

In return, a review of zztopp (Basenotes, Feb 19, 2007):

Notes:bergamot, lavender, geranium, oppoponax, sandalwood, amber, vanillaOr Des Indes (ODI or "Gold of India") is a suprising title for a fragrance. What is MPG trying to recreate here? The smell of gold after it has been transported through the harsh streets of Calcutta? Or is it ridiculing the fact that India is the largest consumer of gold despite the fact that 75% of the population lives below the poverty line? Whatever the reason, lets go onto the review!ODI opens with an orangey yet tart combination of bergamot and lavender before unraveling into a pungent, bitter and sweet aroma. Oppoponax is the main star here, and it displays its supposed spiritual cleansing and demon vanquishing powers with full force. Unfortunately, this phase doesnt last as long as I wanted it to, but the sensual comforting drydown of sandalwood and amber with that trademark metallic twinge present in so many MPG drydowns provides a fitting finish to a smooth and rich display of fragrance notes. I dont find it to be overly powdery, and it can easily be classified unisex.Or Des Indes smells nothing like gold - dont let the name scare you away. It doesnt smell chemical-ly like a lot of bling bling. It does however smell like the meditative temples of India. It is comforting, relaxing, and soothing. I would have liked more oppoponax, but I guess MPG can go for gold next time.

Another example

Original Vetiver (Creed) ★ unoriginal woody
Deserves some sort of prize for managing to make whatever vetiver it
contains almost imperceptible.
LT

Where is the perfume analysis capacity here? Information about notes, accords, colors, volume...? Longevity, sillage? Any historical data or useful information? If this review, instead of being signed by Luca Turin and appearing in a book had been signed by Tuca Lurín and published in Basenotes, what would readers think of it?

In return, a review of Varanis Ridari (Basenotes, Jul 16, 2019)

Creed Original Vetiver (2004) is indeed an original take on vetiver, but unfortunately not really that much of an original fragrance. What you effectively get here is a fresh, soapy, eau de cologne style bolstered with the green grassy demeanor of Haitian vetiver, rather than a vetiver-focused scent. As noted by myself and likely others, stronger eau de toilette and eau de parfum interpretations of the classic neroli eau de cologne style seemed to have been all the rage among perfume houses in the late 90's through mid 2000's, most of such examples being niche or luxury in nature. Original Vetiver received most of its intial negative press as a replacement for the well-loved Creed Vétiver (1948?), which itself was a more-direct vetiver scent, but over time Original Vetiver has proven its merits.

The opening of Original Vetiver is a hit of dry bergamot and orange with that vetiver note right out front, grassy and fresh. The vetiver soon steps behind the curtain after this initial showing, letting a clean soapy iris and light orange blossom set up the heart. The vetiver comes and goes through an exceptional French-milled savon accord that will appeal greatly to fans of soapy fragrances or iris/orris lovers in general, meaning wearers of Paco Rabanne Pour Homme (1973) or Penhaligon's Castile (1998) should take note. There is a bit of dirtiness in the base thanks to ginger, musk, and that salty/earthy warmth of ambergris Creed loves, but this interplay is slight. I don't get any sandalwood like some breakdowns suggest, but there is a touch of oakmoss and some kind of woody aroma which is probably synthetic but works well in the overall mix. Sillage is moderate but longevity is appreciable, as I've come to expect from Creed. Wear this anytime, as something this clean and versatile is to me a true generalist scent for nearly anyone.

This stuff won't turn heads like Aventus (2010) and doesn't scream masculinity like Bois du Portugal (1987), but for fans of Creed's fresher offerings like Green Irish Tweed (1985) or Royal Water (1997), this is a good addition. Of course, a bottle of Mugler Cologne (2001) will get you in roughly the same shape minus the vetiver for a whole lot less, but you won't find this specific combination of values anywhere else without really digging, so it's worth seeking out if the price happens to be right. One thing's for sure, Original Vetiver actually delivers what it promises, unlike Original Santal (2005) and all of its unrepentant cynicism. MSRP is of course nuts, but as one of the lesser-hyped and least-discussed modern Creeds out there, Original Vetiver comes up at good discount prices more than some of their heavier hitters in the market. Thumbs up!

Another example here

Bright Crystal (Versace) ★ nasty floral
Hideously screechy. LT

Where is the perfume analysis capacity here? Information about notes, accords, colors, volume...? Longevity, sillage? Any historical data or useful information? If this review, instead of being signed by Luca Turin and appearing in a book had been signed by Tuca Lurín and published in Basenotes, what would readers think of it?

In return, a review of Kain (Basenotes Jun 2, 2014)

A pleasant and charming feminine fragrance which is mostly on the generic and common road but it's a good one.
The opening is semi fresh citrusy and fruity scent mixed with some floral and some sweetness in the background.
The citrus in the opening isn't very bright and so fresh like summer fragrances. it's just there, right behind the fruity scent to give it a fresh aroma. you can easily smell the freshness of the citrus.
The fruity smell which is the main note of the fragrance in the beginning, smell fresh because of the yuzu note and it almost smell like peach, but when you take a look at note breakdown you will see it's pomegranate that smell really close to peach.
I believe there is pepper note in this fragrance which is not in the note breakdown but I've smelt it.
It's not that strong, it's just there to give the scent just a small kick!
In the dry down the citrusy scent in gone and floral and sweetness come in front and push the fruity note in the background.
The mid and the base are almost the same and there is no big difference between them.
The mid and base note is very common to the nose. The simple sweet floral scent is a very common in women fragrances and this one has it too.
Both projection and longevity is really good. no problem at all.

Etc
Etc

In my country it is often said: "unos se llevan la fama y otros cardan la lana", which would come to mean (simplifying) "some do all the work and others take the credit."