Flanking Heck! What happened to flankers and why are they not like they used to be?

These flanker wars are the epitome of an oversaturated market.

Make some kind of a basic, attractive formula.
Your first "original flanker" is quite light - EDT.
Wait for the people to complain about performance.

Release the EDP!
"Ok, performance is a bit better, but not enough."

Release the Parfum / Elixir!
"Oh wait, this is a completely different fragrance."

The current designer market is a joke.
Microvariations on the same formulas.

Varanis Ridari said:

This is a nice topic that deserves a thoughtful reply. I'm on my phone so pardon more shorthand-like answers.

Click to expand...

Agreed! I just now came upon this thread; when first published, I was "on-hiatus".

slpfrsly said:

- Do you wish there were lighter or sport/cologne versions of some of your favourite contemporary designer fragrances?

Click to expand...

My entrance to "fragrance" was via wetshaving -- initially, an aftershave splash, then a more/less-closely-related shaving soap/cream, later on matching afterscent (EDC/EDT), and finally, a "trifecta" (soap/cream, ASS/ASB, EDC/EDT) from either the same product line or fragrance family.

So, with regard to "flankers", I'm happy with an aftershave that's weaker-than-but-matches an EDC/EDT (and over-the-moon if I find an EDP that goes in the other direction)... and, where necessary, a "neutral" or "fragrance-free" shaving soap/cream.

Varanis Ridari said:

Edition Blanche and Sport Cologne are directly related, and loosely related to a long-gone Allure Homme Fraîchessante pour L'éte that had the lemony DNA mixed with the Allure composition, and a weird bit of funk.

Polge spun off the lemon into Sport Cologne and Edition Blanche, when the Allure FpL was discontinued.

Click to expand...

I have to admit, I completely forgot about the existence of the Sport Cologne. For some reason Macy's is the only place that stocks it and I tend to avoid their counter as they refuse to let me sample in peace.

Brian5701 said:

I have to admit, I completely forgot about the existence of the Sport Cologne. For some reason Macy's is the only place that stocks it and I tend to avoid their counter as they refuse to let me sample in peace.

Click to expand...

That's sad and annoying. Sport Cologne is worth the trouble though.

Great to see people enjoying the thread.

maksidrom said:

I agree that in many cases in recent flankers are no longer flankers in the original meaning of that term, but rather entirely different fragrances that bear little in common with their progenitors.
Primarily, in my opinion, it is about the bottom line, just everything else, especially when it comes down to large multinational global brands and corporations. Just tweak the fragrance somewhat, churn out a sequel every year (or season), get the fans of the original and collectors buy an extra bottle. This reminds me of the remixing craze in music in the 90s and 00s, when every chart contender had to have 3 dozen different remixes across 6 different formats, forcing fans to buy every single one, thus inflating the sales.
Then there's overreliance on brand recognition and blatant laziness - no need to create a new name, new bottle, no need to invest in new marketing, for new fragrances - just keep the same name and same visuals, design, thus keeping the same market and possibly adding a new one. No risk, little effort. Just milk that cash cow to no end.

Though for every Dior Homme flanker ignominy there's L'Occitane that reliably puts out a true nice flanker of Verveine every year.

Click to expand...

Yeah, good point about music industry and how it matches this phenomenon. It's clear that it's a commercial move, definitely. The insistence on releasing new fragrances under the Le Male of Boss Bottled line does hint at a real lack of conviction in the fragrance itself - that it couldn't succeed on its own terms without associating with the existing scent. Which I think if probably true, as many of these flanker fragrances are bang average and generic. I suppose there's a trade off as well, though, if you want to release a new scent; for something so different to the original (I think ther's an incense version of Boss Bottled, for example) you run the risk of alienating people who might buy it on the basis that it's a true flanker in the old sense to the original? But I suppose that raises the question about who is buying these fragrances, and I think it is people at airports or collectors, who only really wear these fragrances a few times, before moving on to something else. Rinse and repeat, short term fixes, and therefore the identity of the line (Le Male over YSL, Code over Armani) is all important for that immediacy.

Varanis Ridari said:

This is a nice topic that deserves a thoughtful reply. I'm on my phone so pardon more shorthand-like answers.

A small correction on Rive Gauche pour Homme: The original women's version came first in 1972. Tom Ford made a latecoming men's version to celebrate 30 years, and continuing the trend started with the latecoming 90's male counterpart of YSL Opium (from 1976). The light and intense variants of the women's version are new fragrances though, but the OG is just a reformulation.

1) I think the shift is wholly to blame on the usual marketing and accounting suspects, internal style gurus, mood boards, focus group testing, blah blah. They figured out taking unused or unwanted formulas from oil houses or mods of a popular briefs, altering them to suit, then releasing them as flankers to a familiar line was easier than original R&D from the ground up, so long as they were copying/competing with a popular style. Steve Jobs had a quote about knowing what people want when you show it to them, etc.

2) I am sorta indifferent. Seeing so many brands do their take on Invictus or Aventus as flankers of popular lines (eg. Valentino Uomo Born in Roma, or Dunhill Desire Gold, respectively) is tiring and disillusioning. Big "creativity is dead" vibes, et al. On the other hand, having a line like Polo, with a Green, Blue, Black, and Red ranges that are all distinctly different flavors or moods is also nice too, so sometimes this strategy can be done correctly and tastefully.

3) I actually do wish the lighter/sportier "X Sport" style flankers or heavier "X Concentrée" style fragrances (different from "EdP", "Parfum", or "Elixir" in that they are just heavier takes and not significantly modified). Some of my absolute favorites are Sport, Concentrée or L'Eau/Fraîche alternates (see my most worn stuff).

4) It's a mixed bag about the way things are now. I think Terre d'Hermès is one of the last great classically-minded men's lines out there, and it's just 2 years shy of turning 20 now, which says a lot.

PS: "Otherworldly Weirdness" for Dior Sauvage had me giggle. So true. Bravo.

Click to expand...

Yes, the fact that no house is standalone or truly creating their on stuff is relevant as well. Every brand now has their own iteration of the same type: a dark blue, a raspberry leather, a tonka gourmand etc. Compartmentalising the process so that brands are no longer taking on the risk of creating is all part of profit over quality. Interesting to note the rare exceptions, like Ralph Lauren, that do seem to buck the trend though. I agree, I think RL's flankers - although a big departure from the original as per this general trend - are better than the average.

StylinLA said:

I am pretty indifferent to the current state of releases, but I do have interest in watching it all develop.

I just see the flankers as a lazy and low risk marketing technique. The actual scent is irrelevant. At this point the name "Sauvage" or "Bleu de Chanel" have become the "brand" as much or more than "Dior" or "Chanel." I'd bet many Sauvage users don't even associate the scent with Dior, or know what Dior is.

Sauvage.
Cool black bottle.
Johnny Depp.

We fragheads are not representative of the buying public at large.

I kind of feel bad some of the people at Chanel and Dior. They no doubt have bright and creative people working for them with some bold ideas. I'll bet there have been some scents developed by both that would thrill many of us. But at the two big guys on the block, woe be unto the poor soul that pushes to introduce a new scent that doesn't immediately outperform any of the flankers they have issued.

Don't forget they have both have had some bombs in their past. They well remember them. And right now they see anything that riffs off Bleu or Sauvage does well. Most anyone here in their shoes would probably do the same thing.

I have no in depth insights into their profitability, but it certainly seems to me like one or both of them could afford to launch something new just for grins if nothing else. Not as a replacement for their mainstays, just to be an alternative. But I guess it's too easy and safe to do more flankers. The argument could be made that Sauvage Elixir is sort of like a new scent, but named to keep it familiar. It seems pretty unrelated to original Sauvage to me.

Sort of a bummer that new ownership at Creed seems mostly to be going down the same flanker path. I don't particularly like Viking myself, but at least they pulled something new out of their azz and threw it at the wall.

Click to expand...

Yes, good point about Sauvage becoming bigger than Dior in a way. As already touched on, I think it's reflective of brand recognition no longer standing for what it once did. The idea that companies are standalone entities truly competing with one another, rather than part of a conglomerate that put their branding to ever-so-slightly different iterations of a product designed externally, is over for the most part. So it is the specific fragrance, rather than the brand, that inspires any sort of loyalty and/or interest. This partly explains the madness around clones, especially things like Aventus, where the scent is so loved/so highly valued, people are willing to chase inferior versions for the sake of saving money. It all falls apart with clones because they're often so poorly made, but it's revealing of the shift in consumer attitudes, away from long-term reliability towards short term locust-like chasing the next hit. Dior and Chanel are perhaps exceptions to this, Chanel especially, but by and large this is true and the fragrance/product is now bigger/more important than the brand.

I think the high end/boutique line is now the only place where these brands are releasing anything that could be seen as a commercial risk. Which is especially bad for masculine fragrances, because so much of the high end designer stuff is feminine.

Agree on your point about Creed btw. Everyone who was celebrating the hit piece on Olivier Creed a few years ago seemed to miss the seething resentment directed at OC's dedication to releasing excellent fragrances. Without that aim, you get derivative and generic fragrances - not exactly something worth shouting about, and utterly inevitable that this is what Creed would become once it sold.

PStoller said:

Agree with all upthread who noted that flankers are a marketing shortcut, capitalizing on name recognition with, in some cases, minimal regard for relevance to the original concept.

As for why perfumeries have turned to heavier rather than lighter flankers, I can think of two fairly obvious reasons:

1) Fragbros, who drive the influencer space, are all about competitive performance—they want club conquerors rather than office-friendly fare;

2) When a flanker promises more—parfum, intense, extreme, concentrée, etc.—you can get away with charging more, while a lighter flanker sounds like it should sell for less.

So, you start with an EDT, and if it hits, you upsell your customers on a series of “more is more” flankers.

Click to expand...

The charging more for more performance makes a lot of sense. The link between strength of scent and quantity of oil (and therefore cost) in the bottle still goes hand in hand, and is understandable in a sense, even if it misses how things have changed. But I don't see any sort of connection to youtubers or the undefined "fragbros". You seem to have it back to front: "wet streets cause rain". Influencers are persuading the watching viewers by delivering on what brands want from them. They're also just too small to have shifted the way perfume companies do things. They might be big online, just like basenotes feels like a big deal to those who use it, but they're not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. They're certainly not changing how the European fashion houses do things - maybe some of the cheap Arabic clone houses put stock in what's happening with influencers, but that's about it. So no, I don't think this makes sense even on the surface, it's back to front. As banal as fragrance influencers are, they're reactive to rather than cause of this change.

baklavaRuzh said:

I don't mind or care, I agree it's a marketing shortcut that makes sense like @PStoller mentoned. Some flankers are also meant for certain markets, not necessarily specifically North America. The new le Beau was first released in Brazil and is likely meant for that market. Guerlain is focusing more on Asia and not USA.

@gentel noooo I actually really like le male elixir, would rather have it than most Xerjoff fragrances I have tried! granted I have not tried most of the other fragrances you listed...

Click to expand...

Flankers having specific markets is definitely important. Ties in to the point about how much more Arab-centric especially the perfume industry has become, with airports (UAE) being an important location for buying and selling fragrances. Food and drink companies have created products for different peoples and different places for decades. It makes sense, given the overlaps, how synthetic perfumery would opt for this commercially as well. And, again, choosing the product over the brand (e.g. Le Male Beau) is more effective as the bottle carries more weight than the brand name.

Speedway said:

Thanks for starting this discussion. I immediately thought of Kouros and several of its early flankers. Fraicheur and (especially) Eau de Sport are/were so similar to the original flankee, and didn't stick around that long, so perhaps YSL thought "oh oh, we need to really differentiate these going forward" (hence Body et al).

Click to expand...

A good point - although I'm not sure how having EDT, EDP, Parfum etc helps the casual customer understand the differences between these fragrances with just a glance. It's fine as long as your flanker is so similar to the original that there will only be mild annoyance at buying the wrong version (e.g. ending up with a cologne or light version of tthe original) but you can see where the change in bottle colour and more dramatic name changes take place for scents that are a big departure from the original.

andym72 said:

The use of Flankers today is a ploy for the brands to get shelf space/purchase orders from the big stores for the original.

All the buyers at the stores want is “new”, novelty. All the brands want is to sell loads more of that formula and bottle design they’ve been selling for years and paid the product dev costs off.

So the flanker is offered up as “bait”. Have this new thing, the stores are told, but you have to stock the OG as well.

The lack of scent connection to the OG is probably because they just go to IFF et al and get some formula that they’d already done off spec.

And the bottle is just the old one with a different finish.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we're all on the same page about this now. Interesting to see the more pragmatic side of what drives this as well in terms of shelf space. How relevant is this today? I can understand it in airports and places like Harrods but given how things have shifted to buying online, is this still as important as it was, say, 10 years ago?

hollywoodforever said:

The most popular men's fragrances these days are universally blue, fresh, citrus forward, shower gel based, hyper-hygiene snooze-fests....

Click to expand...

I don't think dark blue fragrances cause sleepiness. Quite the opposite.

cheapimitation said:

Flankers do have the potential to be an interesting artistic exercise and I agree it’s unfortunate this opportunity is rarely taken these days.

I’m thinking of how Monet would paint the same lilies at different times of day or how other artists will create a series on a theme. Flankers could totally be an interesting exploration of a fragrant concept, but they usually aren’t.

Mugler seems to be the only one to have fully explored flankers in this way with the endless and creative riffs on A Men.

Changes in concentration do seem to be the lowest and least interesting form of flanking while also the most popular right now. I tend to think perfumer knows best when it comes to concentration and I usually find the original version works best. Alternate concentrations often throw out of balance what was great about the original.

Also agree this is mostly due to laziness and bland profit driven corporate entities making the creative decisions. Today’s flanker is more of an upsell than a side sell.

I also suspect this has something to do with the sheer overwhelming variety of fragrances available now and the decrease in people’s loyalty to just one perfume. In the old days a lot more people would be loyal to a single perfume for life, so I imagine they would be delighted by and ready to buy up seasonal variations on their favorite.

Click to expand...

Mugler's an interesting one, as you can see how there is still the A*Men accord running through many (although not all) of its flankers. But in many ways they leaned fully in to the 'flanker as far from the original as possible' with some of their fragrances, trading on A*Men and its distinctive bottle rather than Mugler. And at the same time, I agree, these scents were more interesting than most - yet they haven't stood the test of time, which suggests they not longstanding commercial success, despite their reputation and cost in the second hand market.

Also, yeah, signature scents just don't exist anymore. There's almost no room given to discussing having a signature scent on here, for instance.

LP80 said:

I like that you think so much and have so many thoughts on any given issue @slpfrsly but I simply give up reading up on it all. So, sorry about that.

To me I think they simply piggyback ride on a name that sells. Unoriginal and laizy…like my answer without reading the full post(s).

Click to expand...

no worries.

dealt7faux said:

They're spreading themselves thin.
Sometimes they hit pay dirt and will continue in the same vein trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie. All the while making guys like me numb to all the repetitious hype. Blah, blah, blah.

Click to expand...

The long term consequences are interesting. There's only so much and so far you can trade on existing prestige until it is tarnished. The move towards rapid gorging of flankers does seem very desperate and unsustainable.

Brian5701 said:

I was thinking about this thread today as I was applying Chanel Allure Pour Homme Edition Blanche. The Allure Homme line is an early example of very random flankers. None of the flankers relate to the original in any way. Edition Blanche has no relation to any of them, and is more of an AdP Colonia rip off (though I love it). I can only assume Chanel didn't want to acquire new names and bottles for the Sport and Blanche scents, so they made them flankers of Allure Homme.
I've always been curious about the original's popularity. I don't really think of it as a popular scent, but it still appears on department store shelves 25 years later.

Click to expand...

It's interesting, as I think Bleu de Chanel is very much coherent with the original Allure Homme. If anything, I would say that Bleu de Chanel is like an update of Allure Homme, with the same key components (tropical fruity open, generic and synthetic woodyness, drying down to a warm, sweet, ambery base) reached with different materials/smells. But Bleu de Chanel also has these really creamy, high pitched, silvery lemon musky notes that are prominent in the later Allure Homme flankers. I think you can group all of these scents together, but perhaps strangely, BdC sits in between the different verssion of Allure, as both the apotheosis of what Chanel were making for 10+ years and a way of bridging the different eras/styles during that time (the more fruity 90s with the tonka-gourmand late 00s). But it's a new product, not an Allure.

Hugh V. said:

I'm guessing some type of cynical, economic trend. Kind of like how multiple major film studios were trying to create their own Marvel Cinematic Universe, or why they seem to be more heavily invested in reboots or inane adaptations of virtually anything remotely well-known (Milton-Bradley's boardgame Battleship??).
They rationalized it's a safer bet to just release completely different stuff, just attached with a previously established name and built-in audience. They save a lot of production costs as well by not having to make a new bottle design.

Why take the risk of having to build an audience and awareness for a new name and product when you can just recycle the branding/marketing from a previous, known hit?

Another thing: Maybe these designer houses found out they made too little money or lost too much money, releasing legitimate flankers back the day. All of Kouros' flankers have been discontinued for quite a while. Santos de Cariter Sport was discontinued a while back while the original persists.

In the past, I think the public made "exceptions" for certain designer houses. Guy La Roche for example. They struck gold with Drakkar Noir and played it extremely safe by releasing different fragrances disguised as a flanker of that one. I guess they got a pass since it seems like they're not really known for anything other than their first flanker of Drakkar. The original isn't even known by most people.


Not too much. If they're completely different scents...why not just market them that way? As a potential customer, I like the idea of a particular scent having a "light version" and a "concentrated version." That gives me a lot of options, and is more likely to get my money. There's a lot of fragrances out there that I'd likely buy and wear if only they only tweaked the formula a bit, in say a light or sport version.

Especially when fragrance counters are shrinking, and online (blind) buying is becoming more popular, I'm more willing to take a chance with an accurate light/sport/fraiche version than I am a flanker that's reportedly a completely different scent.


Yes but there's not that many contemporary fragrances that I'm a fan of.
-K by D&G would be nice if they released a version that was a little lighter or smoother in the drydown.
-Missoni Pour Homme is fantastic and they would definitely get my money again if they released legit flankers of that one: Sport, Fraiche, and Concentree. It's already labeled an Eau de Parfum though when really, it seems like it should be an Eau de Toilette.

Isn't an Eau de Cologne more along the lines of being just above an aftershave in terms of longevity and projection? The vintage Avon men's aftershave's last longer than modern, mainstream EDTs so I'm not interested in current but accurate EDC's of contemporary fragrances.


Since Rive Gauche Pour Homme was mentioned, I really wish I had been able to try out the Light version, as I think the regular one is too heavy for my taste.
- Or do you like the way things are now?

No but I'm not too bothered by it. Though it does make this interest of mine less interesting by becoming unnecessarily complicated.

Click to expand...

If launching a new product is such a risk, I wonder how brands will approach it in the future? Just off thhe top of my head, how many new lines have been released by one of the big houses in the last 5 years? H24 by Hermes, MYSLF by Armani...I'm struggling after that? Dior rehashed its Homme line from 15 years ago. Prada are still going with their Luna Rossa line, D&G with Light Blue. Presumably the commercial results of just pumping out flankers are too reliable to turn down, but it's interesting to think how brands - esp Chanel and Dior - will move on from this.

You make a good point about Drakkar Noir, and a smaller house hitting the big time with one fragrance. A bit like Davidoff and Cool Water. Flankers in the limited edition/regular release model are to my mind associated with something less desirable, lower quality. I don't think this is unfair, this is how a lot of products are positioned. Which perhaps shows that, when Armani is copying Calvin Klein with multiple flankers a year, how much the brands are struggling. But against what? Niche? Clones? Or against each other and the constant churn of new new new and more more more? Again, the long term consequences are surely missing the fact that this damages the brand - makes it seem cheap, throwaway, because it is...

Anyway, I'd really love it is there was a Light or Fresh version of Beau de Jour, but I'm certain that if a flanker is made, it'll be along the Parfum/Elixir lines of pumping it full of metallic musks and cypriol and turning the volume up to 11 instead. Take the amber out of Beau de Jour, leave it with a transparent and watery/weak patchouli-woody base with perhaps a hint of light/creamy/sudsy sweetness than dries in to a clean linen type smell, amp up the aromatic notes especially the lavener and rosemary in the opening, and you have almost the ideal fresh version that could be worn in warmer weather.

I'd also like to see more fragrances release additional products like cologne splash, aftershave balm etc to be released for some of the bigger fragrances but this, again, is against the grain of where the brands are heading. I like the fact that some niche houses still do this, and it's not as if desigers stopped doing this aeons ago - even 15 years ago it seems common for houses to produce a grooming line to go along with the main EDT, and that usually included an aftershave of some sort.

slpfrsly said:

Anyway, I'd really love it is there was a Light or Fresh version of Beau de Jour, but I'm certain that if a flanker is made, it'll be along the Parfum/Elixir lines of pumping it full of metallic musks and cypriol and turning the volume up to 11 instead. Take the amber out of Beau de Jour, leave it with a transparent and watery/weak patchouli-woody base with perhaps a hint of light/creamy/sudsy sweetness than dries in to a clean linen type smell, amp up the aromatic notes especially the lavener and rosemary in the opening, and you have almost the ideal fresh version that could be worn in warmer weather.

I'd also like to see more fragrances release additional products like cologne splash, aftershave balm etc to be released for some of the bigger fragrances but this, again, is against the grain of where the brands are heading. I like the fact that some niche houses still do this, and it's not as if desigers stopped doing this aeons ago - even 15 years ago it seems common for houses to produce a grooming line to go along with the main EDT, and that usually included an aftershave of some sort.

Click to expand...

I see no sign of more “subtle” releases. On the contrary. It must all be “beast mode”.

See me, hear me, smell me, me me…

slpfrsly said:

I don't see any sort of connection to youtubers or the undefined "fragbros". You seem to have it back to front: "wet streets cause rain". Influencers are persuading the watching viewers by delivering on what brands want from them. They're also just too small to have shifted the way perfume companies do things. They might be big online, just like basenotes feels like a big deal to those who use it, but they're not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. They're certainly not changing how the European fashion houses do things - maybe some of the cheap Arabic clone houses put stock in what's happening with influencers, but that's about it. So no, I don't think this makes sense even on the surface, it's back to front. As banal as fragrance influencers are, they're reactive to rather than cause of this change.

Click to expand...

If influencers had no influence, fragrance houses wouldn’t court them. The very fact that European houses engage with influencers means that influencers have changed how those houses do things.

Wet streets actually do cause rain, in the sense that evaporation from those streets feeds atmospheric moisture and thus influences weather patterns. Of course, it takes rain to make the streets wet in the first place.

The relationship between influencers and industry is similar. Which is to say, it goes both ways. Sure, industry steers influence; many vloggers are shills. But that control is limited. To my initial point, the current performance orientation of many consumers, especially young men (the “undefined fragbros”), isn’t something LVMH cooked up: it’s a phenomenon to which both houses and influencers are reactive out of necessity.

The marketplace is an ecosystem, of which influencers are a part. The relationships are more complex than a simple dictatorial authority by corporations. Otherwise, no fragrance would ever tank.

PStoller said:

Wet streets actually do cause rain, in the sense that evaporation from those streets feeds atmospheric moisture and thus influences weather patterns. Of course, it takes rain to make the streets wet in the first place.

Click to expand...

Oh noooooo...this is a basic and well-known fallacy, I mentioned it so it would be easy for everyone to understand the mistake in confusing cause and effect through analogy...but you're arguing FOR the fallacy?! I don't know what to say...

PStoller said:

To my initial point, the current performance orientation of many consumers, especially young men (the “undefined fragbros”), isn’t something LVMH cooked up: it’s a phenomenon to which both houses and influencers are reactive out of necessity.

Click to expand...

Right, ok, but there would need to be some evidence backing this up?

Because your argument was that 'influencers and fragbros' have caused (important word haha!) designer brands to stop releasing the cologne/light/fresh etc flankers because 'influencers and fragbros' want beastmode fragrances. You're saying influencers have the clout to change the products that Chanel and Dior sell, with a specific focus on performance as per the wants of the 'fragbros' - going back 10+ years when this flanker trend I am talking about started, to before Jeremy Fragrance even had a youtube channel? As I said, it doesn't stand to reason. At all. So perhaps there's evidence to the contrary that influencers causing this? Youtubers certainly have some influence over e.g. Armaf or whatever the name of that clone house that produces youtuber fragrances (Navitas?) for a quick buck to the willingly-captive audience is called; this is not relevant to the much more significant trend at the top of the industry and designer houses, and it is a wild leap to suggest that whatever connection influencers have to designer houses extends any further than 'brand tell influencer to say nice things about new fragrance'. Again, since this flanker thing started well before tiktok or even youtube was a factor, and given just how small the 'fragcomm' actually is relative to other cosmetics, the argument just doesn't stack up. Because influencers are influencing the viewers on behalf of the brand/their own online presence and reputation, they are not influencing the brand in any meaningful sense. You're tripping yourself up on the influencer/influence distinction. Easily done.

Look, this is a nice thread, with lots of good replies. It doesn't need to get bogged down on one issue. But please let's not argue against basic facts in order to defend a point. I disagree with you completely, I don't think social media influencers have had a significant impact on how flankers have changed and social media is downstream of the commercial decision-making of brands rather than 'influencing' it, as you claim. I think there are other interesting causal factors that will have influenced brands in the first place, like the demographic change of perfume customers (as mentioned in the first post, the market has swayed much more Arabic and much less European) that explains the shift in performance/strength, and cultural changes as well like the decline in dress codes in workplaces (much less formal than 20yrs ago) and changes in men's grooming ('designer' stubble and dodgy beards replacing the mandatory clean shaven) that explain brands moving away from light, cologne-like versions as well. You're sticking with the influencer argument. Ok, fine. That's your prerogative, but please, don't make explain why wet streets don't cause rain. Let's just leave it there.

LP80 said:

I see no sign of more “subtle” releases. On the contrary. It must all be “beast mode”.

See me, hear me, smell me, me me…

Click to expand...

Yeah, and what's more is that all the fresh/light scents have been partitioned off in to the white-walled MFK-imitating niche market.

Which is fine, I quite like those fragrances, they have their place. But it does feel very segmented, with not much room for crossover. 'Light' fragrances now mean artificial, cleaning-product-like floral and musk scents, often unisex leaning feminine. Lighter versions of existing fragrances...I mean, off the top of my head, I can think of perhaps one or two flankers from the Le Male line that fit that, but then you counterbalance that against all the flankers YSL has released that are dark/heavy/sweet versions of Le Male as well. It's the loss of light/fresh/cologne flankers as a norm that is the real bugbear. At least having them as an option, or a possibility that a brand might release a lighter version - because there are some fragrances where darker/heavier versions make sense, but some where a lighter option would be nice. Creed Viking Cologne maybe one of the few I can think of, and that was a few years ago now and preceded the sale, so presumably the last word from the Creeds themselves before sailing off in to the sunset. I'm not holding much hope for things to change because, presumably, the real driver in all of this is money and what's being done now makes a lot more money than how things used to be. But it would be nice to have a light flanker for some fragrances in particular. Variety, spice of life etc.

slpfrsly said:

'Light' fragrances now mean artificial, cleaning-product-like floral and musk scents, often unisex leaning feminine. Lighter versions of existing fragrances...I mean, off the top of my head, I can think of perhaps one or two flankers from the Le Male line that fit that, but then you counterbalance that against all the flankers YSL has released that are dark/heavy/sweet versions of Le Male as well. It's the loss of light/fresh/cologne flankers as a norm that is the real bugbear. At least having them as an option, or a possibility that a brand might release a lighter version - because there are some fragrances where darker/heavier versions make sense, but some where a lighter option would be nice. Creed Viking Cologne maybe one of the few I can think of, and that was a few years ago now and preceded the sale, so presumably the last word from the Creeds themselves before sailing off in to the sunset. I'm not holding much hope for things to change because, presumably, the real driver in all of this is money and what's being done now makes a lot more money than how things used to be. But it would be nice to have a light flanker for some fragrances in particular. Variety, spice of life etc.

Click to expand...

I agree that as someone that appreciates traditional "eau de cologne", there is less and less of it. I loved the TF Neroli Portofino line and it appears to be over, with just a couple still in production. The "resort" fashion season has revived lighter scents for some designers.

I personally would dread a scent that was going strong after an 8-hour workday, I think I would be sick of it by then, but it seems to be a goal for a lot of fragheads.

Brian5701 said:

I agree that as someone that appreciates traditional "eau de cologne", there is less and less of it. I loved the TF Neroli Portofino line and it appears to be over, with just a couple still in production. The "resort" fashion season has revived lighter scents for some designers.

I personally would dread a scent that was going strong after an 8-hour workday, I think I would be sick of it by then, but it seems to be a goal for a lot of fragheads.

Click to expand...

I was watchiung a video on the new Oud Wood someone linked in yesterday and unless I'm mistaken Sebastian the youtuber said Neroli Portofino Forte is being re-released as NP Parfum. So even eau de colognes are getting the TRT flanker treatment!

slpfrsly said:

Oh noooooo...this is a basic and well-known fallacy, I mentioned it so it would be easy for everyone to understand the mistake in confusing cause and effect through analogy...but you're arguing FOR the fallacy?! I don't know what to say...

Click to expand...

Nor do I. The water cycle is one of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff: lather, rinse, repeat. That’s basic and well-known science. Picking any one part of the cycle as the cause is like deciding the chicken comes before the egg.

slpfrsly said:

Right, ok, but there would need to be some evidence backing this up?

Click to expand...

No more than you would need for your various assertions.

slpfrsly said:

Because your argument was that 'influencers and fragbros' have caused (important word haha!) designer brands to stop releasing the cologne/light/fresh etc flankers because 'influencers and fragbros' want beastmode fragrances.

Click to expand...

Except that’s not my argument. I offered two suggestions for why houses would turn to heavier flankers. I didn’t use the word “caused,” nor did I say the reasons I mentioned were the only two.

It’s not as if someone in Paris threw a switch a decade or so ago and said, “no more sport flankers: it’s all dense elixirs now!” Companies are still releasing sport-type flankers, just fewer of them. But they have responded to a market demand for “beast mode” fragrances.

A particularly loud and vocal contingent in the “fragosphere” talks about performance as if it’s the most (or even only) important aspect of perfumery. You seem to believe such buzz is not reflected in sales figures and is ignored by perfume houses; or, that perfume houses engineer all that buzz because, for some reason divorced from prior market demand, they want to sell beast mode instead of light flankers.

Conversely, I believe influencers and “fragbros” are part of the market ecosystem, and the market reflects that. They’re consumers with megaphones. And while fragrance companies throw product at the wall, it’s consumers who decide what sticks.

I’ll offer a third possible reason for the focus on beast-mode flankers: loudness wars. In popular music, record companies instruct mastering engineers to make records (from vinyl to digital) as loud as possible, on the theory that what’s loudest on broadcast or streaming platforms, or in clubs, will get the most attention and translate to greater sales. The same rationale could be applied to fragrance: a louder fragrance is more likely to set a trend, because it’s more likely to be perceived as one in the first place.

I don’t know that to be the case, mind you. It would just make sense. Loudness and demand for loudness both drive market conditions. It’s not simple cause and effect: it’s a cycle. Like the water cycle.

I think the collection of OG +
New OG + flankers + flankers of a flanker + “flanker” of a “flanker” that causes me the most confusion and smacks of a certain disingenuous name usurpation has gotta be Givenchy’s Gentleman line. And, if I were to be even harsher in my opinion, I’d say it it even has the egregious, throw-it-all-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks marketing campaign to boot.

It’s strange because Givenchy as a house has enough recognition and cachet that one would think they could exercise their creative and marketing chops around entirely new lines.

Anyway, I say all this because after trying the OG (1974) and then moving to the New OG/series resumption (2017) I simply accepted that they wanted to borrow on a name that, in fairness, they hadn’t further developed and left dormant for a long time. And besides, I guess they’re not the first to clip out a name from their archives.

However, after that the relational nature amongst the flankers becomes murky across the entire line to dropping off the deep end in places - from the Gentleman series to the Gentlemen Only - it’s very confusing to find one’s way around. Mind you, I suppose I should be respecting the singular vs. the plural nature of the namesakes a little more but we think we know what the marketing dept had in mind. The iris note barely tied (some of) them together, but that was about it, and really is a stretch for those who’ve gone through sampling the line.

I only say this because I surprised myself with a couple in the Gentleman line that I liked and returned to a few times (FBW still up in the air, though) but never at any point did I consider them flankers but just zeroed in on them (or tried to imagine?) as standalone releases because it was really confusing sampling through the line. However, the strangest release that illustrates how far gone they were with keeping it focused occurred with the release of Society in the Gentleman line. And now apparently an EdP Extrême. So not only was the one previously lingering note gone that could possibly tie some of it together in an altogether vetiver forward shift downward/departure, they played up the EdP name to the max … so I guess the only lane left is to release the Parfum Extrait Concentrée before the inevitable move to oud shifts into place as they squeeze every marketable, grab-bag possibility out of this line. Of course I’m likely still not giving Givenchy enough credit with how far they’re imagining they can take this albatross that might never be allowed to land.

slpfrsly said:

Flankers in the limited edition/regular release model are to my mind associated with something less desirable, lower quality. I don't think this is unfair, this is how a lot of products are positioned.

Click to expand...

I don't always have the same view. If I had came up during the era of "traditional" sport flankers (ex Santos Sport) I would still think they were equally good, just with some different nuance for those of us who are more picky.

That said, we live in a time of endless flankers, such as the many variants of Cool Water and Eternity. When I saw all the various Cool Water flankers, I immediately thought they'd be inferior for some reason.

slpfrsly said:

Which perhaps shows that, when Armani is copying Calvin Klein with multiple flankers a year, how much the brands are struggling. But against what? Niche? Clones? Or against each other and the constant churn of new new new and more more more?

Click to expand...

Designer fragrances aren't really considered luxury goods anymore, probably because these once-perceived-luxury goods are now so widely available at such affordable discounts (Amazon, discount stores, drug stores, etc). New, non-flanker designer releases are finding it harder to become a big hit because the market is oversaturated with way too many designer fragrances at relatively inexpensive prices.

I'm sure the designer brands were happy at the dual phenomenon of the stereotypical, 20-30 yr old "frag bro" who flexes male who showcases his 100 bottle cologne collection on YouTube, and the average person who has become accustomed to essentially promoting and advertising these products all across social media (FB, IG, review sites, web forums)—for free. If it's becoming the norm for the average teenager/20-something to over spend on luxury items for bragging rights on social media, and the norm for virtually every person with a smart phone to act as an unpaid street promoter, more money to be made, right?

Maybe wrong in the long run. Since everyone wants a piece of this supposedly lucrative fragrance pie, the pieces of pie are going to become thinner, and thinner, and thinner. There's only so much money even aspiring, middle-class influencers can spend. And designer brands are now having to compete with niche-brands/niche-priced brands which are now becoming household names (Tom Ford, Creed), as well as popular influencers coming out with their own fragrances.

We currently have the following, almost on equal footing:

• Niche
• Designer
• Influencer
• Drug Store (ex Stetson, Preferred Stock)
• Budget (ex Bod Spray, Goodfellow, Cremo)
• Cheap Clones ("Our Version of"/"Amaris", "Infinity", etc)

While not actually on equal footing in many ways, consider still the following examples:
Ex 1. Stetson's discontinued, drug store fragrance, the Polo-like "Sierra" going for $100 on Ebay.
Ex 2. YouTubers hyping up $25 Aventus clone, Insurrection II.

In Ex 1, fragrance connoisseurs and status seekers now attribute high value to an out-of-production, inexpensive drug store staple. They're forgoing purchasing a new bottle of Ralph Lauren's Polo at Macy's for $80, and instead spending that money in the grey market for a lower quality, quasi-clone of Polo.

In Ex 2, some people aren't necessarily viewing it as a budget purchase, but more like a life-hack to have a popular niche-like scent, while still allowing them the opportunity to spend hundreds of dollars on a 1 size too small, faded, worn out, vintage Nirvana tour t-shirt from Ebay.

slpfrsly said:

Again, the long term consequences are surely missing the fact that this damages the brand - makes it seem cheap, throwaway, because it is...

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the thread about low-income youth in Paris getting hooked on expensive niche fragrances. Forget the "low-income" aspect for a minute, and it seems like the youth market (11-35) in general is starting to view designer brand fragrances as budget fragrances, for "broke boys."

Designer fragrances being sold at discounted prices at TJ/TK Maxx and the local drug store lose that air of "exclusivity" which were typically attached to designer brands, which were once, mostly only found at higher end fashion retailers (Nordstrom's, Macys, Bloomingdales, etc).

And because of a variety of factors, some possibly contributed by all the above, designer brands have been churning out cheap, throwaway products in order to save on production costs and increase profits. Why is it that the average designer fragrance from 1989 lasts all day and even into the following morning, but a new release from the same brand in 2017 gives me 4-6 hrs at best? How is it that you can triple, quadruple the amount of new releases (via flankers) so often without it affecting the overall quality? Without spreading yourself too thin?

PStoller said:

Nor do I. The water cycle is one of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff: lather, rinse, repeat. That’s basic and well-known science. Picking any one part of the cycle as the cause is like deciding the chicken comes before the egg.

Click to expand...

You are nothing if not persistent! Alright, alright, let me help you out: wet streets do not cause rain because streets are not a causal factor for the rain (or indeed the water cycle, which is irrelevant to the logic of the statement; if in doubt, consider the freshman's best practice of starting with the definition of 'cause' and working from there). The street (wet, dry, cobbled, whatever) is incidental to whether it rains or not. Ergo, not a cause, can never be a cause, with the wetness of the street being an effect of the rain. It's a simple matter of understanding definitions, as well as the logic of cause and effect, which you're obviously not grasping - please, for your sake, trust me on this. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but you are vehemently arguing FOR or a logical fallacy, which is actually quite funny tbh but also rather silly to entertain. If you won't take my word then at least get someone else to explain it for you. Wet streets don't cause rain...

PStoller said:

No more than you would need for your various assertions.

Click to expand...

No, not quite, as I've used probability i.e. what is more likely on the basis of the facts. What's more likely given what we know: that influencers and their 'fragbros' changed the fragrance market wrt to flankers, or not. It's the latter for all the prior reasons given. Hence the less probable argument requiring evidence where the other does not: an important distinction. If you don't have any, that's fine, but it remains improbable on face value. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't mean it's dead in the water and definitely wrong. I just think you're making the common mistake of massively overstating the role of what is immediate and visible (as well as getting cause and effect back to front) and probably trying to lay blame on something you, as many of us, aren't particularly fond of in the form of influencers. In part it's a matter of object permanence, and because the influencer side of social media is so visible, the unseen aspects of digital market research and analysing user and customer behaviour (and how that all relates to hat happens in the fragrance houses themselves) get overlooked by many people despite being significantly more important.

PStoller said:

Except that’s not my argument...

Click to expand...

I think it was tbh but no worries. As with the slippage of the influencers/influence distinction, you're making a few definitional mistakes that you're probably unaware of, and it's not worth getting bogged down in anyway. You're free to your opinion and to your argument, as is everyone else.

PStoller said:

A particularly loud and vocal contingent in the “fragosphere” talks about performance...

Conversely, I believe influencers and “fragbros” are...

Click to expand...

Now, this is fascinating, in part because I have been seeing more of this 'fragbro' used derisively. There's definitely something to unpack there. However, I think it's best saved for a different thread, to save this one from going way off track.

Rabidsenses said:

I think the collection of OG +
New OG + flankers + flankers of a flanker + “flanker” of a “flanker” that causes me the most confusion and smacks of a certain disingenuous name usurpation has gotta be Givenchy’s Gentleman line. And, if I were to be even harsher in my opinion, I’d say it it even has the egregious, throw-it-all-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks marketing campaign to boot.

It’s strange because Givenchy as a house has enough recognition and cachet that one would think they could exercise their creative and marketing chops around entirely new lines.

Anyway, I say all this because after trying the OG (1974) and then moving to the New OG/series resumption (2017) I simply accepted that they wanted to borrow on a name that, in fairness, they hadn’t further developed and left dormant for a long time. And besides, I guess they’re not the first to clip out a name from their archives.

However, after that the relational nature amongst the flankers becomes murky across the entire line to dropping off the deep end in places - from the Gentleman series to the Gentlemen Only - it’s very confusing to find one’s way around. Mind you, I suppose I should be respecting the singular vs. the plural nature of the namesakes a little more but we think we know what the marketing dept had in mind. The iris note barely tied (some of) them together, but that was about it, and really is a stretch for those who’ve gone through sampling the line.

I only say this because I surprised myself with a couple in the Gentleman line that I liked and returned to a few times (FBW still up in the air, though) but never at any point did I consider them flankers but just zeroed in on them (or tried to imagine?) as standalone releases because it was really confusing sampling through the line. However, the strangest release that illustrates how far gone they were with keeping it focused occurred with the release of Society in the Gentleman line. And now apparently an EdP Extrême. So not only was the one previously lingering note gone that could possibly tie some of it together in an altogether vetiver forward shift downward/departure, they played up the EdP name to the max … so I guess the only lane left is to release the Parfum Extrait Concentrée before the inevitable move to oud shifts into place as they squeeze every marketable, grab-bag possibility out of this line. Of course I’m likely still not giving Givenchy enough credit with how far they’re imagining they can take this albatross that might never be allowed to land.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I haven't really paid attention to Givenchy and its Gentlemen flankers. I suspect the answer to why Givenchy might be tarnishing its reputation can be found in who owns them? If they're just another brand on the roster then it would make sense why the Gentleman line is being squeezed until the pips squeak. A lot of the blame for many of the ills with rapid, generic flanker releases probably lies with the business structure. If a brand is just another brand, and their best selling fragrance just another fragrance, then why not milk it for all its worth? It's not hard to see why niche perfumery gains more interest from enthusiasts.

I wonder if for something like Gentleman - a scent that was released 50 years ago - it makes sense to have a few updates and flankers are a nice way of doing this. Tastes change, and customers age, and so I suppose a new Gentleman flanker every few years to gift a father or grandfather wouldn't be unwelcome. It's the haphazard approach, which you allude to, where nothing can be guaranteed in terms of scent, closeness to the original, suitability for the wearer of the original, and so on that limits interest and makes it mildly infuriating when it comes to actually knowing what to buy. If we just accept that all of us on here are outliers given how much we know and the time we spend discussing fragrances, consider the average customer, and how confusing the whole experience would be for them. Messy.

Rabidsenses said:

However, after that the relational nature amongst the flankers becomes murky across the entire line to dropping off the deep end in places - from the Gentleman series to the Gentlemen Only - it’s very confusing to find one’s way around. Mind you, I suppose I should be respecting the singular vs. the plural nature of the namesakes a little more but we think we know what the marketing dept had in mind. The iris note barely tied (some of) them together, but that was about it, and really is a stretch for those who’ve gone through sampling the line.

Click to expand...

I agree, you have to practically be a scientist to decipher or choose among the Givenchy Gentleman and Gentlemen Only offerings.

slpfrsly said:

I was watchiung a video on the new Oud Wood someone linked in yesterday and unless I'm mistaken Sebastian the youtuber said Neroli Portofino Forte is being re-released as NP Parfum. So even eau de colognes are getting the TRT flanker treatment!

Click to expand...

I hope NP Parfum is better than Forte. I didn't think it was that "Forte" really. In spite of all the TF bashing going on lately, I support revisiting his old scents. Azure Lime is pretty good, and there are some really great ones that could be tweaked and re-released. Lavender Palm I think would be a hit today.

Hugh V. said:

I don't always have the same view. If I had came up during the era of "traditional" sport flankers (ex Santos Sport) I would still think they were equally good, just with some different nuance for those of us who are more picky.

That said, we live in a time of endless flankers, such as the many variants of Cool Water and Eternity. When I saw all the various Cool Water flankers, I immediately thought they'd be inferior for some reason.

Click to expand...

I'm mainly thinking about other special edition and limited run versions of products and in my mind/memory they seem to be linked to poundshops (dollar store equivalent) and bargain basements. I think there's a budget chain store in Britain at the moment, can't remember its name, but I went in a few months ago and loads of the products are brand names like Dove or Nivea but they're often different (inferior) to what you'd get in a pharmacy. Smaller quantities, different scent to the deodorant, packaging feels different. I think they might be export products, or products that are usually exported, or ssomething like that. I'm struggling to articulate it but there's this association with 'special edition' when it comes to relatively inexpensive products like affordable fragrances that just screams tacky. In particular because - and this is where it relates to fragrance - they're using the quality and recognition of the original to sell a lower quality novelty product. I think it's fair to say that that is true of many of these flankers, especially the yearly releases (less relevant to some brands). Cool Water and Eternity are the kind I'm thinking of, yes. What's become of Davidoff and CK as brands? They've tumbled down to the cheapie section, whether they deserve to or not. Which is why I think it's a strange route to go down for the older fashion houses. Maybe I am not reflective of the wider attitude, though, and abundance and novelty will be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

Hugh V. said:

Designer fragrances aren't really considered luxury goods anymore, probably because these once-perceived-luxury goods are now so widely available at such affordable discounts (Amazon, discount stores, drug stores, etc). New, non-flanker designer releases are finding it harder to become a big hit because the market is oversaturated with way too many designer fragrances at relatively inexpensive prices.

I'm sure the designer brands were happy at the dual phenomenon of the stereotypical, 20-30 yr old "frag bro" who flexes his 100 bottle cologne collection on YouTube, and the average person who has become accustomed to essentially promoting and advertising these products all across their social media (FB, IG, review sites, web forums)—for free. If it's becoming the norm for the average teenager/20-something to over spend on luxury items for bragging rights on social media, and the norm for virtually every person with a smart phone to act as an unpaid street promoter, more money to be made, right?

Maybe wrong in the long run. Since everyone wants a piece of this supposedly lucrative fragrance pie, the pieces of pie are going to become thinner, and thinner, and thinner. There's only so much money even aspiring, middle-class influencers can spend. And designer brands are now having to compete with niche-brands/niche-priced brands which are now becoming household names (Tom Ford, Creed), as well as popular influencers coming out with their own fragrances.

Click to expand...

Yes, that much seems true. Having loads of bottles instead of one or perhaps a few good fragrances is the way people are encouraged to 'get in' to fragrance. The internet does allow this kind of extreme behaviour to germinate in newcomers. I suppose I haven't really considered what it's like to be <20 years old, for example. Fragrances like 1 Million or The One aren't going to smell current to you or your peers. You want something that's yours, your generation, that's in fashion - but new fragrances are shit haha, which means the constant search for something good is going to include trying flankers instead of trusting that the fragrance advertised on TV is a reliable banger.

Hugh V. said:

We currently have the following, almost on equal footing:

• Niche
• Designer
• Influencer
• Drug Store (ex Stetson, Preferred Stock)
• Budget (ex Bod Spray, Goodfellow, Cremo)
• Cheap Clones ("Our Version of"/"Amaris", "Infinity", etc)

While not actually on equal footing in many ways, consider still the following examples:
Ex 1. Stetson's discontinued, drug store fragrance, the Polo-like "Sierra" going for $100 on Ebay.
Ex 2. YouTubers hyping up $25 Aventus clone, Insurrection II.
In Ex 1, fragrance connoisseurs and status seekers now attribute high value to an out-of-production, inexpensive drug store staple. They're forgoing purchasing a new bottle of Ralph Lauren's Polo at Macy's for $80, and instead spending their money in the grey market.

In Ex 2, some people aren't necessarily viewing it as a budget purchase, but more like a life-hack to have a popular niche-like scent, while still allowing them the opportunity to spend hundreds of dollars on a 1 size too small, faded, worn out, vintage Nirvana tour t-shirt from Ebay.

Click to expand...

A good breakdown of the way things stand. I sometimes think it's interesting how flankers - however popular when in production - will, through scarcity, become sought after and expensive on the second hand market when out of production. If, say, you were a brand and wanted to cultivate your brand image in response to this, you might, for instance, release a number of short-lived releases that will become incredibly expensive when sold on ebay. This may have a knock on effect to what people are willing to pay for your fragrances when they are still in production. Possibly. If your brand rhymes with Fom Tord, fo example, you might even periodically re-release these fragrances as temporary releases 'from the vault' once the second hand sales have shot up. I don't think this is really what's happening, but it's interesting to consider, and something much more 'gameable' for small niche and artisanal perfumers who I suspect may well have done something exactly like this. Especially if they sell fragrances made with bits of real deer.

Hugh V. said:

This reminds me of the thread about low-income youth in Paris getting hooked on expensive niche fragrances. Forget the "low-income" aspect for a minute, and it seems like the youth market (11-35) in general is starting to view designer brand fragrances as budget fragrances, for "broke boys."

Designer fragrances being sold at discounted prices at TJ/TK Maxx and the local drug store lose that air of "exclusivity" which were typically attached to designer brands, which were once, mostly only found at higher end fashion retailers (Nordstrom's, Macys, Bloomingdales, etc).

And because of a variety of factors, some possibly contributed by all the above, designer brands have been churning out cheap, throwaway products in order to save on production costs and increase profits. Why is it that the average designer fragrance from 1989 lasts all day and even into the following morning, but a new release from the same brand in 2017 gives me 4-6 hrs at best? How is it that you can triple, quadruple the amount of new releases (via flankers) so often without it affecting the overall quality? Without spreading yourself too thin?

Click to expand...

Yeah, again, I think the question of who these flankers are aimed at is interesting. I think there's at least a few different demographics depending on the brand and flanker 'type'. But I suspect none of them are succeeding in drawing the attention away from LV or similar brands. These are what people want because they are deemed to be the best. This is always going to be the main consideration for young men, they want what works, they don't want to waste time thinking or talking about it: what performs well, what smells great, what's expensive etc. It's hard to mitigate this, and it's more evidence for how badly the established houses are struggling to compete with the niche and boutique upstarts (other than LV who have the benefit of owning nearly everyone else).

I think you're correct here. It is mostly an act of desperation. They cannot sit on their haunches and just wait for X amount of bottles of their 20+ year old scent to continue flying off the shelves. And if they cannot compete with the cutting edge, against the Creeds and Rojas and high end Guccis and LVs, then they're in a pickle. Which would make the flanker splurge a decision made from weakness rather than strength, and tied in to the point made by another poster about shelf space, yeah, it's really fleshing out the picture and gives a fuller perspective of why this is happening and how it's come about due to the challenge designers face in remaining 'relevant' in the modern market. Good stuff.