"Who are you wearing?": does the designer brand still matter in the era of homogeneity?

MacSuibhne said:

What is going on in here? Yall are wild lol.

I've never had anyone ask we what brand i'm wearing. Seems kind of dead to me. Not sure if that's actually a good thing for good perfurmes getting made though.

Click to expand...

We get continuing education credits for participation in this thread.

Mr. Spritz said:

Guerlain being 'caught in the middle' is precisely why I like them and favor them. When they release orientals, or references to newly popular styles, they filter them through their own standards of wearability, conservativism and quality. I've smelled Guerlains that I didn't like, but I have never smelled one that made me think they were screwing up. Their pricing is also more reasonable, in my opinion, and don't seem to trade on hype as much. Similar thing with aquatics - this whole trend of watery marine fresh men's fragrances, and the closest Guerlain ever came to it is Guerlain PH EDP. That and the fact that they still make old classic fragrances available is why I always try and recommend Guerlain.

Incidentally, I follow Wasser on Instagram and his job looks incredibly fun, he really does a good job creating the impression of a guy traveling the world like Tintin in search of aroma.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. The squeeze is more commercial than anything else. If designers are taking on the costs of research and innovation, and other brands are swiftly clipping their profits by creating something similar, it's not sustainable. If you're trying to crack a new market as well, e.g. China, desirability and brand perception is key. What you make now is more important than what you used to make. So, regardless of how good Guerlain has been, it's novelty that everyone is chasing. And I have to say, some of Guerlain's recent fragrances have been shocking. Cuir Intense is an abomination.

Mr. Spritz said:

We get continuing education credits for participation in this thread.

Click to expand...

Some would be in a deficit...

slpfrsly said:

Off topic, although the thread has well and truly gone off the rails by now haha, but I do think the answer to this is twofold. Firstly, it's just catering to hunger/taste, and tapping in to an already zapped sensory feedback loop that fast food/processed food has its hooks in. The second is women's tastes are now totally dominant: women generally love sweet things, men want to smell good for women, hence men end up wearing gourmands as the sexy/date/club scent.

If the foody fragrances continue down the savoury route i.e. people start wearing perfumes with prominent notes of carrot, potato, pita bread etc en masse then I will have to come up witth another explanation haha...

Click to expand...

Sign me up for a garlic tahini sauce chicken kebab with raw onions fragrance because people already smell like that on my bus commute home without the need for perfume.

Really interesting Thread - enjoying the ongoing discussion. So, 'brand loyalty' and brand identity seem to be the theme . . .

I have lived in HK for 40+ years and spend a lot of time in Japan and in terms of clothes since the late '80s it has been Miyake, Yohji, Comme for me and a few one-offs from other local brands there. Funnily enough I immediately bonded with Yohji Homme (now gone!) and a handful of the CdG's - notably Kyoto & Avignon. Hated the Issey calone bomb with a passion!

My first thoughts on reading earlier posts were that Cartier, with Mathilde Laurent, and Hermes, particularly the Hermessences under JCE's reign are both standouts in terms of having a distinct identity in that I would automatically try any new offerings - Hermes make it easy with their 4 in a Box 15ml offerings. Dior & Chanel also both good, their respective 'Privé / Exclusifs' type lines altho both can be a bit hit or miss. I do think that over the last 10 years these two and many others who did once have some sort of identity or quality have succumbed to trends, trying to be everything to anyone sort of thing.

I recently picked up Celine's Reptile and may grab Black Tie - they seem nice but the whole line, like LV, BV etc. (the recent Fendi's anyone?) come off like a lot of these new boardroom niche companies launching with 10 or so crowd pleasers and maybe the odd interesting more original thing hidden amongst them.

I'm not really out there buying stuff or even following what's what these days so no informed comment to offer - just thoughts based on the last 20 years and my own collection which is predominantly made of lotsa Guerlains (new stuff hit and miss from what I've seen altho good on them for trying to keep the classics in the line despite IFRA's worst efforts) and the older L'Artisans, Lutens, Malles, Nicolais, Veros and others - By Kilian & MFK both had a few greats early on!

We live in hope, of course, you never know when something really original will pop up . . . for now the only purchases I can see myself making are not perfumes but the odd piece or 3 when I visit the Yohji flagship in Omotesando . . .

To me, brands are still relevant today, but only a few. I view perfumes not only as something pleasant to smell, but also as a funktional piece of fashion, that cherry on top to finish your look, and this is exactly where Brand identity or signature is relevant.

I find signature to not be a single note or an accord as guerlinade or anything else, but overall feel to the collection.

Chanel has its own style and identity - an old money type of feel of their Exclusif line is very distinct to me. Although i dont like everything - collection is quite timeless, even coromandel (to speak about gourmand point mentioned by many above) is made in a way that its both tasty and absolutely distinguished. Chanel is best worn with classy stuff and to a black tie events imo.

Hermes has its own style. Perfumes in watercolor. regardless what notes they play with - result is always the same. Best fitted with biz casual or understated looks. Most inofensive line i know of that smells good and Nagel is doing fine enough job. Newer was Ellena starstruck.

Le labo - i dislike it completely and utterly, but they have their signature. They embody the current trend of synthetic, genderless, hippie, modern, minimalist in a way genre of sterile plastic. I always link their fragrances to movies that depict future like in Equlibrium or the likes. Brave new world in a way.

Armani Prive was also good - to me they brough some darkness and velvety feel to fragrance world. I dont know why i still dont have a single bottle of theirs, but they also have a signature that is perfect for classy modern lounges. Well made line

Newer found anything with Dior, YSL and other big brands. For some reason they are just all over the place and dior especially - very wattery incohesive mess that never sparked any emotion, appart of oud Ispahan, but even that one - only start was good. Drydown is unfortunately a miss because of aromachems.

All that is relevant for now though. These brands and collections are what i would recommend people to try, and usually with success to my friends, when they look for a good fragrance. I wouldnt recommend anyone to dive into the ocean of all regular releases of same-ness, which has been identified through this thread.

Future - i think that in the future we will have the opportunity of a custom made fragrances based on the ones we know and love, so brands wont be relevant at all. With current machine learning and AI tests that are conducted - i assume that we will be able to input the " prompt " as into Chat GPT with our expectations - and we will have custom made fragrance to go.

This may solve or intensify the "problem" of gourmands and foodie frags though (i dont personally have issue with these fragrances as long as they are not all sugar. mainly id love to see more of variations on fruit themes (cold moist blueberries of some sorts) and almost solinote flowers like L'eau by tauer, which i havent found much to date, and, to my knowledge, what was not produced in the past). I do not see us returning back to things like big chypres of yesteryears or ubermasculine fragrances. If we will - those will be majorly modernized to realities of the future.

The more I think about it, I am quite sure brand identity and differentiation in the fragrance department is stronger than ever, so in that sense it still matters.

Whether that matters to the average consumer, who knows? But I suspect it is the same story as ever. Did the woman who wore Opium instead of No. 5 do it because she indentified with YSL over Chanel or because she liked the smell better?

There were relatively so few pillar designer releases back then I don't think it mattered to the average consumer which brand, it just mattered that it's a brand and the sense of luxury/quality associated with that. There may be a lot of sameness now in mass releases, but again that was always true. A lot of designers released aquatic genderless perfumes in the 90, a lot of mossy powerhouses in the 80s etc, trends and shifting tastes have always trumped brands. There's just a lot more of everything now, a lot more sameness and a lot more uniqueness.

When we complain of everything being the same nowadays, I think what we are really witnessing is a shift into a new style we don't like. Congratulations, it means you're old now.

A lot of vintage fragrances all smell the same to me, so this phenomenon can go both forwards and backwards in time.

Now, an at least somewhat educated consumer can generally know what to expect in terms of style when trying a Louis Vuitton vs. Chanel vs. Celine fragrance. The rise of "exclusive" lines allows brands to fully flesh out a brand identity over a whole collection of fragrances rather than one every 5-10 years. Afterall, what really is the connection between Chanel No.5, Antaeus, and Bleu? If anything there was likely much less coherence from release to release because they were so few and far between.

@PStoller is quite right and on topic to bring his astute historical knowledge to the conversation to demonstrate that now, as in the past, for the most part the perfume identity was tied to the perfumer or creative director at the time more than a coherent brand narrative.

What is a Gucci fragrance for example? Do we associate it with Tom Ford's bold style? Or Michele's baroque eclectic alchemist garden line? Or what will come from Sabato's return to restraint? Fragrances pre Tom Ford are fairly obscure now, but did those do a better job of representing what is "Gucci" than what we have now? I don't think so.

Depending on your generation you might associate Hermes with Roudnitska's Eau d'Hermes, or Roucel's musky floral 24 Faubourg, or Ellena's cool mineral Terre, or Nagel's steamy modernist green H24. None of these have much in common except maybe an Hermes attitude of restraint and modernity. A brand signature that is just as strong now as it ever was.

If anything, legacy brands like Hermes and Chanel increasingly clearly define their identity as it becomes currency in a crowded market while the passage of time gives them more history to draw from.

Now, whether all this "matters" to address the thread title is up to the individual. If "matters" means can you tell the brands apart, then absolutely and probably more so than ever. If we are talking what matters to the average fragrance shopper, I'm sure it varies wildly depending on who you ask.

cheapimitation said:

If anything, legacy brands like Hermes and Chanel increasingly clearly define their identity as it becomes currency in a crowded market while the passage of time gives them more history to draw from.

Click to expand...

The past is so important. It comes in and out of fashion, but when it is in fashion, nothing compares to a legacy. Everything can be created except for old things.

It is expensive to preserve the past, but these resources cannot be imitated. I used to work in architectural preservation, and I was always struck with how much money was spent preserving buildings with very little functionality. When I go to other parts of the country with nothing built before 1850 I remember.

LVMH may look at Guerlain like a fussy outdated liability at times, but maybe one day the classics come back into fashion. I was expecting the current generation to get into the old stuff but alas the young women I know aren't interested. Maybe their sons or daughters.

Mr. Spritz said:

The past is so important. It comes in and out of fashion, but when it is in fashion, nothing compares to a legacy. Everything can be created except for old things.

It is expensive to preserve the past, but these resources cannot be imitated. I used to work in architectural preservation, and I was always struck with how much money was spent preserving buildings with very little functionality. When I go to other parts of the country with nothing built before 1850 I remember.

LVMH may look at Guerlain like a fussy outdated liability at times, but maybe one day the classics come back into fashion. I was expecting the current generation to get into the old stuff but alas the young women I know aren't interested. Maybe their sons or daughters.

Click to expand...

For brands, I think this is a bit more nuanced than keeping and repairing physical objects, ie. keeping old perfumes and their formulas. Another perspective is to look at actions or traditions under the lens of preservation, not just physical objects or buildings. A brand is after all not a physical object.

Japan doesn't have a lot of preserved buildings from ancient times like Europe or the Middle East, but there are japanese companies and organizations that are preserving traditions through actions that are passed down for 500 years. The Tsuen Tea company has producing tea since 1160. But it's not the same tea today as it was back then. If a brand is about making excellent fragrances, an important part of that business is naturally going to be to evolve with the times, if not the brand will die or change into a museum. Actions that depend on the people performing them and the preferences of the wearer through a certain perspective, with certain ways of acting, in an organization can also be preserved.

LVMH has made exploiting the balancing act between tradition and evolution with current demand their bread and butter. The history of Guerlain is an asset without which the brand would likely be of no value to LVMH. That is why we got another iteration of vetiver and habit rouge this year instead of Guerlain Homme sport or Homme Bleu.

baklavaRuzh said:

LVMH has made exploiting the balancing act between tradition and evolution with current demand their bread and butter. The history of Guerlain is an asset without which the brand would likely be of no value to LVMH. That is why we got another iteration of vetiver and habit rouge this year instead of Guerlain Homme sport or Homme Bleu.

Click to expand...

Guerlain may not have released Homme Bleu just yet, but l’Homme Idéal Sport was issued in 2017—one of eight flankers to the 2014 original thus far.

Yes, Guerlain is keeping its history alive with its Légendaires series and modern flankers of a few golden oldies. But, like other houses, it’s stepped up the release cycle precipitously. Since LVMH took over 30 years ago, Guerlain has issued roughly double the number of fragrance as in the prior 170 years combined.

It’s debatable whether these hundreds of newer releases carry Guerlain’s DNA: those I’ve tried (which, I grant you, are hardly all of them) haven’t so much as hinted at Guerlinade. So, Les Légendaires aside, is the house’s history important to LVMH as a recognizable if updated olfactory signature, or only as marketing material? Is there something about all those Aqua Allegorias that feels like kinship with Shalimar, Mitsouko, and Vol de Nuit?

I’m not saying Guerlain has made no good fragrances under LVMH. I just don’t see buying them because they’re Guerlain.

PStoller said:

Guerlain may not have released Homme Bleu just yet, but l’Homme Idéal Sport was issued in 2017—one of eight flankers to the 2014 original thus far.

Yes, Guerlain is keeping its history alive with its Légendaires series and modern flankers of a few golden oldies. But, like other houses, it’s stepped up the release cycle precipitously. Since LVMH took over 30 years ago, Guerlain has issued roughly double the number of fragrance as in the prior 170 years combined.

It’s debatable whether these hundreds of newer releases carry Guerlain’s DNA: those I’ve tried (which, I grant you, are hardly all of them) haven’t so much as hinted at Guerlinade. So, Les Légendaires aside, is the house’s history important to LVMH as a recognizable if updated olfactory signature, or only as marketing material? Is there something about all those Aqua Allegorias that feels like kinship with Shalimar, Mitsouko, and Vol de Nuit?

I’m not saying Guerlain has made no good fragrances under LVMH. I just don’t see buying them because they’re Guerlain.

Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is really that the metaphysical characteristics of the brands are not tied to specific mixes of ingredients being put up for sale to the masses (you can smell the originals in the osmotheque or order your personal composition with Guerlain too). The Guerlinade wasn't there from the beginning either.

Rather, Guerlain is being kept alive through the Aqua Allegoria line as well as the legendaires and other lines. The best sellers from these lines will be put into a a&m or legendaires at some point.

The level of cohesion isn't that relevant, except an expectation of a certain quality of the overall product in the minds of the buyerz, not necessarily specifically or objectively the quality of the perfume ingredients.

This is just another way to look at it.

baklavaRuzh said:

The point I was trying to make is really that the metaphysical characteristics of the brands are not tied to specific mixes of ingredients being put up for sale to the masses (you can smell the originals in the osmotheque or order your personal composition with Guerlain too). The Guerlinade wasn't there from the beginning either.

Rather, Guerlain is being kept alive through the Aqua Allegoria line as well as the legendaires and other lines. The best sellers from the will be put into a a&m or legendaires at some point.

The level of cohesion isn't that relevant, except an expectation of a certain quality of the overall product in the minds of the buyerz, not necessarily specifically or objectively the quality of the perfume ingredients.

This is just another way to look at it.

Click to expand...

It works, for me. I'm an enthusiast, and I'm overwhelmed by all the new releases and new brands, so I'm inclined, rightly or wrongly, to believe I'm more likely to be satisfied with a brand that has been doing it a while, as opposed to all the new ones. So, I lean towards Guerlain.

As a bonus, although there may not be something identifiable that they always do with a fragrance, I do feel as if they avoid doing things I hate. I've never smelled a super synthetic aquatic Guerlain. The Homme Ideal are sweet but not nearly as sweet as the trendy stuff made for young guys. I've also yet to smell one which is too dense to be wearable; even their old classics are pretty moderate.

Having said that, if a brand has been making quality for say thirty years, I will see them the same way. So I see brands like Lutens, Nicolai and so on the same way, at least until they got scooped up by private equity.

baklavaRuzh said:

The level of cohesion isn't that relevant, except an expectation of a certain quality of the overall product in the minds of the buyers, not necessarily specifically or objectively the quality of the perfume ingredients.

This is just another way to look at it.

Click to expand...

It’s a fair perspective. I’m questioning whether there still is that “expectation of a certain quality,” and, if so, whether that expectation is met, but people are bound to feel differently about that. Of course, it needn’t be Guerlinade; it’s a matter of “je ne sais quoi.” Perhaps you’re experiencing more of that in modern Guerlains than I. If so, mazel tov.

For someone with strong numbers of Hermes, Chanel, Serge Lutens, Caron, L'Artisan, Mona Di Orio, Mugler - Does the designer brand still matter? Yes, it absolutely does.

The devil is in the details. In the time of constant product noise and never ending newness, and large conglomerates at each others' (and our) throats for profit - one needs enough time to acquire knowledge about brand identities, in our example, in fragrances. Sniff enough Chanel and you will recognise Chanel base, same with Guerlain, vintage Caron, original Mona, Ellena's hand in Hermes, etc. Goutal and Jo Malone used to be recognisable, too. Now Jo Malone is just another something new and indistinguishable with trendy notes. I am still sulking for discontinuation of Vintage Gardenia...

Guerlain has a strong drive to get back to the roots and "re-print" its powerhouse fragrances. I bought new Liu in Prague a year ago - it's undeniably Guerlain. After discussing with a friend Comete by Chanel, she said - recognisable Chanel.

Modern consumerism is about owning everything, everywhere all at once, it leaves no time for brand loyalty.

Now, on the subject of homogeneity. I use beauty products and can observe same trends in makeup - brand names become indistinguishable with same font style/size, almost identical LONG product names (done in mind for YouTube review search), everyone is duping everything - marketing strategy for a) to entice buying multiple products and comparing, b) noise to confuse those less versed in makeup, c) maximise profits using known good formulas. It all became annoyingly indistinguishable. Finding the right product in the sea of sameness became a proverbial search for a pearl.