recently, i shared some thoughts here i had about a product that i had purchased, and did not expect to subsequently find out from the owner that the scent was actually a duplicate of an established brand and marketed under the exact same name.
to me, oftentimes what makes a perfume special is the creative mind and effort of the nose behind it. although the nature of notes disclosure in perfumes certainly lends assistance to those who seek to 'reverse-engineer' a blend, it's intrinsically difficult for me to completely resonate with a brand that sells duplicates under the same name as the original.
proponents of duplicates would claim that sometimes the price for the original can be prohibitively high in comparison, or that it's a free creative market and that anyone can create their own blends with the same or similar notes.
sure, no one can have a monopoly over a particular scent or combination of notes, and certainly the varying proportions and specific ingredients used can lead to a whole spectrum of different perfume outcomes even from the same notes. and i totally get it, luxury perfumes can run into the hundreds of dollars even for a single bottle.
but i think the part that rankles me most about a particular subset of duplicates is the use of the same name and brand to sell the duplicate, going beyond copying to add a piggybacking of a sort on the established quality and goodwill of the original.
i'm disturbed that there are ongoing trends claiming "you don't wear the bottle", seeking to divorce the perfume as a content from the creator and brand behind it.
i agree with the clarion call but not for the reasons they claim - in writing about lesser-known indie fragrances from niche brands, i find that people sometimes are initially interested about what i'm wearing and then lose that interest when they hear that the scent is not in fact from one of the more 'established' or popular perfumeries. i do believe that scent is something to be enjoyed and that we cannot judge it by its bottle or brand alone.
however, the work of duplicates here under the aegis of this trend - to claim that because one does not wear the bottle, it's acceptable and even encouraged to get a duplicate made by a third party under the same name instead of buying the original - is an attempt to legitimise a level of copying (dare i say counterfeiting?) that is troubling for creators.
as a content creator myself (albeit a very small one), i personally believe that the sincerest form of flattery isn't imitation but inspiration. true respect for original content is shown when it's not merely copied as-is, and great original content is naturally a catalyst for new ideas and creativity.
honestly, i have far fewer qualms about scents that claim to be 'inspired by' a more well-known perfume, taking a core favourite and adding the perfumer's own interpretation of it to create something that's still unique and a bit more further removed.
and i don't agree with the approach of brands that buy duplicates and then merely repackage or rebrand them under their own house style without mentioning the original, but i consider this a less egregious issue for the main reason that a rebranded duplicate doesn't take advantage of the goodwill of the original.
==
this post is of my personal thoughts and i didn’t receive any incentives for writing this. as always, all opinions remain my own.
all information correct at time of publishing.
Comments
Post a Comment