|If you can't afford a celebrity|
to sell your scent, you may end
up like this ...
Rebecca Tilbury, noting that US socialite and personality Kim Kardashian has just launched a scent too, wonders what this all means for traditional perfume brands. Presumably they survive by making deals with celebrities and revamping their own image, she muses. This could be fun, says the Kat. If sales of Chanel No.5 are in need of a boost and the latest Beckham baby (Harper Seven) becomes even more of a celebrity than she is at present, might we see Chanel No.7?
More seriously, the IPKat has been wondering about transferability, brand image and product ethos. Endorsement of cars, clothing, cosmetics, sports products, foodstuffs and other commodities is not new and there is little damage done to a product -- and there is often much to gain -- when a tired, old endorsement is replaced by a fresh, bright one. But is there something more personal about scent? If, for example, sales of a celebrity scent were hit by the endorser's fall from grace (Tiger Woods might be a case in point), would the transfer of that scent to another celebrity be regarded as good business policy or as a sort of fraud on the consumer who would be reluctant to purchase the golfer's old smell?
Merpel adds, now that 'product displacement' has hit the headlines with the reported offer of Abercrombie & Fitch to pay Jersey Shore reality show participants not to wear its products, might we also see former or fallen celebrities being paid not to use a fragrance with which the brand owner does not want them to be associated.