Stewardship and Social Responsibility

“Scent marketing, especially at the scale proposed by Brumfiled [sic], clearly intrudes into basic human rights issues. Scent marketers are deliberately designing and releasing substances into the air that target and affect our brains, without our express permission, without a medical license, and without proving the safety of the products with independent testing and government regulation. How is this different from someone slipping drugs into drinks without permission?”
–from The Canary Report, January 11, 2009

P.T. Barnum is alleged to have said, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name right,” so it appears I lose on both scores with The Canary Report, which managed to both liken me to a drug-pushing-mickey-slipping-date-rapist AND misspell my name. But that’s beside the point.

With the booming scent marketing industry going nowhere but up, in an otherwise sagging economy which has record numbers of retailers turning to alternative methods of merchandising to boost sales, so increases public concern about the potential for misuse or abuse of this powerful marketing tool. Groups such as The Canary Report and Fragrance Fighters have launched web sites to express their alarm at “this trend in consumer manipulation.” Author Martin Howard ranked such “In-Store Sensory Manipulation” at #3 on his 2008 list of the “10 Disturbing Trends in Subliminal Advertising,” warning his readers, “One study into use of airborne aromas, pumped into a Canadian mall, resulted in an increase of over $50 per customer that week.”

Chapter 9 of my book Whiff!, Stewardship and Social Responsibility, deals extensively with this issue. For the benefit of those who have not read the book, I would like to address the concerns of the scent-sitive among us in this forum and, hopefully, offer some reassurance.

Will the increasing use of scent as a marketing, branding, and signaling tool prove a reason for concern? Will we end up with an environmental cacophony of aromas, much like the noise pollution
that we have today? The answer is that it is up to those of us in the industry to use these products responsibly. Certainly, the use of low quality, high concentrations of fragrances could make for a less-than-desirable malodorous way of life. But there is a reason this outcome is highly unlikely to come to pass. If scents were being strategically formulated to create positive images of the companies that employ them, it would prove deleterious for these organizations to abuse us with aromas and displease us. Emitting only pleasing scents in very low concentrations is the only viable solution that will prevent a discordant mix of scents from wafting through the air.

The truth is that we are already awash daily in aromas, and for the most part we ignore them while subconsciously registering them as good or bad. As I have consistently asserted, everything smells, from your local convenience store, to the hotel room you stayed in on your last business trip, to your mother-in-law. Nothing is devoid of scent. Therefore the goal of marketing professionals from this point forward should be to take control of this communication instrument in order to present their brands and products in a more strategic manner—without offense. We need to emulate the role that perfumes have always played in our lives: to substantiate our personal image and to produce a strategic impact on those we encounter. The goal of a brand or service in displaying its scented image should be like a beautiful woman who uses fragrance to speak to her admirers. A little dab here, a little there, not too much, just enough to make the point. There will always be those who abuse the medium, overestimating the dosage and resulting in an image more like an under-dressed harlot strolling the shadows of rue St. Denis. Scent marketers must avoid this mistake at all costs. Less is more. Choose quality over quantity. Conservatism is the rule.

A scented credit card should not permeate the purse, just as aromatic lingerie should not drench the dresser drawer. This is why the technology of microencapsulation is pure genius. It can release
scent upon touch and otherwise holds the fragrance in bondage until the user inquires. Just as we do not smell a person until we enter his personal space (unless his hygiene is in question) scented products should not waft their aromas into our personal space unless, by lifting them to our noses, we offer them a gracious invitation. They should not confront or attack us. This is an intimate form of communication. And in intimacy, an aroma must persuade the user, and infuse the senses only when bid.

The same concept should be used for scented spaces. A retail store is a company’s personalized space. It is the body on which the company dabs its seductive perfume. The essence should be inviting and alluring, enticing the customer to become the pursuer. It should beckon the visitor into its space without being an affront to the senses. The scent can create its impression at or even below the detection threshold of the customer. These are the subtle nuances in the art of delivering scent. It is no less complicated than the art of seduction, and neither endeavor should be taken lightly—for obvious reasons. If these measures are ignored, then the process can backfire. Due to scent’s capabilities to make an imprint upon the consumer’s emotions, a poorly executed scent campaign can result in a negative emotional response, and an ultimate distaste for the product or service that the scent was advertising.

Should we tiptoe around and not use scent for fear of offending? If we can grasp the bigger picture, it behooves us to take our destiny into our own hands, employing a strategic scent in lieu of some enigmatic odor or the lingering smell of stale, manufactured air. As our customers undoubtedly will be judging us on first impressions, we should go to great lengths to make those impressions positive.

Many smells that we encounter throughout the day are undesirable, yet unavoidable: bodily smells from flatulence, sweat, and poor hygiene; the odors of dogs, cats, discarded trash, un-mopped floors, spoiled food, and a host of other redolent items greet us continuously during each waking hour. What do we do when we encounter these smells? We hold our breath and move on when we can, or wait for the air to clear when we can’t. This is the way man has dealt with aromas since the beginning of time. If a smell offends him, he moves along. However, if he cannot escape a smell, the olfactory system adapts so that the odor is no longer registered. This is why a feline-loving homeowner cannot smell the strong odor of cat urine, while a new visitor gags at the stench.

We recently encountered an email inquiry from a woman who wrote, “As someone with severe chemical sensitivities and…stays often in hotels, I am curious how you advise your clients in the hospitality industry – where scenting lobbies is all the rage…There are very few scents that I can tolerate without getting ill.” We responded to this woman in a tactful and respectful manner, explaining that in actuality, she was bombarded by smells throughout each day, and that it only seemed that there were very few scents that she could tolerate without getting ill. Given the fact that we humans can identify around 10,000 smells, and that we would be at a loss without our ability to smell them, it only seems like we have a low tolerance. We cited the extremely low ratio of complaints in the scent marketing industry. And we explained to her that we felt that it was the duty of hoteliers to effectively manage the smell of their environments in lieu of allowing less pleasant smells to permeate their lobbies as well as their guestrooms.

There are indeed some people who react negatively to certain scents, for whatever reason. It is our duty to know the science and potential emotional reactions to the scents that we employ, and to commit to the use of only high quality, universally accepted, emotionally pleasing scents. From my perspective, that is a social and ethical obligation.