The Politics of Perfume and Fragrance: Scentrist’s view
A couple of weeks ago, I engaged a tete-a-tete in response to a blog on Bond No. 9′s Manhattan, and it seems that any mention of Bond No. 9 can become a very polarizing conversation. It makes the art of providing objective coverage somewhat challenging because opinions and news can pull the story in various directions. And there has been enough recent news to make for an interesting story.
I’ve done my fair share of reviews of Bond’s products, some positive, some far less so. But with such a large product line for a nouveau niche perfumer (60+ at last count) over a ten (10) year period, anyone is bound to gain their share of detractors. But when I established Scentrist.com a little over a year ago now — can you believe it’s been more than a year? How time flies when you’re having fun) — my goal was to provide uninfluenced review and news interspersed with some opinion.
Allow me to qualify what the politics of perfume and fragrance does and doesn’t mean for me as a blogger:
- Unbiased writing. If it’s good, I’ll say so. If it’s bad, I’ll say that too. Granted, the writing might be slightly colorful, but if it weren’t, this would be dry as sawdust and about as interesting to read.
- Relevant news. Frankly there are other sources who do a much better job of news coverage. If you want to read breaking news a bit later on, we may have something but it isn’t our mainstay. We’ll cover it as it relates to something specifically of interest.
- Neutrality. We aren’t the Switzerland of blogging, but then again the Swiss are better known for watches and chocolates. Nonetheless, we try to be as balanced as possible and invite the participation of others in the discussions as long as the prime purpose isn’t simply unproductive bashing of a particular line, brand, or perfumer. If you want to ‘fairly’ name/shame/call-out a specific retailer, please feel free.
- Minimal speculation. If I write anything, I try to adhere to the rule of multiple credible sources; otherwise, I’ll call it what it is: rumor. I invite rumors, just as I invite producers and perfumers to comment on or dispel those rumors when they arise.
- I also welcome commentary, but bear in mind that my goal is to be fair and balanced. Ergo, if a discussion seems to be running heavily in favor of one position, I’ll either invite a counter-point to the discussion or feel free to act as Devil’s advocate myself. Once the commentary becomes disrespectful or in any way troll-like, I reserve the right to shut it down. I don’t claim to run a democracy here, and I still fund the day-to-day operation.
One more thing…
Some may notice commercial links on our site. Let me assure readers that these do not represent endorsements as much as they are purchasing opportunities. Each purchase from a link directly offsets operating expenses. We run a deficit each month in funding operations by choice in order to facilitate a non-biased view toward items that we review. Any specific sponsorships into which we engage will be clearly articulated, and will be designed as not to compromise impartiality. (Because of that stance, I’m not expecting much commercial sponsorship. So it goes.)
With that, back to Bond No 9. A few topics have been referenced here and elsewhere about the brand, the products, and recent legal issues. Given that, here is what you should expect from our writings here:
- No conjecture on the legal issues. I welcome discussion, but I’ll take an impartial position.
- Continued honesty and transparency in our reviews. We called it like we saw it when we compared Green Irish Tweed to So New York, and readers should expect us to continue to do so. And if that seems controversial, we won’t stray from the position.
- Continued information. If there is worthwhile product information (see our recent story on the Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts and the conclusion of the licensing agreement), we’ll continue to cover it as objectively as possible. And we might just find some levity from the story.
Bottom-line: We’ll continue reviewing the juice, only the juice, and nothing but the juice. We’ll give you credit for drawing your own conclusions based on whatever facts we can state. And thanks/credit to Harry from Cocktails and Cologne for grasping some strong views and helping make us better.