Guest column written for Air Sense, by the Scent Marketing Institute, in response to Can the scenting industry address the scent-sensitive?
Scent and sensationalism
Here’s one juicy headline: A financial consultant in Manhattan claims hypersensitivity to fragrances, caused by the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (MSNBC, March 31, 2008). “On occasion, I’ve made people wear a garbage bag over their clothes because the detergent smell was so fierce I couldn’t endure it,” she continues.
Invoking the worst terrorist attack on American soil and by humiliating those – in her opinion – “over scented” clients of hers, Karen Kraig (the consultant) goes to extremes in addressing an old phenomenon not limited to our industry: whatever works for most (scent marketers and consumers, in this case) also works against a few of us.
Those kinds of reports – especially when wrapped in a crowd-pleasing context – provoke a response which is difficult to craft and almost certainly will draw fire from the advocates of a scent-free world who may call it a lack of compassion and profiteering on account of those who suffer. At the Scent Marketing Institute we know that just a few of those reports can do serious damage to an industry that for almost a decade aims at providing marketers and advertisers with services and products that are safe for the consumer and effective for the advertiser. Nevertheless we would not be doing our job if we wouldn’t try…
First, let’s look at some facts:
There is scent all around us. Garbage in the street on a hot summer day, fruit and produce in the supermarket, sun tan lotion on the beach, the whiff we get of a lady’s perfume passing by on Fifth Avenue. There are ways of controlling any of those scents; applying them prudently should be a matter of common sense.
In 2007, US consumers spent $5.1 billion on home fragrances and candles.
More than 40 million Americans have some kind of disability. “Difficulty smelling”, however, is not a category in the US Bureau of the Census’ reports.
Next, which are the most common health threats caused by scent:
Contact dermatitis, the ailment quoted by MSNBC, only occurs upon contact of a fragrance with the skin and therefore is a bit out of place in the context of the story about Mrs. Kraig’s interaction with her clients.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity; in broad terms it means an unusually severe sensitivity or allergy-like reaction to many different kinds of pollutants including solvents, VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds), perfumes, petrol, diesel, smoke, “chemicals” in general and often encompasses problems with regard to pollen, house dust mites, pet fur and dander.
Sensory Integration Dysfunction describes a problem with processing information and can affect all senses, not only the sense of smell. It often falls in the larger context of autism.
Hyperosmia, oversensitivity to smell is much less common than loss of smell. Pregnant women commonly become oversensitive to smell. Hyperosmia can also be psychosomatic. Psychosomatic hyperosmia is more likely to develop in people who have a histrionic personality (characterized by conspicuous seeking of attention with dramatic behavior). Asthma attacks or allergies in the respiratory tract can be caused by “foreign substances in the environment” such as fragrances.
Panic attacks, depression or any other medical problem may result from an aspect called “conditioning”, which happens when two unrelated events occur at the same time and one event becomes associated with the other. When the first event is later repeated, the second event also manifests itself for the sufferer. The first event may involve exposure to a scent and the second an unpleasant or devastating experience.
Obviously, when it comes to scent, individuals have different perceptions of “pleasantness,” and suffer from different medical conditions or have none at all due to an inability to smell. While the numbers tell us that most of us love to be surrounded by what we consider pleasant smells, we need to be sensitive towards those who may be offended or whose health may be threatened. And since there are no exact figures available how many people actually would suffer from an olfactory approach … who would want to be the judge?
Eliminating scent altogether cannot be the ultimate solution. We could go as far as invoking our constitutional rights of free expression. On the bright side, we have the unique opportunity to self-regulate our industry by abiding to a few simple rules:
Rule #1: Providing for a mechanism that puts the consumer in control over having an olfactory experience or not – depending on her personal preferences and potential medical condition. This also means to keep public spaces clear of scents.
Rule #2: Deliver an appropriate quality and quantity of scent. Let’s not be tempted to buy scents from dubious sources and/or countries that do not have institutions overseeing ingredients and manufacturing processes only because a lower price better serves our financial models.
Rule #3: Make it easier for the consumer to relate to the scent we deliver to avoid confusion and minimize negative reactions. Coconut smell does not belong into a supermarket around Christmas – but it works year round in a travel agency selling tropical vacations.
Rule #4: More is not always better. Do not overpower the customer or your store personnel with scent. Anosmia, the absence of the ability to smell, may occur when a person is exposed to scent regularly and may tempt the store manager to crank up the system to unacceptable levels.
Eliminating all artificial scent and demanding a 100% scent-free environment would probably quickly disillusion even the fiercest proponent of such measures. Just speak with the pub operators in England about their new olfactory experience after introduction of the smoking ban. All the beer and alcohol spills that so far went unnoticed have them scramble for technologies and substances that eliminate such malodors. And while they exist, the best way still is to cover them up by something even stronger. Just not tobacco.
“Moderation” is the key word. “Tolerance” and “respect” can’t hurt either. Let’s not descend to a one-sided view and to discussions where a few are accused of causing harm to many. Not all marketers and advertisers are out there manipulating consumers on the subliminal level. While they get paid to sell products, some also want to entertain and inform via a multi-sensory experience. Meanwhile we express our compassion for those less fortunate that cannot enjoy the full range of sensory stimulation.
Quality of life to a large degree is defined by us having a choice of which sensual experience to enjoy. In designing such experiences, creativity should not be limited. Neither should be our choice to opt in or opt out.
Related Link: Scent Marketing Institute
