I'll put it to you this way: You (actually you, the reader) have grown up passionate about perfumery, you spent years learning the art and loving the process. You decide to risk it all, pouring everything you got (money and effort) into starting a company and your talent and love for the craft results in you creating a fragrance that is immediately loved and goes viral overnight. You are happy and proud of your achievements and, having been a customer yourself, you believe in fair pricing. Out of nowhere, some unknown company in the middle east (which you can't get info about), rips your fragrance and builds a bad, clumsy, cheap copy of yours, selling it at a fraction of the price and employing shady tactics like sending bottles to every influencer out there. The irony is that you cannot do absolutely anything about it, you could have never patented your art. How would this make you feel? It's not always about corporations. Rules and legislations should be made to cover the extreme cases also.
@@SeldomlyOften we all think different I can never cross over on this as much as I’ve tried. I see imitation as the most sincere form of flattery and at the moment that happens I’d feel like I actually made an impact. But it’s all hypothetical I obviously haven’t been in that situation. If someone copied my entire channel concept I would be flattered. I wouldn’t be sitting there upset they took the data idea and had their wife on like I do. I’d reach out and feel inspired. What would piss me off most likely is if Olivier Creed directly stole my exact formula then presented that he himself is the perfumer.
@@CgScents hey, it’s just a talking point, I fully respect all your opinions 🙂 I think you should just be able to patent fragrances and earn royalties at the very least. This alone would massively regulate the market.
@@SeldomlyOften I think what you said makes a lot of sense. It represents a fundamental difference of perception which isn’t right or wrong it makes sense to me but I can’t see it the same way. I am sure niche brands could pay perfumers royalties. Nothing is stopping them if they’re ethical companies.
@CgScents but that will be an epithome of envy disguised as flattery. Because someone of that high status as Oliver Creed to get the bravery to try to pass a scent profile as his original creation could make anyone mad. But in the end, it is the highest form of flattery and admiration. Why is the most popular perfumery brand in the world thinking of stealing someone is idea. I guess it could be the same with Tesla and the other guy I forgot his name. But the point of the guy above I understand it and to a certain degree be in agreement with him. But most ( clones ) are doing the most popular Fragrances anyway so they don't hurt the real niche crowd. Because coming with something crazy is really difficult to do in the first place imagine trying to replicate something that took two or three batches to get the formulation. There are perfumes that take even 100 formulations for the scent Profile to be born. So I don't see Arab houses doing all niche brands and replicating them to an 90% similarity. In the end of the day, they don't even use the same oils or ingredients they go around mixing something to make it similar to a specific accord.
@@petermolina1317 Please stop saying “Arab brands”, these are based in Dubai, but aren’t owned or operated by people from the middle east .. The most basic google/youtube search will show you it. Arab brands are Amouage, Arabian Oud, AbdulSamad AlQurashi, etc .. This is what people in the middle east buy and wear, There are a load of French, American and British clone houses out there, most of them go after niche perfumes.
If that's your perspective....what about (for example) very expensive wristwatches? It tells time the same as one for $19.99. If it's materials, design, marketing, exclusivity....wouldn't that same logic apply to fragrances and watches alike? And....no one is being *forced* to purchase either one. (((🐧)))
From an economics perspective, I think clone brands also bring more competition in the market which ultimately benefits the customer. It forces the big fragrance companies to not become complacent. Anything that provides a lower value to the customer would not do very well on the shelves. Clones have seemingly set a minimum value bar and they are only getting more popular, my local chemist now carries Lataffa and Armaf which I would not have imagined before.
Also we can add that even among ''non-clone'' brands there's a lot of implicit cloning happening just as much. How many times did a brand release a leather scent that people compare to Tuscan Leather, or Dior Homme (original) ? Or even Abercrombie Fierce. To be honest even big designers or niche houses will ''do their own spin on that idea'' and I don't really see how it's so different from cloning, you can argue the intent and the brief just happened to end up with a similar result but how can we know ? If anything, if your fragrance gets duplicated or imitated enough, eventually it becomes a whole genre such as fougeres or blue fragrances etc. That being said, brands that not only clone the scent but try to also mimic the bottle design so that you can tell at a glance that there's an inspiration, I think that's somewhat more dishonest, but on the other hand why support the huge companies who want you to pay 300$ for a cherry scent that lasts 2 hours on skin if a more financially responsible alternative exists ?
The way you mentioned off brand grocery products and generic medicines is def a good point. I understand fragrances are “artistic” but at the end of the day it is a product and the prices determine consumer purchasing behaviors. It was only a matter of time before clone houses came up.
I don’t have too many clones, but I’m not against them. I get it, and I completely agree with the counterfeit vs clone argument. And yeah…I love Dr. Thunder so 😂 I’ll go to a bar and see a cover band, but admission is $5, not $200. If it’s one of my favorite bands, I’ll buy a ticket to their concert, not see a cover. I had a similar mentality with scent. I’m not a massive fresh fragrance guy, so I bought a few Lucianno clones to wear out the shower after a workout for 3 hours before bed. Rather than spend a ton of money on those profiles directly from LV, I grabbed 3 for like $100. I’m not really team clone, but I am certainly not looking down on them.
Wow, I am incredibly looking forward to your Montagne video. Like others, I think they are very close to their inspirations while smelling natural/of quality. Their Layton/Greenley clones comes to mind as some of their best recreations (tested alongside my full bottles of the OGs)
Great analogy in the end with a guitar being 90% in tune. That would make it sound a bit flat or sharp, which is two fitting words for describing most dupes. I share a lot of your thoughts on this. I couldn’t care less about clones myself but i totally get the appeal. It’s quite similar to guitars and guitarists. They tend to begin their guitar journey with an epiphone or squier. For some, that squier is good enough even later on. Others end up chasing vintage Gibson custom shop les pauls. Customers have different needs and there’s often room for both on the market.
Great video. Regarding cost of development, the creation process for a new fine fragrance is often less expensive than people might think. Most of the best perfumers today work as employees of the large companies that source, process and produce fragrance components (like Givaudan, IFF, Firmenich). They also have access to captive molecules and bases that are not available to independent perfumers. Very often those perfumers do not even sign their work for a client when it goes into production. And sometimes they work for the same middle-Eastern houses that also produce "clone" fragrances - or for UA-cam influencers who sell their own name-branded fragrances. As for artistry vs craftsmanship, most new mass-market scents are derived from pre-existing off-the-shelf formulas or re-combined building blocks. They are very fast to prototype for the client, often in multiple combinatorial variants in parallel. There is rather little art in the creative process for most industrially produced fragrances.
I don’t think many people who cling to the ‘art’ concept understand the actual business. That’s my biggest issue with this theory. No one knows how much perfumers are paid, the cost to produce a fragrance, or how the clone market has actually impacted sales. The whole ‘unethical’ debate is based on an idea of what happens with no evidence at all. A fact is Creed sold for 2 billion in 2020 and 3.8 billion in 2023 so they nearly doubled with a booming clone market. Also, people acting like if you buy a $500 fragrance a percentage of the sale goes to the perfumer. I highly doubt it does. And the companies are fully able to pay royalties but why would they when they can just hire the guy that doesn’t require that? People also act like the perfumers are front and center. Frederic Malle makes it obvious who makes a perfume but outside of that the companies don’t even give the smallest credit on the box. So this whole ethical theory is an idea someone had that sounded ‘about right’ and everyone jumped on board. There’s no solid evidence of anything I don’t think people know what actually goes on. I’ll admit I don’t know much but I am very skeptical of the theory. My theory is there’s a lot of greed from the original companies they feel people should support.
I stopped purchasing clones simply based on 1) not trusting them for what they put in the bottle and 2 ) poor quality experiences .. you pay for what you get and that’s fine for everyone ..
@golfbuddy1969 I can get a print for 10 bucks ... you aren't seriously defending houses like Dior. Johnny Depp needs more money to spend on wine I guess.
@ yes, or you can do a paint by numbers of it…but the value isn’t the same. You are attributing a value based on the cost of raw ingredients. This is never true on any product. Never. I’m amazed that designers can do what they do, for what they charge. They have higher quality raw ingredients, expense of a development, R&D, legal liabilities, testing, packaging, marketing, plus the financial risk. Clones have little of those expenses, but built solely on the backs of others that created something that people would want, and others that have taken all the risk.
@golfbuddy1969, you are confused about something. What people want is that particular scent profile or something like it because to them, it smells good. So if you take into consideration that Fragrances release every day, sooner or later someone will come a carbon copy of another person is idea.
Dude I'm so pleased I found your channel. I think there's space in the market for everything because there's so many demographics and budgets to satisfy.
What is unethical is influencers on UA-cam giving unsuspecting viewers the impression that these clones are just as good as the fragrance they're trying to imitate. They may have a similar note breakdown on paper, but usually the quality is terrible. You buy expensive fragrances because they smell high quality; clones smell cheap, no matter what notes they share with the original. UA-camrs should be very clear about this, but often they're not. Whether they're doing this for views, or whether they've been sent free bottles, it's not right
@TheJaJe. I have clones that's better than the original. ironically, people can say what they want, but if I speak from experience, having them both and testing them extensively side by side and in the air.
Funny that you mentioned Montagne at the end bc that's the best clone house by far. The middle eastern clone houses don't hit for me but I was blown away by almost all of the Montagne offerings
Totally agree. But, I do get the argument that it's stealing. I look at it like, I can't own the Mona Lisa, or won't buy a very expensive print of it. But I can have a cheap poster on the wall and appreciate it all the same. Look at Zara...that whole company is practically a clone brand ripping off styles from other brands, from the shirts to the jackets to the shoes and yes, the fragrances. There's a place in the market for them.
I own a few clones and have an interesting relationship with them. The majority of my clones are of niche fragrances. In some cases, the clone was my introduction to a particular DNA and I may have loved that clone so much to the point that it made me want to try the original fragrance and led to me actually buying the original (this was the case with Kilian Black Phantom, Bond No 9 Chinatown, and Creed Virgin Island Water (my favorite Creed) among a few others). In other cases, the clone either performed better than the OG on my skin or had subtle differences from the original that I liked. Or maybe the original was more that I was willing to pay and while I liked it, I didn't like it enough to pay what it cost retail (Aventus Cologne and Boadicea the Victorious Blue Sapphire come to mind) so the clone was the better alternative. Clones are also a great option for when a particular fragrance is discontinued. I used to own Gucci Pour Homme II and by the time my bottle ran out, the fragrance was discontinued and original bottles were selling for up to $1,000 on eBay. Finding a near identical clone of it for $40-50 was great considering how much I love the scent. Some people like clones and some are 100% against buying them and that's fine either way. I think they do serve their purpose though.
totaly agree with you. Everyone covering everyone. from medication to music, fashion and so on. in the end of the day if you want to buy a copy its up to the person.
The point of everything being done for just 5$ is true and they teach you well. Look at the soap industry. I buy a soap base of 5 lbs for 20$. I could make 4 soaps from just one pund. So in the 20$ I could make 20 soap bar of 4oz. So you sell each bar in 6$ because inflation and is a natural product, it is an artistic item, etc.. Those 20 bars at 6$ you get a 120$ take out the 20$ for the soap base, take out 5$ for the essentials oils in the soap and you use less than half bottle anyways, packaging could be another 5$. If you want the shipping could be paid by the consumer until you grow a big business. So with 30$ you could make a business with a 75% profit margin. The first five soaps selled make the whole business operating, the other ones are profit. Not only that with a pound selled you operate the whole business because in that pound you already have gained the investment back. The same is with perfumes in general same concept different industry. Except with some oils that are really expensive in the 100$ an ounce.
I think that if someone doesn't use the original formulation exactly, they've done nothing wrong. Similar to generic brands at Costco: you can buy a $40 pair of knockoff jeans if you don't want to pay $200 for the (maybe) higher quality original.
I don’t mind cheap middle eastern clones because I personally haven’t found any that are better than the originals, what i dislike is when a perfume releases for $350 made by a certain perfumer, and then a year later that perfumer goes to another company, reuses that same formula and releases a fragrance for $100, that is something i find unethical.
All I’ve been buying for the last month have been high quality dupes! I do my research, and see which “niche or designer” scent I’d like to try, or I find what clone is getting all the rage. And then I buy it. So far I’m 5/5 on dupes! And I’ve spent maybe 200$ combined on all 5 of them. Clearly this is worth it
@ worst to best Khadlaj island- needs to macerate for a couple months then I’ll smell it again Afnan 9pm- smells like bubblegum I like it Liquid Brun- super quality clone (never smelled Altair) Jo Milano game of spades full house- easily a goated spring summer scent Rayhan elixir- clone of the best fragrance ever, and it smells identical
Much of this is true, but comparing drugs to perfumes? Brand name drugs are not patented for years because of greed, but rather because the company has to earn back the $100 million or so invested in the development, but most importantly, clinical trials of the drug. Not to mention the Phase 4 which involves observing adverse effects of the drug currently on the market and its eventual withdrawal from the market or compensation for users. Comparing the creation of a perfume to something as huge as introducing a new drug to the market is not very accurate with all due respect! The rest of the points are more or less correct.
Great video. Regarding cost of development, the creation process for a new fine fragrance is often less expensive than people might think. Most of the best perfumers today work as employees of the large companies that source, process and produce fragrance components (like Givaudan, IFF, Firmenich). They also have access to captive molecules and bases that are not available to independent perfumers. Very often those perfumers do not even sign their work for a client when it goes into production. And sometimes they work for the same middle-Eastern houses that also produce "clone" fragrances - or for UA-cam influencers who sell their own name-branded fragrances. As for artistry vs craftsmanship, most new mass-market scents are derived from pre-existing off-the-shelf formulas or re-combined building blocks. They are very fast to prototype for the client, often in multiple combinatorial variants in parallel. There is rather little art in the creative process for most industrially produced fragrances.
It's a product, a commodity. If you commercialize your "art" then prepare for the market to respond. I really don't care for the moral grandstanding and labeling it "unethical" or the gatekeeping of what "real" fragrances are.
Yeah, first of all, these brands are charging way more than they should. Especially after all the reformulations. There was a time when I looked down on clones, but not anymore. The people who hate clones to me. Are starting to become nothing more than people who have to virtue signal. I guess they respect the artistry of craft beer but they drink whatever they feel like drinking.
If as a consumer you can be tricked, thinking for example you are getting a Sony dvd player or Levi’s jeans but you’re just getting a knockoff of inferior quality, then I could see an issue. Largely though bottle styles and product naming is different so there is a clear difference between OG and inspired fragrance. Jury is out though in quality, maybe clone houses are allowed to include cheaper ingredients that might be allergenic or otherwise banned by western perfumery for good reason
Cline quality is good for the most part whats unethical is the price the none clones go for and most of the time the expensive stuff will not last or project long so I will continue to get the more bang for my buck and NOT PAY high price for the so called good stuff that's not good at all period !
I dont really care too much about dupes. Not a fan and i dont rly own any besides one (TF dupe ofc) But my problem are ppl online praising them up like theyre a gift from god while trashtalking the original its duping to the ground. Thats where my disliking comes from Scents itself arent too bad
Thinking of others(brands in this context) is fine and all but what are the most important things for the consumer, ourselves and everyone close to us. If you are opulent enough to just go for only originals go, but dont try to enforce your likes and dislikes on some that arent as fortunate as you are.
All things are clones in a way. I don’t buy clones though. I’m a perfumer and wouldn’t want someone making a cheap knockoff of my work. Also I don’t care how close it is. It’s never quite the same.
Then big companies should stop charging $150 for $12 worth of ingredients and hardware. Simple as that. Is it unethical to make insane profits? Nope, and neither is cloning.
Hi pal.. I left a message a couple of videos back.. Maybe you just missed it, it was just to ask is there anyway of watching any of your old channel videos.. I missed them first time round as I only discovered you through this fragrance channel.. I'm just really having a bot of a tough time without going into it too deep. And would just love to here your perspective on life... I'm sorry to keep messaging you.. I know your a busy guy and won't bother you again
There isn’t a way to view those I deleted the channel a while back. Feel free to reach out to me on Instagram tho! I can definitely listen to what you’re going through and offer any input I may have. My IG is @cgscents
This is how I see it, the quality should match the price, if it doesn’t then that’s the niche/designers fault. Now obviously the price of marketing, artistry and labor should be added, but if a clone house can replicate 95-99% of the scent using cheaper materials (and selling it for 90% less) then you are over charging and basically charging for the brand. I don’t buy clones anymore because most of the time the quality isn’t up to par (that’s how it should be), but that being said, I’m not going to pay 400 bucks for something when another clone house can get 95% of the scent profile at 1/10 the price. At that point it makes no sense buying the overpriced fragrance. I can see 1/2 or 1/3, but not 1/10. Fragrances have a great return on investment. Each bottle costs a fraction of the price to make. I’m not going to pay 30 dollars for a rubber handball because it has your logo on it when I can go to the store and buy a rubber ball made with the same material with basically the same bounce for 1.99.
I agree with you and no one knows how much the perfumer is being paid. No one knows the cost of a creative work from a perfumer. I know they’re going to cling to that concept with no evidence. If you produce a product someone can copy and sell for $40 while making a profit that should incentivize you to lower your prices or produce a better product that actually justifies its price. That’s the free market and it benefits the consumer. If that’s ‘unethical’ a lot of things are in free market capitalism people don’t have to look around long to see that.
Couple of weak points in your arguments. Medicine - drug companies have patents which protect them and patents are very strictly enforced, off-brands enter the market when patent expires. Music cover musicians usually pay royalties to original composer patents for music lasts life of composer + several years (75 I think) after his death after that the music enters into fair use domaine. I am not saying closes are illegal just that some of your points are weak.
You can patent medicine you can’t patent a fragrance. Clones are ‘inspired by’ the original and not direct copies. I’m not debating the legality I’m debating the ethics. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical vice versa. Perhaps it’s a poor use of analogies. I once couldn’t afford a prescription medication because it was patented and went untreated for a physical issue for over 10 years until a generic was made. That was perfectly legal but was it ethical? I wasn’t sitting there thinking about how unethical the generic companies were. Patents have been used in ethical and unethical ways throughout history. I’ve never looked at an off brand product and thought ‘that’s unethical they should give the original creator royalties’ in my life if others do that’s perfectly fine. I also don’t know that perfumers get royalties. I’ve never worried about creed having more money and I don’t see any evidence to support their sales have dropped as a result of the clone market growing. In fact, they have sold for almost double what they sold for in 2020 three years later. Just my perception of the situation I don’t need to convince anyone of it.
I think it's the designer and niche houses fault for charging so much, that clones are even blown up as much as they are. So it is what it is, if you can get niche or designer, get niche or designer, if you can only get clones, get your clones peeps.. who really freaking cares... lol... Make Fragrances Cheap Again! 😂😂
I disagree. When it comes to medicine, alternatives to the original medication can only be made after certain period of time ( for example 10 years). When it comes to art( which parfumery is), it is also similar. If you copy some certain part of melody, music - you pay royalties( unless the music is older than like 70+ years old and the rights are expired) . If you use some sort of a disney character in your movie- you pay a royalty. I see these clone brands as unethical while they literally copy someone else’s art and create a lesser ( and potentially more dangerous version) product and sells it without paying any royalties to the Brands and original parfumers. I don’t find it ethical to buy an original fragrance, put it through spectroscopy maschine, then adjust lower quality ingredients to reach the ballpark of the original fragrance’s Dna and sell it to the masses.
I see your logic it’s well thought out and I respect it. I still lean towards it being perfectly fine for what I laid out in the video but it’s not black and white everyone has their own views on it and they should be respected.
Who says those ingredients have less quality than the original inspiration ? Nowadays, most inspired by fragances, they have some top quality ingredients and oils. So your take is a little biased towards the niche house. They are some really bad synthetic mess of inspired by fragances, but they are also ones that their quality is better than the original inspiration. And that is not debatable because the proof is out there.
@ it is pretty obvious that clone houses use lesser ingredients( from the ones i tested). Also, some fragrance ingredients are patented by the Firmenich, Givoudan and other chemistry conglomerates, these clone brands have no way in obtaining them. Ofcourse it depends on the exact fragrance that is copied, I guess something like creed Aventus can be easily 98% copied, since it doesn’t use ultra rare expensive ingredients, the 2% is the musk which is patented by Firmenich. But good luck copying something like les indemodables. When it comes to clone brands, every penny counts, of course they are using lesser ingredients, unless it is something like citrus oils( which usually are quite cheap).
@DrIstoris have seen the available suppliers of oils ? The expensive ones are usually the absolute oils that are 100 undiluted or near that level. You could find some good rose oil without selling a kidney, also there are a lot of other ones too. The difference is certain molecules that are born from certain oil blends that are patented. For example, you could use vanilla oil, jasmine, and some rose and make an artificial honey accord, you could patent this formula because you probably want to have exclusive rights to it because the honey accord could smell a certain way and you don't want competition to use the accord. You clearly stated that the ones you smelled are clearly synthetic, but that is the point of the topic. Have you smelled all inspired by fragances ? Therefore, you can't judge by a few bad ones. Also, Creed has copied original inspiration aromas, so where is their creativity there ? Take the house of Authenticity Perfumes, they promise to allways use the best ingredients that are free from harsh chemicals, cruelty free, natural ingredients, etc.. They do Parfums only in all of their creations, and that is 50% oil, so how come someone like this house made Parfums with natural ingredients and also have them for 100$ or less by 60ml. A designer or expensive niche house will probably charge 750$ for a Parfum in that situation. Zaharoff charge 155$ and up for that volume of their Fragrances. Creed charges 365$ for 50 ml of Aventus. So why is it unthetical to make an inspiration of an inspiration ? You can't patent a perfume idea by itself, which is ilegal and unethical. Ideas are free, and someday, someone will come with something already thought that is why you can't patent the whole composition, but some accords it is permissible.
@DrIstoris and that is eau de parfum or extrait de parfum concentration. Imagine Creed doing Parfums versions of all their Fragrances. They gladly charge a 1,000$ for that fragrance. So it is completely justified that people started making inspired by fragances. Also, why don't you say the roll on perfumes sellers are unethical because they truly steal from the original inspiration because they take the fragrance and diluted them in oil so it can have more longer durability. They are the first ones to basically ( clone ) a fragrance.
The argument of raw ingredients is pretty hilarious. It's like saying canvas, paint and brushes are not that expensive, so why pay 1000$ or what not for a painting :)
*hearted* though, this UA-camr is just here to try and get a paycheck, saying whatever other people say to fit in. It is stealing, and it is unethical, these companies that 'clone' stuff, are just here to make a quick buck, which makes it unethical, the time and resources that were put into the original stuff is sometimes forgotten, because people only look at the price of the endproduct. When you speak about the resources of perfume on UA-cam, people automatically think about ingredients. The ingredients at the end of the day are basically free, it is what you do with it, is what makes it expensive. That's what art is about, just like in perfumery. And lastly, perfume is art, in a bottle.
Wait, you said the belief of clone houses stealing from the original degrades the people that work at these clone houses,…the company is still robbing from the original fragrance houses employees. I feel you contradict yourself through the video. Clone houses are exactly that, clones. They try to copy the original perfumers work because they have zero creativity this stealing from the originals employees. You can’t say the above-mentioned belief is degrading clone house employees while supporting the robbing of the original fragrance employees. Clones are absolutely great for the consumer. For me personally, i just find every single one I’ve tried to be too synthetic and medicinal.
@@Narcissist_Police do you have any evidence to prove that niche houses sales have gone down since the introduction and growing popularity of clones? I have seen no evidence to support such a theory. In fact, the evaluations of many niche houses has grown astronomically along side the growing popularity of clones. I don’t really buy clones I can afford the original and prefer that route. Just because there’s a cheaper alternative doesn’t mean everyone’s gonna buy it over the original. Also, clones are never 100% accurate. I said calling clone houses thief’s aligning them with a criminal act is disrespectful IMO.
I would bet seven quadrillion dollars that every person that says clones are unethical stream all their music where the artists that spend decades making music get paid less than a penny per stream.
@ didn’t said hè couldn’t. But not understanding the craft of art (the perfumer hired by the brand) and on top of that a budget for marketing. Against a clone brand who is ONLY focused about making money amaze me.
@@CgScents it is okay to be weird if it is yourself. More power to you bro. But I guess it is just not for me. So an unsubscribe for me. I wish you all the luck tho!
I don’t buy clone fragrances, but I have no issues with people doing so. In a time where designer brands are copying each other, and niche brands are playing it very safe .. Even releasing flankers now, how sad, it’s hilarious to talk about ‘creativity’. Some fragrances are expensive because they are « luxury items », they are targeting a specific type of people, the big brands will be ok. But the issue is the psychological element to this, same as for people wearing fake watches and fake bags and clothing etc .. Just stop pretending and lying to yourself, get a perfume because you like it, not because it smells like something much more expensive (The usual is it 99% similar ? Does it project a lot so everyone can validate me ?) .. You will live a better life and you won’t attract the wrong type of people.
Your point is related to status in society of course it makes sense. Because the ones with luxury items are in high regard in this bubble called society but in deserted Island such things not occurs because it is a human construct that we care about others is opinions. That is why people that are smart came with clones, copies, inspiration from things that already exist. Because if I can have a Tom Ford purse by 25$ with better quality materials instead of the one made by the brand why would I spend 340$. It is completely logical with items that sometimes getting a good deal is the better option than the original item. The same thing with shoes and their replicas. They are made with the same mold, they sometimes have better materials because they don't have to spend money on marketing, they last longer than the brand is shoe, they don't run low on availability, they are way cheaper, they don't scam you, and usually the facility that made them used to be from the original brand. Also when the brands are out of stock they buy replicas because it is the same thing and they selled them as the original. This is why consumers are allways on the losing side of the brands and their marketing campaigns.
I'll put it to you this way:
You (actually you, the reader) have grown up passionate about perfumery, you spent years learning the art and loving the process. You decide to risk it all, pouring everything you got (money and effort) into starting a company and your talent and love for the craft results in you creating a fragrance that is immediately loved and goes viral overnight. You are happy and proud of your achievements and, having been a customer yourself, you believe in fair pricing.
Out of nowhere, some unknown company in the middle east (which you can't get info about), rips your fragrance and builds a bad, clumsy, cheap copy of yours, selling it at a fraction of the price and employing shady tactics like sending bottles to every influencer out there.
The irony is that you cannot do absolutely anything about it, you could have never patented your art.
How would this make you feel?
It's not always about corporations. Rules and legislations should be made to cover the extreme cases also.
@@SeldomlyOften we all think different I can never cross over on this as much as I’ve tried. I see imitation as the most sincere form of flattery and at the moment that happens I’d feel like I actually made an impact. But it’s all hypothetical I obviously haven’t been in that situation.
If someone copied my entire channel concept I would be flattered. I wouldn’t be sitting there upset they took the data idea and had their wife on like I do. I’d reach out and feel inspired.
What would piss me off most likely is if Olivier Creed directly stole my exact formula then presented that he himself is the perfumer.
@@CgScents hey, it’s just a talking point, I fully respect all your opinions 🙂
I think you should just be able to patent fragrances and earn royalties at the very least. This alone would massively regulate the market.
@@SeldomlyOften I think what you said makes a lot of sense. It represents a fundamental difference of perception which isn’t right or wrong it makes sense to me but I can’t see it the same way.
I am sure niche brands could pay perfumers royalties. Nothing is stopping them if they’re ethical companies.
@CgScents but that will be an epithome of envy disguised as flattery. Because someone of that high status as Oliver Creed to get the bravery to try to pass a scent profile as his original creation could make anyone mad. But in the end, it is the highest form of flattery and admiration. Why is the most popular perfumery brand in the world thinking of stealing someone is idea.
I guess it could be the same with Tesla and the other guy I forgot his name. But the point of the guy above I understand it and to a certain degree be in agreement with him. But most ( clones ) are doing the most popular Fragrances anyway so they don't hurt the real niche crowd. Because coming with something crazy is really difficult to do in the first place imagine trying to replicate something that took two or three batches to get the formulation. There are perfumes that take even 100 formulations for the scent Profile to be born. So I don't see Arab houses doing all niche brands and replicating them to an 90% similarity. In the end of the day, they don't even use the same oils or ingredients they go around mixing something to make it similar to a specific accord.
@@petermolina1317 Please stop saying “Arab brands”, these are based in Dubai, but aren’t owned or operated by people from the middle east .. The most basic google/youtube search will show you it. Arab brands are Amouage, Arabian Oud, AbdulSamad AlQurashi, etc .. This is what people in the middle east buy and wear, There are a load of French, American and British clone houses out there, most of them go after niche perfumes.
Unethical is the prices of Tom Ford's fragrances
If that's your perspective....what about (for example) very expensive wristwatches? It tells time the same as one for $19.99. If it's materials, design, marketing, exclusivity....wouldn't that same logic apply to fragrances and watches alike? And....no one is being *forced* to purchase either one. (((🐧)))
From an economics perspective, I think clone brands also bring more competition in the market which ultimately benefits the customer. It forces the big fragrance companies to not become complacent. Anything that provides a lower value to the customer would not do very well on the shelves. Clones have seemingly set a minimum value bar and they are only getting more popular, my local chemist now carries Lataffa and Armaf which I would not have imagined before.
Also we can add that even among ''non-clone'' brands there's a lot of implicit cloning happening just as much. How many times did a brand release a leather scent that people compare to Tuscan Leather, or Dior Homme (original) ? Or even Abercrombie Fierce.
To be honest even big designers or niche houses will ''do their own spin on that idea'' and I don't really see how it's so different from cloning, you can argue the intent and the brief just happened to end up with a similar result but how can we know ?
If anything, if your fragrance gets duplicated or imitated enough, eventually it becomes a whole genre such as fougeres or blue fragrances etc.
That being said, brands that not only clone the scent but try to also mimic the bottle design so that you can tell at a glance that there's an inspiration, I think that's somewhat more dishonest, but on the other hand why support the huge companies who want you to pay 300$ for a cherry scent that lasts 2 hours on skin if a more financially responsible alternative exists ?
oh my god i used to watch your videos on your other channel a while back. i’m glad to see you looking good!
Thank you man! Glad we meet again!
The way you mentioned off brand grocery products and generic medicines is def a good point. I understand fragrances are “artistic” but at the end of the day it is a product and the prices determine consumer purchasing behaviors. It was only a matter of time before clone houses came up.
I don’t have too many clones, but I’m not against them. I get it, and I completely agree with the counterfeit vs clone argument. And yeah…I love Dr. Thunder so 😂 I’ll go to a bar and see a cover band, but admission is $5, not $200. If it’s one of my favorite bands, I’ll buy a ticket to their concert, not see a cover. I had a similar mentality with scent. I’m not a massive fresh fragrance guy, so I bought a few Lucianno clones to wear out the shower after a workout for 3 hours before bed. Rather than spend a ton of money on those profiles directly from LV, I grabbed 3 for like $100. I’m not really team clone, but I am certainly not looking down on them.
Wow, I am incredibly looking forward to your Montagne video. Like others, I think they are very close to their inspirations while smelling natural/of quality.
Their Layton/Greenley clones comes to mind as some of their best recreations (tested alongside my full bottles of the OGs)
Great analogy in the end with a guitar being 90% in tune. That would make it sound a bit flat or sharp, which is two fitting words for describing most dupes. I share a lot of your thoughts on this. I couldn’t care less about clones myself but i totally get the appeal.
It’s quite similar to guitars and guitarists. They tend to begin their guitar journey with an epiphone or squier. For some, that squier is good enough even later on. Others end up chasing vintage Gibson custom shop les pauls.
Customers have different needs and there’s often room for both on the market.
Great video.
Regarding cost of development, the creation process for a new fine fragrance is often less expensive than people might think. Most of the best perfumers today work as employees of the large companies that source, process and produce fragrance components (like Givaudan, IFF, Firmenich). They also have access to captive molecules and bases that are not available to independent perfumers.
Very often those perfumers do not even sign their work for a client when it goes into production. And sometimes they work for the same middle-Eastern houses that also produce "clone" fragrances - or for UA-cam influencers who sell their own name-branded fragrances.
As for artistry vs craftsmanship, most new mass-market scents are derived from pre-existing off-the-shelf formulas or re-combined building blocks. They are very fast to prototype for the client, often in multiple combinatorial variants in parallel. There is rather little art in the creative process for most industrially produced fragrances.
I don’t think many people who cling to the ‘art’ concept understand the actual business. That’s my biggest issue with this theory. No one knows how much perfumers are paid, the cost to produce a fragrance, or how the clone market has actually impacted sales. The whole ‘unethical’ debate is based on an idea of what happens with no evidence at all. A fact is Creed sold for 2 billion in 2020 and 3.8 billion in 2023 so they nearly doubled with a booming clone market.
Also, people acting like if you buy a $500 fragrance a percentage of the sale goes to the perfumer. I highly doubt it does. And the companies are fully able to pay royalties but why would they when they can just hire the guy that doesn’t require that? People also act like the perfumers are front and center. Frederic Malle makes it obvious who makes a perfume but outside of that the companies don’t even give the smallest credit on the box.
So this whole ethical theory is an idea someone had that sounded ‘about right’ and everyone jumped on board. There’s no solid evidence of anything I don’t think people know what actually goes on.
I’ll admit I don’t know much but I am very skeptical of the theory. My theory is there’s a lot of greed from the original companies they feel people should support.
I stopped purchasing clones simply based on 1) not trusting them for what they put in the bottle and 2 ) poor quality experiences .. you pay for what you get and that’s fine for everyone ..
Agreed 100% and I'm looking forward to the Montagne videos.
Overpriced designers that cost less than 10 bucks including the bottle and packaging in production are unethical!
Based on your evaluation of value, the Mona Lisa is only worth $105 because it is $5 in paint and a $100 frame.
@golfbuddy1969 I can get a print for 10 bucks ... you aren't seriously defending houses like Dior. Johnny Depp needs more money to spend on wine I guess.
@ yes, or you can do a paint by numbers of it…but the value isn’t the same. You are attributing a value based on the cost of raw ingredients. This is never true on any product. Never. I’m amazed that designers can do what they do, for what they charge. They have higher quality raw ingredients, expense of a development, R&D, legal liabilities, testing, packaging, marketing, plus the financial risk. Clones have little of those expenses, but built solely on the backs of others that created something that people would want, and others that have taken all the risk.
@@Alithia451 I would also suggest that the very fact that you want a clone of a designer, is the very proof of its value.
@golfbuddy1969, you are confused about something. What people want is that particular scent profile or something like it because to them, it smells good. So if you take into consideration that Fragrances release every day, sooner or later someone will come a carbon copy of another person is idea.
Great video. You make some great points that really made me think. 👍🏼
Dude I'm so pleased I found your channel.
I think there's space in the market for everything because there's so many demographics and budgets to satisfy.
What is unethical is influencers on UA-cam giving unsuspecting viewers the impression that these clones are just as good as the fragrance they're trying to imitate. They may have a similar note breakdown on paper, but usually the quality is terrible. You buy expensive fragrances because they smell high quality; clones smell cheap, no matter what notes they share with the original. UA-camrs should be very clear about this, but often they're not. Whether they're doing this for views, or whether they've been sent free bottles, it's not right
Get Rayhan Elixir. 99% like JPG elixir for 30$. You gotta find the quality dupes
You're so so wrong my guy
@TheJaJe. I have clones that's better than the original. ironically, people can say what they want, but if I speak from experience, having them both and testing them extensively side by side and in the air.
Funny that you mentioned Montagne at the end bc that's the best clone house by far. The middle eastern clone houses don't hit for me but I was blown away by almost all of the Montagne offerings
I hope to see a review of their Monkey Special vs the Xerjoff Toni Iommi Monkey Special. That could be a catastrophe or a stroke of genius.
Totally agree. But, I do get the argument that it's stealing. I look at it like, I can't own the Mona Lisa, or won't buy a very expensive print of it. But I can have a cheap poster on the wall and appreciate it all the same. Look at Zara...that whole company is practically a clone brand ripping off styles from other brands, from the shirts to the jackets to the shoes and yes, the fragrances. There's a place in the market for them.
When the first car was being mass produced. Would it be stealing to buy from a competitor that can do it for cheaper?
I own a few clones and have an interesting relationship with them. The majority of my clones are of niche fragrances.
In some cases, the clone was my introduction to a particular DNA and I may have loved that clone so much to the point that it made me want to try the original fragrance and led to me actually buying the original (this was the case with Kilian Black Phantom, Bond No 9 Chinatown, and Creed Virgin Island Water (my favorite Creed) among a few others).
In other cases, the clone either performed better than the OG on my skin or had subtle differences from the original that I liked. Or maybe the original was more that I was willing to pay and while I liked it, I didn't like it enough to pay what it cost retail (Aventus Cologne and Boadicea the Victorious Blue Sapphire come to mind) so the clone was the better alternative.
Clones are also a great option for when a particular fragrance is discontinued. I used to own Gucci Pour Homme II and by the time my bottle ran out, the fragrance was discontinued and original bottles were selling for up to $1,000 on eBay. Finding a near identical clone of it for $40-50 was great considering how much I love the scent.
Some people like clones and some are 100% against buying them and that's fine either way. I think they do serve their purpose though.
totaly agree with you. Everyone covering everyone. from medication to music, fashion and so on. in the end of the day if you want to buy a copy its up to the person.
makes sense, keep up the good videos
Thank you for this angle of thought
Well thought out and articulated. Pretty much in total agreement.
Another great video / can you list your top 5 favorite clones you tried
Borouj Lamasat Oud
Dossier Citrus Tea
Montagne Imaginary
Moustache EDP
Bentley Absolute
@@CgScentsthank you
The point of everything being done for just 5$ is true and they teach you well.
Look at the soap industry. I buy a soap base of 5 lbs for 20$. I could make 4 soaps from just one pund. So in the 20$ I could make 20 soap bar of 4oz. So you sell each bar in 6$ because inflation and is a natural product, it is an artistic item, etc..
Those 20 bars at 6$ you get a 120$ take out the 20$ for the soap base, take out 5$ for the essentials oils in the soap and you use less than half bottle anyways, packaging could be another 5$. If you want the shipping could be paid by the consumer until you grow a big business.
So with 30$ you could make a business with a 75% profit margin. The first five soaps selled make the whole business operating, the other ones are profit. Not only that with a pound selled you operate the whole business because in that pound you already have gained the investment back.
The same is with perfumes in general same concept different industry. Except with some oils that are really expensive in the 100$ an ounce.
I think that if someone doesn't use the original formulation exactly, they've done nothing wrong. Similar to generic brands at Costco: you can buy a $40 pair of knockoff jeans if you don't want to pay $200 for the (maybe) higher quality original.
I don’t mind cheap middle eastern clones because I personally haven’t found any that are better than the originals, what i dislike is when a perfume releases for $350 made by a certain perfumer, and then a year later that perfumer goes to another company, reuses that same formula and releases a fragrance for $100, that is something i find unethical.
Good stuff bro! 💯💪🏼
All I’ve been buying for the last month have been high quality dupes! I do my research, and see which “niche or designer” scent I’d like to try, or I find what clone is getting all the rage. And then I buy it. So far I’m 5/5 on dupes! And I’ve spent maybe 200$ combined on all 5 of them. Clearly this is worth it
@TheJaJe which ones did you get
@ worst to best
Khadlaj island- needs to macerate for a couple months then I’ll smell it again
Afnan 9pm- smells like bubblegum I like it
Liquid Brun- super quality clone (never smelled Altair)
Jo Milano game of spades full house- easily a goated spring summer scent
Rayhan elixir- clone of the best fragrance ever, and it smells identical
Much of this is true, but comparing drugs to perfumes? Brand name drugs are not patented for years because of greed, but rather because the company has to earn back the $100 million or so invested in the development, but most importantly, clinical trials of the drug. Not to mention the Phase 4 which involves observing adverse effects of the drug currently on the market and its eventual withdrawal from the market or compensation for users. Comparing the creation of a perfume to something as huge as introducing a new drug to the market is not very accurate with all due respect! The rest of the points are more or less correct.
Great video.
Regarding cost of development, the creation process for a new fine fragrance is often less expensive than people might think. Most of the best perfumers today work as employees of the large companies that source, process and produce fragrance components (like Givaudan, IFF, Firmenich). They also have access to captive molecules and bases that are not available to independent perfumers.
Very often those perfumers do not even sign their work for a client when it goes into production. And sometimes they work for the same middle-Eastern houses that also produce "clone" fragrances
- or for UA-cam influencers who sell their own name-branded fragrances.
As for artistry vs craftsmanship, most new mass-market scents are derived from pre-existing off-the-shelf formulas or re-combined building blocks. They are very fast to prototype for the client, often in multiple combinatorial variants in parallel. There is rather little art in the creative process for most industrially produced fragrances.
It's a product, a commodity. If you commercialize your "art" then prepare for the market to respond. I really don't care for the moral grandstanding and labeling it "unethical" or the gatekeeping of what "real" fragrances are.
Yeah, first of all, these brands are charging way more than they should. Especially after all the reformulations. There was a time when I looked down on clones, but not anymore. The people who hate clones to me. Are starting to become nothing more than people who have to virtue signal. I guess they respect the artistry of craft beer but they drink whatever they feel like drinking.
Designers and niche brands make clones of other fragrances, they just change the price and the bottle.
10:40 😩😩😩😩 Hilarious 🍀
If as a consumer you can be tricked, thinking for example you are getting a Sony dvd player or Levi’s jeans but you’re just getting a knockoff of inferior quality, then I could see an issue. Largely though bottle styles and product naming is different so there is a clear difference between OG and inspired fragrance. Jury is out though in quality, maybe clone houses are allowed to include cheaper ingredients that might be allergenic or otherwise banned by western perfumery for good reason
Cline quality is good for the most part whats unethical is the price the none clones go for and most of the time the expensive stuff will not last or project long so I will continue to get the more bang for my buck and NOT PAY high price for the so called good stuff that's not good at all period !
I dont really care too much about dupes. Not a fan and i dont rly own any besides one (TF dupe ofc)
But my problem are ppl online praising them up like theyre a gift from god while trashtalking the original its duping to the ground.
Thats where my disliking comes from
Scents itself arent too bad
I agree with this 100%
Thinking of others(brands in this context) is fine and all but what are the most important things for the consumer, ourselves and everyone close to us. If you are opulent enough to just go for only originals go, but dont try to enforce your likes and dislikes on some that arent as fortunate as you are.
💯
All things are clones in a way. I don’t buy clones though. I’m a perfumer and wouldn’t want someone making a cheap knockoff of my work. Also I don’t care how close it is. It’s never quite the same.
LORD OF THE RING BOTTLES 😂😂😂😂😂
It's intellectual property theft. If someone cloned any other kind of art it would be considered theft
Then big companies should stop charging $150 for $12 worth of ingredients and hardware. Simple as that. Is it unethical to make insane profits? Nope, and neither is cloning.
Hi pal.. I left a message a couple of videos back.. Maybe you just missed it, it was just to ask is there anyway of watching any of your old channel videos.. I missed them first time round as I only discovered you through this fragrance channel.. I'm just really having a bot of a tough time without going into it too deep. And would just love to here your perspective on life... I'm sorry to keep messaging you.. I know your a busy guy and won't bother you again
There isn’t a way to view those I deleted the channel a while back. Feel free to reach out to me on Instagram tho! I can definitely listen to what you’re going through and offer any input I may have. My IG is @cgscents
This is how I see it, the quality should match the price, if it doesn’t then that’s the niche/designers fault. Now obviously the price of marketing, artistry and labor should be added, but if a clone house can replicate 95-99% of the scent using cheaper materials (and selling it for 90% less) then you are over charging and basically charging for the brand.
I don’t buy clones anymore because most of the time the quality isn’t up to par (that’s how it should be), but that being said, I’m not going to pay 400 bucks for something when another clone house can get 95% of the scent profile at 1/10 the price. At that point it makes no sense buying the overpriced fragrance. I can see 1/2 or 1/3, but not 1/10.
Fragrances have a great return on investment. Each bottle costs a fraction of the price to make. I’m not going to pay 30 dollars for a rubber handball because it has your logo on it when I can go to the store and buy a rubber ball made with the same material with basically the same bounce for 1.99.
ok
@@food2430thanks for stopping by 👍
@@soakedbearrd ok
I agree with you and no one knows how much the perfumer is being paid. No one knows the cost of a creative work from a perfumer. I know they’re going to cling to that concept with no evidence.
If you produce a product someone can copy and sell for $40 while making a profit that should incentivize you to lower your prices or produce a better product that actually justifies its price. That’s the free market and it benefits the consumer. If that’s ‘unethical’ a lot of things are in free market capitalism people don’t have to look around long to see that.
Atlantus virgin island water👍
Couple of weak points in your arguments. Medicine - drug companies have patents which protect them and patents are very strictly enforced, off-brands enter the market when patent expires. Music cover musicians usually pay royalties to original composer patents for music lasts life of composer + several years (75 I think) after his death after that the music enters into fair use domaine. I am not saying closes are illegal just that some of your points are weak.
You can patent medicine you can’t patent a fragrance. Clones are ‘inspired by’ the original and not direct copies. I’m not debating the legality I’m debating the ethics. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical vice versa. Perhaps it’s a poor use of analogies. I once couldn’t afford a prescription medication because it was patented and went untreated for a physical issue for over 10 years until a generic was made. That was perfectly legal but was it ethical? I wasn’t sitting there thinking about how unethical the generic companies were. Patents have been used in ethical and unethical ways throughout history.
I’ve never looked at an off brand product and thought ‘that’s unethical they should give the original creator royalties’ in my life if others do that’s perfectly fine. I also don’t know that perfumers get royalties. I’ve never worried about creed having more money and I don’t see any evidence to support their sales have dropped as a result of the clone market growing. In fact, they have sold for almost double what they sold for in 2020 three years later. Just my perception of the situation I don’t need to convince anyone of it.
This is the one place we will disagree. No harm and I’ll move on.
I think it's the designer and niche houses fault for charging so much, that clones are even blown up as much as they are. So it is what it is, if you can get niche or designer, get niche or designer, if you can only get clones, get your clones peeps.. who really freaking cares... lol... Make Fragrances Cheap Again! 😂😂
I disagree. When it comes to medicine, alternatives to the original medication can only be made after certain period of time ( for example 10 years). When it comes to art( which parfumery is), it is also similar. If you copy some certain part of melody, music - you pay royalties( unless the music is older than like 70+ years old and the rights are expired) . If you use some sort of a disney character in your movie- you pay a royalty. I see these clone brands as unethical while they literally copy someone else’s art and create a lesser ( and potentially more dangerous version) product and sells it without paying any royalties to the Brands and original parfumers. I don’t find it ethical to buy an original fragrance, put it through spectroscopy maschine, then adjust lower quality ingredients to reach the ballpark of the original fragrance’s Dna and sell it to the masses.
I see your logic it’s well thought out and I respect it. I still lean towards it being perfectly fine for what I laid out in the video but it’s not black and white everyone has their own views on it and they should be respected.
Who says those ingredients have less quality than the original inspiration ? Nowadays, most inspired by fragances, they have some top quality ingredients and oils. So your take is a little biased towards the niche house. They are some really bad synthetic mess of inspired by fragances, but they are also ones that their quality is better than the original inspiration. And that is not debatable because the proof is out there.
@ it is pretty obvious that clone houses use lesser ingredients( from the ones i tested). Also, some fragrance ingredients are patented by the Firmenich, Givoudan and other chemistry conglomerates, these clone brands have no way in obtaining them. Ofcourse it depends on the exact fragrance that is copied, I guess something like creed Aventus can be easily 98% copied, since it doesn’t use ultra rare expensive ingredients, the 2% is the musk which is patented by Firmenich. But good luck copying something like les indemodables. When it comes to clone brands, every penny counts, of course they are using lesser ingredients, unless it is something like citrus oils( which usually are quite cheap).
@DrIstoris have seen the available suppliers of oils ? The expensive ones are usually the absolute oils that are 100 undiluted or near that level. You could find some good rose oil without selling a kidney, also there are a lot of other ones too.
The difference is certain molecules that are born from certain oil blends that are patented. For example, you could use vanilla oil, jasmine, and some rose and make an artificial honey accord, you could patent this formula because you probably want to have exclusive rights to it because the honey accord could smell a certain way and you don't want competition to use the accord.
You clearly stated that the ones you smelled are clearly synthetic, but that is the point of the topic. Have you smelled all inspired by fragances ? Therefore, you can't judge by a few bad ones. Also, Creed has copied original inspiration aromas, so where is their creativity there ?
Take the house of Authenticity Perfumes, they promise to allways use the best ingredients that are free from harsh chemicals, cruelty free, natural ingredients, etc..
They do Parfums only in all of their creations, and that is 50% oil, so how come someone like this house made Parfums with natural ingredients and also have them for 100$ or less by 60ml. A designer or expensive niche house will probably charge 750$ for a Parfum in that situation. Zaharoff charge 155$ and up for that volume of their Fragrances. Creed charges 365$ for 50 ml of Aventus.
So why is it unthetical to make an inspiration of an inspiration ? You can't patent a perfume idea by itself, which is ilegal and unethical. Ideas are free, and someday, someone will come with something already thought that is why you can't patent the whole composition, but some accords it is permissible.
@DrIstoris and that is eau de parfum or extrait de parfum concentration. Imagine Creed doing Parfums versions of all their Fragrances. They gladly charge a 1,000$ for that fragrance. So it is completely justified that people started making inspired by fragances. Also, why don't you say the roll on perfumes sellers are unethical because they truly steal from the original inspiration because they take the fragrance and diluted them in oil so it can have more longer durability. They are the first ones to basically ( clone ) a fragrance.
I want to know I’m wearing the real deal!!!!
The argument of raw ingredients is pretty hilarious. It's like saying canvas, paint and brushes are not that expensive, so why pay 1000$ or what not for a painting :)
*hearted* though, this UA-camr is just here to try and get a paycheck, saying whatever other people say to fit in. It is stealing, and it is unethical, these companies that 'clone' stuff, are just here to make a quick buck, which makes it unethical, the time and resources that were put into the original stuff is sometimes forgotten, because people only look at the price of the endproduct.
When you speak about the resources of perfume on UA-cam, people automatically think about ingredients. The ingredients at the end of the day are basically free, it is what you do with it, is what makes it expensive. That's what art is about, just like in perfumery. And lastly, perfume is art, in a bottle.
Iv never bought clones and I never will I think mostly bc I see Cuba shilling them and for some reason I really hate that guy and his followers 😂
I can’t stand him either lol first time I saw that intro I was like ‘oh hell no!’ 😅 people find him funny I think he’s obnoxious af
Wait, you said the belief of clone houses stealing from the original degrades the people that work at these clone houses,…the company is still robbing from the original fragrance houses employees. I feel you contradict yourself through the video. Clone houses are exactly that, clones. They try to copy the original perfumers work because they have zero creativity this stealing from the originals employees. You can’t say the above-mentioned belief is degrading clone house employees while supporting the robbing of the original fragrance employees.
Clones are absolutely great for the consumer. For me personally, i just find every single one I’ve tried to be too synthetic and medicinal.
@@Narcissist_Police do you have any evidence to prove that niche houses sales have gone down since the introduction and growing popularity of clones? I have seen no evidence to support such a theory. In fact, the evaluations of many niche houses has grown astronomically along side the growing popularity of clones.
I don’t really buy clones I can afford the original and prefer that route. Just because there’s a cheaper alternative doesn’t mean everyone’s gonna buy it over the original. Also, clones are never 100% accurate.
I said calling clone houses thief’s aligning them with a criminal act is disrespectful IMO.
Of course it’s not unethical
I feel it’s obvious too but apparently a large group of people feel the exact opposite
Clone🤢🥶😱💨😂
I would bet seven quadrillion dollars that every person that says clones are unethical stream all their music where the artists that spend decades making music get paid less than a penny per stream.
my god, his monotone voice ......grrrr
Your data reviews are okayish. But this video and the blind buy video made me think you are a bit weird. Stick to the data thing
He can talk about whatever he wants to. it's his channel. Just don't watch them.
@ didn’t said hè couldn’t. But not understanding the craft of art (the perfumer hired by the brand) and on top of that a budget for marketing. Against a clone brand who is ONLY focused about making money amaze me.
I don’t care if you think I’m weird lol
@@CgScents it is okay to be weird if it is yourself. More power to you bro. But I guess it is just not for me. So an unsubscribe for me. I wish you all the luck tho!
I agree I dint like clones at all but I can see why people do buy them. Fragrance prices are out of control.
I don’t buy clone fragrances, but I have no issues with people doing so. In a time where designer brands are copying each other, and niche brands are playing it very safe .. Even releasing flankers now, how sad, it’s hilarious to talk about ‘creativity’. Some fragrances are expensive because they are « luxury items », they are targeting a specific type of people, the big brands will be ok. But the issue is the psychological element to this, same as for people wearing fake watches and fake bags and clothing etc .. Just stop pretending and lying to yourself, get a perfume because you like it, not because it smells like something much more expensive (The usual is it 99% similar ? Does it project a lot so everyone can validate me ?) .. You will live a better life and you won’t attract the wrong type of people.
Your point is related to status in society of course it makes sense. Because the ones with luxury items are in high regard in this bubble called society but in deserted Island such things not occurs because it is a human construct that we care about others is opinions. That is why people that are smart came with clones, copies, inspiration from things that already exist. Because if I can have a Tom Ford purse by 25$ with better quality materials instead of the one made by the brand why would I spend 340$. It is completely logical with items that sometimes getting a good deal is the better option than the original item.
The same thing with shoes and their replicas. They are made with the same mold, they sometimes have better materials because they don't have to spend money on marketing, they last longer than the brand is shoe, they don't run low on availability, they are way cheaper, they don't scam you, and usually the facility that made them used to be from the original brand. Also when the brands are out of stock they buy replicas because it is the same thing and they selled them as the original.
This is why consumers are allways on the losing side of the brands and their marketing campaigns.