Under its new owner, the French label's finances at first suffered. In 2002, for example, Ms. Wang launched a new Lanvin-branded perfume. Instead of entrusting the business to a licensee, as most fashion houses do, Lanvin decided to go solo.
[...] The problem with the perfume launch was that Lanvin didn't have the know-how or a distribution network, so it ended up with millions of euros worth of unsold perfume bottles between 2002 and 2004, according to Lanvin's 2004 financial records.
— From Fashion's New Patrons Struggle for Right Fit, a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal about the “deep-pocketed entrepreneurs” buying up the Paris fashion houses. The fragrance must be Lanvin's Eclat d'Arpege. Thanks to Ruth for the link!
The Times article claims that using these untested fragrance chemicals is an ecologically sound choice, as it reduces demand for natural resources. Not mentioned: the fact that ingredients in perfumes and body care products that we wash down the drain each day end up contaminating our rivers, lakes and oceans, creating potential problems for local fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.
— From New York Times seduced by fragrance industry, Enviroblog's answer to Chandler Burr's recent article, Ahhh, the Seductive Fragrance of Molecules Under Patent.
7 Comments
Read more about commenting at Now Smell This.
Maybe Lanvin will cease to exist.. What a mess.
Nah, I'm sure it could be sold to someone else, don't you think?
I'm guessing it's Eclat as well. I'm practically tripping over the sad, forgotten purple bottles when I'm working. Sadly, there is nothing intriguing about it other than the signature image logo on the bottle.
I didn't like Eclat, but I don't see why it shouldn't have sold if they knew what they were doing — I mean, it's as pleasant as anything else on the market, don't you think?
Of course, of all the many things that happen to go down the world's drainpipes, we should worry most about the residue from fragrance and body care products (things that we safely put ON our bodies). I totally agree that we should all try and lessen our negative impact on the environment, but these Enviroblog people and others like them really need some perspective on the subject. I haven't read either article yet so maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but judging from the above their argument sounds a bit half-baked.
Could very well be of course but who would want to buy a fashion house that has been suffering and damaged by such mismanagement and apparent lack of knowledge of the owners?
Those bottles of Eclat d'Arpege in their acrilic boxes don't sell well at all. I see them in many perfumestores on the lowest shelves, row after row. I mean perfumes are a fashions house main income nowadays.
Hmmm…I've read some pretty awful things about what synthetic musks are doing to marine life, so I don't like to be so dismissive even though I continue to wear perfume, and do all kinds of other environmentally incorrect things like drive a car, etc.