Anyone interested in perfume today who looks for information online has, since 2022 at the latest, found it almost impossible to avoid one topic: dupes. Whether on YouTube, TikTok or Instagram – there’s hardly a hyped-up fragrance for which cheaper alternatives aren’t presented within a matter of days. Videos with titles such as “Smells like…”, “Save your money” or “Better than the original?” are racking up millions of views. Dupes are no longer a niche topic, but a content genre in their own right.
One thing strikes me in particular: the more people talk about dupes, the more blurred the terminology becomes. ‘Fake’, ‘copy’, ‘clone’ and ‘dupe’ are often used interchangeably, even though they describe different things. So, before we discuss dupes, it’s worth taking a look at the terminology first.
Fake (counterfeit): Aims to deceive. It is designed to give the impression of being the original – through the brand name, logo, bottle and packaging. The fragrance itself is secondary and often not even particularly similar. The key point is that the entire product is intended to be perceived as the original.
Copy (clone): A reproduction of a fragrance that is as faithful to the original as possible. The bottle and packaging play a secondary role.
Dupe (from ‘duplicate’): Not an identical reproduction of a fragrance, but an alternative offering an overall impression as similar as possible to the original, at a significantly lower price.
Trend: Describes an olfactory direction that many brands are embracing at the same time. Similar fragrance notes or accords arise not through the imitation of a single perfume, but through a shared aesthetic development, shaped by the spirit of the times and fashion.
Unfortunately, the very term ‘copy’ presents the first difficulty: what does ‘identical’ actually mean when it comes to a perfume? The answer is more complicated than one might initially assume. This is because ‘identical’ can mean different things when it comes to a perfume. Whilst a chemist would only describe a fragrance as identical if the formula, raw materials and concentrations match exactly, many people perceive a fragrance as identical simply if it reminds them of the same perfume.
What’s more, even the original is not a constant. Reformulations, different batches, storage, ageing, skin chemistry, as well as temperature and humidity, all influence the olfactory experience. Even two bottles of the same perfume are therefore not necessarily perceived in exactly the same way. It may well be that the notion of a completely identical fragrance is, in any case, more of an ideal than a verifiable fact.
When I took over Duftcontor in 2009, the world looked very different. The internet played hardly any role, and there were only two online shops for niche fragrances in Germany – one of which was Aus Liebe zum Duft. There were also a few blogs and forums. Even Parfumo and Facebook were still in their infancy. Of course, fragrance comparisons existed back then too. However, they weren’t a selling point, but rather a tool to aid consultations. Customers would say, for example: “XY was my favourite fragrance for years. Now I’m looking for something similar.” It was all about personal taste, not the cheapest price. At least, price played a secondary role at Duftcontor. My customers were looking for something special – a fragrance that hardly anyone knew of or wore. Viral bestsellers and internet hypes were irrelevant. Exclusivity was the goal, and the quest for individuality shaped the niche market for many years. It was only with the rise of social media that this began to change. Duftcontor set up a Facebook page quite early on and, from 2014, also had an Instagram account. All of a sudden, customers started coming into the shop wanting to try out fragrances I’d showcased there. And increasingly, they were also asking for fragrances they’d seen elsewhere. The internet became a major factor and changed almost everything. Suddenly, there were price comparisons and the first discount retailers. And there were fragrances that became global bestsellers in no time at all. Customers came into the shop and suddenly wanted Aventus, Black Afgano and Baccarat Rouge – and nothing else. A substitute was out of the question – instead, the original was ordered online. Any retailer who didn’t stock these suddenly trendy brands had a problem.
Internet forums, blogs and, later, YouTube gave rise to a new form of fragrance culture. Many visitors arrived at the shop with long lists of fragrances they had already researched. They wanted to compare, test and talk shop – but purchases were actually quite rare. Instead, orders were later placed online, or ‘sharing’ sessions were organised. For part of the community, high-street retail increasingly became a place of verification, whilst purchasing decisions were made elsewhere. It was not without reason that the term ‘consultation theft’ was doing the rounds amongst many high-street retailers at the time.
Around 2016, the next shift began to take shape. Most customers were still not interested in dupes, but in the original – albeit increasingly at the lowest possible price. More and more often, online prices were being compared in-store or specific offers were being shown on smartphones. The question increasingly became: “What price can you offer me?” It was probably only a matter of time before the search for the cheapest original turned into a search for the cheapest possible alternative. The technical conditions were now in place: global reach, price comparison websites, social media and hype fragrances that millions of people recognised as a shared point of reference. It was only on this foundation that today’s ‘dupe’ culture could emerge in the first place.
Not every similarity is therefore automatically a dupe. But perhaps, ultimately, that isn’t even the point. After all, dupes say less about perfume than they do about our culture of consumption and attention. Nowadays, products are compared faster than they are discovered. The question ‘Do I like this fragrance?’ is increasingly being replaced by ‘How can I get this fragrance for a bargain price?’ The original often serves merely as a point of reference, rather than being perceived as a creative achievement in its own right. Influencers have played a decisive role in shaping dupe culture through referral marketing. Comparison videos have been among the most successful formats in fragrance content for years. They generate reach, encourage engagement and can be monetised directly via affiliate links or the creators’ own shops. Dupe products have thus become not only a consumer trend but also a business model. It is therefore hardly surprising that brands and distributors are now viewing this development with increasing scepticism and, in some cases, taking action against it.
My personal stance on this comes as little surprise: for me, dupes have never been relevant. Based on my experience in retail and my understanding of creative work, they remain superficial and, at best, merely copy the olfactory impression of a fragrance. The creative idea, the concept and the design – which are crucial to me – fall by the wayside. And because, as a creator, I don’t make a living from reach or affiliate links, I don’t need to compromise this stance either.
Originality has always been the driving force behind perfumery. Progress and innovation do not arise from repeating or copying existing ideas, but from the courage to create something new.
