Dear Dolby, thanks for your response. I am well aware that the numbers given are just estimates and that the calculation should make it easier to understand the difference. But they used this example. It is not my calculation. I bet a lot of people did not spot the error in the Daily Mail article and some of them are probably thinking that either "Britney is trying to con me, oh no!" or "Ha, I knew my slightly more expensive brand is really worth the price!".
I am well aware that only a fraction of the price of a product is actually used to cover the costs (research, production, materials, staff, supply chain, rent, packaging...) and that everything else is profit. But to those who don't know that the article gives a completely false impression.
It does not make a difference if it's a genuine typo, a deliberately planted wrong number or just Mr Turin being misquoted. Fact is that we were given a wrong impression by this article. I have no problem with Mr Turin; I did not say/write anything about him at all. I don't know about his qualifications, all I know (now after some very little and basic research) is that he says what he thinks of perfumes which is no real science as well. I am sure he deserves to be in the position he is and that he has a very refined nose and everything one needs to have to be a perfume critic.
I am all up for "buy as you please" and I really do not care if a perfume costs as much as a cheap lunch deal or if the price of a perfume is closer to one month's rent in London. Buy what you like and rely on your noses, everyone!
And don't let anyone tell you that something you may not even like is "better value for money" - if you don't like it, it's a complete waste of money!
Just for the record: I have discovered celebrity fragrances less than a year ago. I made my fist celebrity perfume purchase on the 1st of September last year. I am well out of their targeted age group and I couldn't care less. I wore Jovan's Musk (oil concentration as EdP) as a teenager and I am now wearing J Lo's Live. It's fantastic that tastes change all the time and that only oneself can make the right decisions.
In regards to the LIDL perfume: I was looking forward to trying it (I don't like Coco Mlle at all but am still curious) but my local LIDL does not stock it. I'll make a quick visit to a larger LIDL store tonight. Will report my findings.
It is funny to see that out of an article of goodness knows how many characters (couldn't be bothered to run a count) you choose to focus on ONE digit, and boy do you seem angry about it.
Typo or no typo, it doesn't make a great deal of difference as, unless they're simpletons, I don't quite see how so many people could be fooled into thinking that a perfume contains £40 worth of raw ingredients since this is the average price of a fragrance today.
Nobody is arguing the fact that you should let your nose decide, and as they say in France, "Les gouts et les couleurs...", in other words, "each to their own".
I also agree that there are some expensive perfumes made with cheap ingredients.
However, you can dispute it whichever way you want but every single low cost modern Avon, Yves Rocher, Paris Hilton, Britney, Celine Dion & co etc etc etc (...) are made dirt cheap and sold for a fortune in comparison. So the person thinking "Britney is trying to con me" has had a moment of lucidity if nothing else by realising it.
This article does NOT give a completely wrong impression, just look again at the £20 Vs £400 I mention and think about it. (Gee, I can't believe I'm defending a Daily Mail article of all things).
Dr Luca Turin is not really a perfume critic, he's a physiologist and scientific researcher specialising in the mechanics of smell, and more precisely has made groundbreaking discoveries by advancing a theory based on molecular vibrational spectroscopy.
Perfumes are just his little play toys.
Do as I say, not as I do - The Others