Customer Diagnostics
Commodity Fragrance — Consumer Perception Study
April 01, 2026
Project Overview
Known for clean, accessible scents sold widely through Sephora (representing ~60% of sales) and direct-to-consumer channels (~40%), Commodity has established significant market presence. Its current positioning reflects accessibility over aspiration. This research initiative is designed to chart a rigorous, evidence-based path toward repositioning Commodity at the lower tier of the luxury fragrance market — aligning it with brands like Loewe while surpassing peers such as DedCool.
The brand’s leadership has articulated a clear strategic mandate: avoid the trap of virality-driven brand building, which undermines long-term equity, and instead construct a durable, decades-long brand identity rooted in quality, mystique, and deliberate cultural positioning.
Commodity’s 2025 DTC performance data indicates this repositioning is not a distress move. Average order value has risen from $76 to $95 year-over-year (+25%), conversion rate has climbed, and the returning customer rate has grown to 31%. The brand has commercial momentum; the imperative is to direct that momentum toward aspiration before the growing 18–24 buyer cohort permanently anchors public perception in the accessible tier.
Learning Objectives
- Understand how consumers currently perceive Commodity’s brand positioning relative to DS & Durga, Byredo, DedCool, and Tom Ford across visual touchpoints including digital advertising and brand communication.
- Identify which specific brand signals (font, packaging imagery, ad execution) most strongly drive premium, sophisticated, luxurious, trustworthy, and approachable perceptions.
- Evaluate how projection customization (Scent Space) affects perceived brand elevation.
- Map the distance between Commodity’s current perception and a more premium brand position.
Libraries
Data Import
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Responses | 244 |
| Columns | 167 |
| Source file | Commodity Survey (Responses).xlsx |
Codebook & Helper Functions
Structured Data Frames
Section 1 — User Block (Q1–Q14)
## Rows: 244
## Columns: 23
## $ timestamp <dttm> 2026-03-30 17:51:39, 2026-03-30 17:54:15, 20…
## $ zip_code <chr> "35633", "98198", "07063", "19046", "91010", …
## $ age <chr> "45–54", "35–44", "45–54", "18–24", "25–34", …
## $ gender <chr> "Woman", "Woman", "Woman", "Woman", "Man", "W…
## $ income <chr> "$200K+", "$74K–$124K", "$200K+", "$74K–$124K…
## $ fragrance_use_freq <chr> "Once a day", "Multiple times a day", "Once a…
## $ fragrance_purchase_freq <chr> "4–6 times a year", "Monthly or more", "4–6 t…
## $ fragrances_owned <chr> "10+", "10+", "6–10", "10+", "10+", "6–10", "…
## $ spend_per_purchase <chr> "$50–$149", "$150–$249", "$50–$149, $150–$249…
## $ purchase_channel <chr> "Beauty retailers, Online (Sephora, Ulta, etc…
## $ brands_purchased <chr> "Commodity, Tom Ford, valentino, creed", "Com…
## $ heard_of_commodity <chr> "Yes, I have purchased it", "Yes, I have purc…
## $ imp_scent_profile <chr> "Extremely Important", "Extremely Important",…
## $ imp_brand_reputation <chr> "Somewhat Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_packaging <chr> "Somewhat Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_instore_presentation <chr> "Slightly Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_price <chr> "Somewhat Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_ingredients <chr> "Somewhat Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_exclusivity <chr> "Somewhat Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_sustainability <chr> "Slightly Important", "Extremely Important", …
## $ imp_scent_longevity <chr> "Extremely Important", "Extremely Important",…
## $ fragrance_relationship <chr> "It's part of my personal style ritual", "It'…
## $ fragrance_discovery <chr> "Brand's marketing communications, Friends an…Section 2 — Font Block (Q15–Q18)
Note: Google Forms stored Q16 (bold serif) before Q15 (thin serif) in the spreadsheet.
## Rows: 244
## Columns: 21
## $ f2_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4,…
## $ f2_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3,…
## $ f2_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3,…
## $ f2_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4,…
## $ f2_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5,…
## $ f2_aspirational <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 2, 3, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3,…
## $ f1_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 3, 3, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4,…
## $ f1_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2,…
## $ f1_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 5, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2,…
## $ f1_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5,…
## $ f1_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5,…
## $ f3_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3,…
## $ f3_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3,…
## $ f3_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3,…
## $ f3_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4,…
## $ f3_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5,…
## $ f4_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2,…
## $ f4_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2,…
## $ f4_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2,…
## $ f4_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2,…
## $ f4_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2,…Section 3 — Image Block (Q19–Q28)
## Rows: 244
## Columns: 50
## $ commodity_with_ingr_premium <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 5, 5, …
## $ commodity_with_ingr_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ commodity_with_ingr_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ commodity_with_ingr_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, …
## $ commodity_with_ingr_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ commodity_no_ingr_premium <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, …
## $ commodity_no_ingr_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, …
## $ commodity_no_ingr_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 2, …
## $ commodity_no_ingr_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, …
## $ commodity_no_ingr_approachable <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 1, 2, …
## $ byredo_rouge_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ byredo_rouge_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ byredo_rouge_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, …
## $ byredo_rouge_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ byredo_rouge_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 4, …
## $ byredo_bal_premium <dbl> 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ byredo_bal_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, …
## $ byredo_bal_luxurious <dbl> 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ byredo_bal_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ byredo_bal_approachable <dbl> 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dedcool_mochi_premium <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dedcool_mochi_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dedcool_mochi_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ dedcool_mochi_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, …
## $ dedcool_mochi_approachable <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ dedcool_beach_premium <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dedcool_beach_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 3, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, …
## $ dedcool_beach_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 3, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dedcool_beach_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, …
## $ dedcool_beach_approachable <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ dsdurga_pistachio_premium <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dsdurga_pistachio_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ dsdurga_pistachio_luxurious <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 3, …
## $ dsdurga_pistachio_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5, …
## $ dsdurga_pistachio_approachable <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, …
## $ dsdurga_magenta_premium <dbl> 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 4, …
## $ dsdurga_magenta_sophisticated <dbl> 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 4, …
## $ dsdurga_magenta_luxurious <dbl> 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 3, …
## $ dsdurga_magenta_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 3, …
## $ dsdurga_magenta_approachable <dbl> 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 3, 4, 1, 3, …
## $ tomford_tov_leaves_premium <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, …
## $ tomford_tov_leaves_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, …
## $ tomford_tov_leaves_luxurious <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, …
## $ tomford_tov_leaves_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, …
## $ tomford_tov_leaves_approachable <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, …
## $ tomford_tov_cave_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ tomford_tov_cave_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ tomford_tov_cave_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, …
## $ tomford_tov_cave_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 3, …
## $ tomford_tov_cave_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 2, …Section 4 — Ad Block (Q29–Q38)
Note: “This ad is convincing” landed in cols 158–167 for all 10 ads, separate from the main block (95–149).
## Rows: 244
## Columns: 65
## $ commodity_iced_premium <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2…
## $ commodity_iced_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3…
## $ commodity_iced_luxurious <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2…
## $ commodity_iced_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4…
## $ commodity_iced_approachable <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4…
## $ commodity_iced_review_helpful <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4…
## $ commodity_iced_convincing <dbl> 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, 5, 3…
## $ commodity_gold_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4…
## $ commodity_gold_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4…
## $ commodity_gold_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3…
## $ commodity_gold_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 3…
## $ commodity_gold_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4…
## $ commodity_gold_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 2, 3…
## $ byredo_mojave_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 4…
## $ byredo_mojave_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4…
## $ byredo_mojave_luxurious <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 3…
## $ byredo_mojave_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4…
## $ byredo_mojave_approachable <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4…
## $ byredo_mojave_review_helpful <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4…
## $ byredo_mojave_convincing <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 4…
## $ byredo_bal_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3…
## $ byredo_bal_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3…
## $ byredo_bal_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3…
## $ byredo_bal_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 3…
## $ byredo_bal_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3…
## $ byredo_bal_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3…
## $ dedcool_mochi_premium <dbl> 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3…
## $ dedcool_mochi_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4…
## $ dedcool_mochi_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3…
## $ dedcool_mochi_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4…
## $ dedcool_mochi_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4…
## $ dedcool_mochi_review_helpful <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4…
## $ dedcool_mochi_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4…
## $ dedcool_multi_premium <dbl> 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3…
## $ dedcool_multi_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4…
## $ dedcool_multi_luxurious <dbl> 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2…
## $ dedcool_multi_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4…
## $ dedcool_multi_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4…
## $ dedcool_multi_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_review_helpful <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3…
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2…
## $ dsdurga_madeny_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2…
## $ dsdurga_madeny_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4…
## $ dsdurga_madeny_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2…
## $ dsdurga_madeny_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3…
## $ dsdurga_madeny_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3…
## $ dsdurga_madeny_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3…
## $ tomford_soleil_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3…
## $ tomford_soleil_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3…
## $ tomford_soleil_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3…
## $ tomford_soleil_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3…
## $ tomford_soleil_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3…
## $ tomford_soleil_review_helpful <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4…
## $ tomford_soleil_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3…
## $ tomford_rose_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3…
## $ tomford_rose_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4…
## $ tomford_rose_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3…
## $ tomford_rose_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4…
## $ tomford_rose_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3…
## $ tomford_rose_convincing <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3…Section 5 — Customization Block (Q39–Q42)
## Rows: 244
## Columns: 4
## $ cust_interest <dbl> 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, …
## $ cust_brand_desc <chr> "Personally empowering", "None of the above", "Innovat…
## $ cust_luxurious <dbl> 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, …
## $ cust_premium <dbl> 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, …Section 6 — Brand Block (Q43–Q45)
## Rows: 244
## Columns: 3
## $ brand_cluster <chr> "Byredo, Le Labo, Maison Margiela Replica", "DedCool, Ph…
## $ brand_words <chr> "Accessible, Sophisticated, Elevated, Everyday, Unique, …
## $ brand_tradeup <chr> "Tom Ford", "Byredo, Le Labo, Loewe", "DS & Durga, Byred…Respondent Snapshot
| metric | value |
|---|---|
| Total responses | 244 |
| Heard of Commodity (yes) | 243 |
| Valid US ZIP codes | 227 |
Geography
Consumer Segmentation
Segment rules:
| Segment | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Luxury Enthusiast | High income + high spend + woman + mid/older age |
| Prestige Buyer | High income + high/mid spend |
| Selective Spender | High income + low spend |
| Aspiring Millennial | Mid income + high/mid spend + young age |
| Core Enthusiast | Mid income + high/mid spend + mid/older age |
| Value Seeker | Mid income + low spend |
| Stretch Buyer | Low income + high/mid spend |
| Budget Buyer | Low income + low spend |
| Unclassified | No clear fit |
| Segment | Income Tier | Spend Tier | Age Group | Gender | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspiring Millennial | mid | mid | young | Woman | 5 |
| Aspiring Millennial | unknown | high | young | Woman | 3 |
| Aspiring Millennial | unknown | mid | young | Woman | 3 |
| Aspiring Millennial | mid | high | young | Woman | 2 |
| Aspiring Millennial | unknown | mid | young | Man | 2 |
| Aspiring Millennial | mid | high | young | Man | 1 |
| Aspiring Millennial | mid | mid | young | Man | 1 |
| Budget Buyer | low | low | young | Woman | 15 |
| Budget Buyer | low | low | mid_age | Woman | 13 |
| Budget Buyer | low | low | young | Man | 5 |
| Budget Buyer | low | low | mid_age | Man | 3 |
| Budget Buyer | low | low | older | Woman | 1 |
| Core Enthusiast | mid | mid | mid_age | Woman | 13 |
| Core Enthusiast | unknown | mid | mid_age | Woman | 6 |
| Core Enthusiast | mid | high | mid_age | Woman | 4 |
| Core Enthusiast | mid | mid | mid_age | Man | 3 |
| Core Enthusiast | mid | mid | older | Woman | 3 |
| Core Enthusiast | unknown | high | mid_age | Woman | 3 |
| Core Enthusiast | unknown | high | older | Woman | 1 |
| Core Enthusiast | unknown | mid | older | Woman | 1 |
| Luxury Enthusiast | high | high | mid_age | Woman | 14 |
| Luxury Enthusiast | high | high | older | Woman | 4 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | mid | mid_age | Woman | 21 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | mid | mid_age | Man | 4 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | mid | older | Woman | 3 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | high | young | Woman | 2 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | mid | young | Woman | 2 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | high | mid_age | Man | 1 |
| Prestige Buyer | high | mid | young | Non-binary | 1 |
| Selective Spender | high | low | mid_age | Woman | 14 |
| Selective Spender | high | low | older | Woman | 3 |
| Selective Spender | high | low | young | Woman | 2 |
| Selective Spender | high | low | young | Man | 1 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | mid | mid_age | Woman | 9 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | mid | young | Woman | 8 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | high | mid_age | Woman | 2 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | high | mid_age | Man | 1 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | high | older | Woman | 1 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | high | young | Woman | 1 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | mid | older | Woman | 1 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | mid | unknown | Woman | 1 |
| Stretch Buyer | low | mid | young | Man | 1 |
| Unclassified | unknown | high | unknown | Prefer not to say | 1 |
| Unclassified | unknown | mid | unknown | Woman | 1 |
| Value Seeker | mid | low | mid_age | Woman | 15 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | mid_age | Woman | 11 |
| Value Seeker | mid | low | young | Woman | 8 |
| Value Seeker | mid | low | older | Woman | 4 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | young | Woman | 4 |
| Value Seeker | mid | low | mid_age | Man | 3 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | older | Woman | 3 |
| Value Seeker | mid | low | older | Man | 2 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | unknown | Woman | 2 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | young | Non-binary | 2 |
| Value Seeker | mid | low | older | Non-binary | 1 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | older | Man | 1 |
| Value Seeker | unknown | low | young | Prefer not to say | 1 |
Consumer Behaviour (Q5–Q14)
## Other responses ( 34 total):
## • There’s other places
## • Online fragrance sites
## • Secondhand website i.e. Depop
## • Different stores and websites
## • Resell
## • Fragrancenet.com
## • Facebook groups Mercari eBay
## • Niche brand websites
## • Third-party sites like Fragrancenet
## • Varied
## • Fragrancenet
## • TikTok
## • Oil stores
## • Discount sites like Fragrance.net or PerfumeSpot
## • Ipsy
## • Credo and or Lucky Scents
## • Discount websites like Jomashop or Fragrancenet
## • Marshalls Ebisu Life Miniso
## • Sample Decanting websites such as Ministry of Scent
## • Jomashop Fragrancenet FragrancebuycaFrag Flex TikTok Beauty House Aroma Concept erc
## • Tiktok
## • Decanter sites
## • Tiktok
## • Discounters online
## • Jomashop
## • Ipsy
## • Mercari Facebook
## • Discounters and collectors on eBay etsy
## • Facebook Groups/Facebook Marketplace
## • costco
## • Zgo perfumery
## • ShopApp
## • TJ MAXX
## • Fragrance Facebook groups
## Other responses ( 133 total):
## • valentino creed
## • Indie
## • Glossier Kayali Nest
## • L’Orchestre p. seven
## • Teo Cabanel
## • Noyz summer fridays
## • Phlur
## • Sucrebeille Glossier
## • Killian Chloe Arabian Fragrances Indie Carplina Herrera Roan etc
## • Parfums de Marly Xerjoff Glossier Furla Lattafa Valentino Mind Games Khadlaj Dolce & Gabbana Kayali Laura Mercier Kilian Gulf Orchid
## • Ormonde Jayne Creed Bond no. 9
## • Lattafa
## • Mugler
## • Different brands
## • Phlur and Kayali
## • Kate Walsh: BOYFRIEND
## • Marc Jacobs etc
## • Dupes (Dossier and Oakcha)and Lataffa
## • juliette has a gun
## • Versace Valentino Chanel
## • Miss Dior Burberry Vesace
## • Maison Francis Kurkjidan and LUSH
## • Many others
## • Arabian oud swiss Arabian commodity montale mancera ysl
## • Jean Paul Gaultier Burberry YSL
## • Heretic
## • D’Annam BDK Initio
## • Vyrao Discotech Jo Malone
## • 7 Virtues Essential Parfums Who is Elijah Lush
## • Josie Jane and Clean Reserve
## • Kayali
## • Bath and Body Works Lattafa Sapil
## • Phlur memo noyzhouse of boburberrymany more
## • Gucci Killian 7 virtues Jo Malone Phlur Nest
## • Chanel Amouage Aerin Regime des Fleurs etc.
## • 7 virtues Ceremonia Henry Rose
## • Dior finery
## • Phlur
## • Snif
## • RabanneVersaceSorceWMA PhlurEstee Lauder Ellis Brooklyn
## • Givenchy the lifestyle co kayali maison Louis Marie Fulton & Roark
## • imaginary authors hermes aesop
## • Dior
## • Riddle Tokyo Milk Chanel Ralph Lauren
## • Kayali ysl dolce chanel
## • Amourage roja boy smells MFK creed armani lattafa xerjoff killian
## • Dolce and Gabbana Jo Malone Kayali Thierry Mugler Dior
## • Burberry coach Juliette has a gun noteworthy
## • Quince
## • Gucci
## • Snif Ellis BK Brown Girl Jane Sorce Phlur Nest
## • Valentino miim miic dossier forvr mood Ellis brooklyn
## • Kayali
## • Gucci yslMadison louis Mariebcbg etc
## • Dossier. Phlur. Noteworthy.
## • Guerlain Ormonde Jayne Xerjoff (including Casamorati) Penhaligon's
## • Snif Jo Malone Ellis Brooklyn Blomb Juliet has a gun etc.
## • Kayali lake & Skye and more
## • D&C
## • Penhaligon's
## • MFK
## • Nest
## • Escentric Molecules FASCENT Stora Skuggan Versatile Headspace Antica Farmacista NEST New York Elizabeth and James
## • Guerlain Michael Malul Calvin Klein Dior Prada
## • Rare beauty Armani Beauty Glossier Vanlentino Beauty Jo Malone
## • Guerlain
## • Arquiste
## • Chanel Coco Gucci Guilty
## • Kilian
## • Roja
## • viktor rolf
## • Mind Games Kayali Armani etc
## • Orebella
## • MFK Kayali Marc Jacobs Prada Valentino
## • Juliette Has A Gun Cirque du Soleil Giardini di Toscana Glossier Riffs Laura Mercier Fugazzi
## • penhaligon's creed perfumes de Marly BDK
## • Prada Dior Chloé Henry Rose Phlur Jo malone Brooklyn Ellis Nest Kylie Cosmic Nestetc
## • Trish McEvoy Jo Malone
## • Giardini di Toscana
## • Creed
## • Gucci; custom blends
## • Kayali Valentino Kilian
## • 1 million by paco rabanne
## • Misenzer amouage narcotica others
## • Quince
## • Noteworthy
## • Maison Louis Marie Maison Francis Kurkdjian Veronique Gabai Ayond Abel
## • Dolce&Gabbana coach
## • Parfum De Marly
## • Dries Van Noten MFK House of Bo Jimmy Choo Chanel Dior Billie Ellis flower bomb
## • Phlur YSL Kayali Jo Malone
## • Givenchy valentino jpg middle eastern
## • Chanel JPG Lattafa
## • Mancera Montale Jo Malone London Victoria Beckham Juliette has a gun
## • Skylar Glossier Sol de Janeiro Viktor & Rolf
## • By Rosie Jane Henry Rose
## • Noyz
## • Tsu Lange Yor Calvin Klein Panier des Sens
## • Etat Libre d’Orange Henry Rose Alkemia
## • Dior Catherine Malandrino Memoire Archives
## • Anthony Black
## • Ffern Hawthorne Noteworthy
## • Killian Kayali Dossier Bath and Body works Le monde Gourmand
## • Clean Beauty collective Snif
## • Fuggazi binaural and others
## • Versace
## • John varvatos
## • Jovoy D'Orsay Bon Parfumeur Essential Parfums
## • Heretic Henry Rose House of Bo Elorea d’annam Phlur.
## • Molecule
## • Michael Kors dolce and gabbano
## • Lattafa
## • Fulton & Roark
## • Heretic
## • Chanel
## • Skylar
## • Snif Noyz Moodeaux Henry Rose 7 Virtues
## • Joram studio commodity
## • Aqua di parma
## • Jo Malone Lancome Harmonist Electimus Loewe Prada Gucci LV Versace Kayali etc
## • Amorphous Oraculum
## • Too many to include.
## • Kayali SNIF Skylar Floral Street Nest Noise Phlur 7 Virtues...
## • Dolce and Gabbana Jean Paul Gaultier
## • Ive been buying alot of middle eastern fragrance and/or getting them as PR or Tiktok Shop Collabs
## • Oui the People Snif co Harlem Perfume Co Chloe Sovigny
## • Sol de Janeiro Granado Paco Rabanne Zara Burberry
## • Odette Parfums. Alloy Studio. Jean Robet
## • Guerlain YSL Chabaud Andrea Maack Kayali
## • Lattafa kayali Valentino gucci nest
## • Sorce
## • Oriza L. Legrand Filippo Sorcinelli SENYOKÔ laboratorio olfattivo
## • By Rosie Jane JHAG SDJ
## Other responses ( 20 total):
## • I review fragrances an they reflect my mood of the day and start conversations.
## • I sensory seek via olfactory input to regulate my nervous system--good smells calm me
## • I have had a lifetime fascination with sent
## • Kate Walsh-BOYFRIEND
## • It is like jewelry to compliment an outfit
## • Outfits are planned around scent of the day
## • Fragrance is how I start and end my day. It brings a form of comfort to my life.
## • I match it to my mood and season
## • Aromatherapy- different fragrances for different moods
## • It’s what I’m known for! I don’t feel sexy without my finishing touches of Juice + or Paper +. It’s an absolute must have!
## • I am a fragrance influencer.
## • Uplifting
## • It's part of my self-care
## • Your scent tells your story before you open your mouth. Your scent can repel or draw others closer. Fragrance is a very important part of a person’s personality; it’s fluid and complex.
## • It changes with my mood/event
## • Mood boost/ Or Relaxation
## • a part of self care routine and treating myself
## • I wear it to encore a mood.
## • It's kind of at the center of my everyday
## • I also review fragrance
## Other responses ( 28 total):
## • I usually search online and watch YouTube as well as being a fragrance reviewer I pay attention to new releases.
## • Decant sites
## • I constantly search for sents I wish to smell and invest in
## • With 2 little kids and living in the suburbs it’s hard for me to get to the stores to sample new products. I would be more willing to buy products after receiving promotional samples delivered to my home that I liked vs blind buying.
## • Buying samples
## • Samples
## • Fragrance professionals like Alice du Parcq
## • GWP on the Sephora app
## • Discovery sets / samples
## • Samples given from online shopping
## • I should note I have no social media besides YouTube and I store samples.
## • Mainly through independent retailers that I've previously purchased from (Luckyscent Ministry of Scent Aedes de Venustas).
## • Free samples!!
## • decant websites (sampling)
## • sample boxes
## • Scentbird
## • Online samples
## • I love to read about fragrances and blind buy. It’s like opening a Christmas gift- what will it be!? Sometimes I’m pleasantly pleased sometimes I am regretful. It’s all apart of the fragrance collection culture.
## • Samples sent with other fragrances or products ordered online
## • Discovery sets
## • GQ Box
## • through asking gemini for fragrance recommendations based on scents notes and perfumes i already have tried and like
## • scentbird
## • regularly checking retailers websites
## • Online sample purchase
## • Searching online for a scent profile
## • Sometimes I may see an ad that intrigues me. But I will not buy it until I’ve tested it.
## • HappenstancePurchase Channel × Geography
Buyer Cluster Analysis (K=3)
Three consumer types emerge from Q12 (purchase factor importance):
- Brand-Conscious Maximalist — High on everything: brand rep, exclusivity, sustainability, longevity. Most likely trade-up risk if Commodity doesn’t signal enough brand prestige.
- Scent Purist — Scent profile and longevity score highest; brand reputation and exclusivity score lowest. Buys for the smell, not the status.
- Selective Minimalist — Moderate scores across all factors; harder to reach with a single message.
##
## # Cluster Narrative (auto-generated from data)##
## - Cluster "Brand-Conscious Maximalist" (n=46, 19%) — Overall mean: 4.33. Scent: 4.7 | Longevity: 4.93 | Brand rep: 4.26 | Exclusivity: 3.8 | Sustainability: 4.37 | Packaging: 4.11 | In-Store: 3.74 | Price: 4.54 | Ingredients: 4.52.
##
## - Cluster "Scent Purist" (n=67, 27%) — Overall mean: 2.74. Scent: 4.64 | Longevity: 4.04 | Brand rep: 2.3 | Exclusivity: 1.51 | Sustainability: 2.22 | Packaging: 2.09 | In-Store: 1.37 | Price: 3.73 | Ingredients: 2.78.
##
## - Cluster "Selective Minimalist" (n=131, 54%) — Overall mean: 3.47. Scent: 4.75 | Longevity: 4.16 | Brand rep: 3.38 | Exclusivity: 2.35 | Sustainability: 3.4 | Packaging: 3.23 | In-Store: 2.56 | Price: 3.83 | Ingredients: 3.61.Hypothesis 1 — Font Design
H1: The font on the product label is a main driver of accessible vs. premium positioning.
- Font 1 (Q15): Thin/light serif
- Font 2 (Q16): Bold serif — only font rated on all 6 attributes including aspirational
- Font 3 (Q17): High-contrast / mixed-case serif
- Font 4 (Q18): Italic script / san serif
## # A tibble: 4 × 5
## font_label approachable premium gap direction
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <chr>
## 1 F3: High Contrast Serif (Q17) 3.49 3.2 -0.29 Skews Everyday
## 2 F2: Bold Serif (Q16) 4.04 3.66 -0.38 Skews Everyday
## 3 F1: Thin Serif (Q15) 3.51 2.95 -0.56 Skews Everyday
## 4 F4: Italic Script (Q18) 2.69 2.11 -0.58 Skews Everyday
## # A tibble: 4 × 2
## font_label overall_mean
## <chr> <dbl>
## 1 F2: Bold Serif (Q16) 3.66
## 2 F3: High Contrast Serif (Q17) 3.24
## 3 F1: Thin Serif (Q15) 3.04
## 4 F4: Italic Script (Q18) 2.19
H1 — Pooled Correlation with P-values
Interpretation guide: A p-value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant correlation at the 95% confidence level. *** p<0.001 | ** p<0.01 | * p<0.05 | ns = not significant. As described in survey research literature, p-values represent the probability that the observed relationship occurred by chance under the null hypothesis; lower values provide stronger support for a genuine association
## H1 Font pooled n = 976##
## ── H1 Correlation Matrix ─────────────────────────────## premium sophisticated luxurious trustworthy approachable
## premium 1.000 0.853 0.855 0.698 0.559
## sophisticated 0.853 1.000 0.848 0.691 0.566
## luxurious 0.855 0.848 1.000 0.671 0.539
## trustworthy 0.698 0.691 0.671 1.000 0.777
## approachable 0.559 0.566 0.539 0.777 1.000##
## ── H1 P-values ───────────────────────────────────────## premium sophisticated luxurious trustworthy approachable
## premium NA 0 0 0 0
## sophisticated 0 NA 0 0 0
## luxurious 0 0 NA 0 0
## trustworthy 0 0 0 NA 0
## approachable 0 0 0 0 NA
H1 — Per-Font Correlation Matrices & Diagnostics
Hypothesis 2 — Product Imagery
H2: Consumers perceive ingredient-focused imagery as significantly less premium than dramatic/narrative-driven imagery.
H2 — Extended Diagnostics
| group | brand_label | approachable | luxurious | premium | sophisticated | trustworthy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredient | Byredo | 3.43 | 3.34 | 3.48 | 3.56 | 3.45 |
| No-Ingredient | Byredo | 3.10 | 3.47 | 3.55 | 3.50 | 3.24 |
| Ingredient | Commodity | 4.02 | 3.26 | 3.46 | 3.26 | 3.78 |
| No-Ingredient | Commodity | 2.97 | 2.89 | 2.94 | 2.99 | 2.91 |
| Ingredient | DS&Durga | 3.63 | 2.79 | 3.00 | 2.93 | 3.39 |
| No-Ingredient | DS&Durga | 3.09 | 2.77 | 2.90 | 2.77 | 2.84 |
| Ingredient | DedCool | 3.93 | 2.75 | 2.99 | 2.99 | 3.70 |
| No-Ingredient | DedCool | 3.59 | 2.86 | 2.93 | 2.97 | 3.38 |
| Ingredient | Tom Ford | 3.39 | 3.66 | 3.80 | 3.78 | 3.52 |
| No-Ingredient | Tom Ford | 3.19 | 3.73 | 3.77 | 3.77 | 3.41 |
## H2 pooled n ( Ingredient ) = 244
## H2 pooled n ( No-Ingredient ) = 244
H2 — Statistical Tests (Paired t-tests with P-values)
For each brand, a paired t-test compares ingredient vs. no-ingredient scores on the “premium” attribute. A p-value < 0.05 indicates the difference is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
| Brand | Mean (Ingr) | Mean (No-Ingr) | Difference (No−Ingr) | t | df | p-value | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commodity | 3.46 | 2.94 | -0.52 | 5.227 | 486.0 | 0.0000 | *** |
| Byredo | 3.48 | 3.55 | 0.07 | -0.762 | 485.2 | 0.4466 | ns |
| DedCool | 2.99 | 2.93 | -0.06 | 0.667 | 486.0 | 0.5051 | ns |
| DS&Durga | 3.00 | 2.90 | -0.11 | 1.091 | 482.6 | 0.2757 | ns |
| Tom Ford | 3.80 | 3.77 | -0.02 | 0.299 | 477.5 | 0.7647 | ns |
| Note: | |||||||
|
*** p<0.001 | ** p<0.01 | * p<0.05 | ns = not
significant (α = 0.05). A positive ‘Difference’ means No-Ingredient scored higher on premium. |
Hypothesis 3 — Ad Execution
H3: Review-based ads are perceived as significantly less premium than product-only ads.
H3 — Extended Diagnostics
## H3 pooled n ( With Review ) = 244
## H3 pooled n ( No Review ) = 244
H3 — Statistical Tests (Paired t-tests with P-values)
Welch two-sample t-test comparing “With Review” vs “No Review” premium scores per brand.
| Brand | Mean (Review) | Mean (No Review) | Difference (No−Review) | t | df | p-value | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commodity | 3.08 | 4.03 | 0.95 | -11.059 | 453.8 | 0.0000 | *** |
| Byredo | 3.20 | 3.40 | 0.20 | -2.316 | 485.1 | 0.0210 |
|
| DedCool | 2.66 | 2.93 | 0.27 | -2.906 | 482.7 | 0.0038 | ** |
| DS&Durga | 2.90 | 3.28 | 0.38 | -4.178 | 484.4 | 0.0000 | *** |
| Tom Ford | 3.40 | 3.70 | 0.30 | -3.443 | 483.9 | 0.0006 | *** |
| Note: | |||||||
|
*** p<0.001 | ** p<0.01 | * p<0.05 | ns = not
significant (α = 0.05). A positive ‘Difference’ means the no-review ad scored higher on premium. |
Hypothesis 4 — Scent Space / Projection Customization
H4: Scent Space projection customization carries Commodity into the aspirational space. Consumers who desire fragrance adaptation across moments will perceive the offering as more luxurious and premium.
H4 — Correlation Matrix with P-values
One-sample t-tests (vs. neutral midpoint 3.0) determine whether interest, luxury, and premium scores differ significantly from indifference. Spearman correlations assess how strongly these three constructs relate to one another.
| Variable | Mean | SD | t | df | p-value | Sig. | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customization Interest | 4.15 | 1.00 | 18.011 | 243 | 0 | *** | Above midpoint |
| Feels More Luxurious | 4.07 | 0.85 | 19.671 | 243 | 0 | *** | Above midpoint |
| Feels More Premium | 4.01 | 0.84 | 18.830 | 243 | 0 | *** | Above midpoint |
| Note: | |||||||
|
*** p<0.001 | ** p<0.01 | * p<0.05 | ns = not
significant. ‘Above midpoint’ means consumers rated the feature as MORE luxurious/premium/interesting than neutral. |
##
## ── H4 Correlation Matrix ──────────────────────────────## cust_interest cust_luxurious cust_premium
## cust_interest 1.000 0.613 0.562
## cust_luxurious 0.613 1.000 0.720
## cust_premium 0.562 0.720 1.000##
## ── H4 P-values ────────────────────────────────────────## cust_interest cust_luxurious cust_premium
## cust_interest NA 0 0
## cust_luxurious 0 NA 0
## cust_premium 0 0 NA
Brand Positioning
Brand Cluster (Q43)
## Other responses ( 13 total):
## • commodity doesn’t fall into any of these categories as it’s unique in its concept
## • I really only love Milk and Gold. Those seem close to DedCool/Phlur/Skylar. But not the rest of the Commodity line.
## • Laurel Bath House Sorce DedCool
## • None of them commodity hooked me with its unique style and design.
## • I’m not sure as I’ve never used some of these brands but I don’t think commodity represents any of the listed in comparison
## • Clean Reserve Bastide Versatile Paris
## • Jo Malone
## • I would put commodity in its own category to be honest. In between dedcool Phlur and Skylar’s category and the category with ds & durga and diptyque. The scent profile on commodity fragrances is a bit more developed than the first category but much more accessible than the second. Not less developed than ds & Durga or diptyque but more approachable.
## • Fuggazi
## • This is all perceived value honestly commodity has better juice than creed or tom ford but the packaging is not as unique. I give my friends decants of commodity all the time. People that work for Le Labo and Byredo and they are always shocked that it is so good.
## • In between the first two options
## • Honestly Commodity stands out on their own!
## • It feels all its own to be honest which I appreciate! None of the others are even relatable or similar in my opinion. (In a good way)Brand Descriptors (Q44)
## Other responses ( 17 total):
## • The Archive Collection is a real hit and the marketing (releasing 2X per year) is motivating.
## • Varied--some super hits and some big misses
## • LOVEEE Milk Orchid and the customer service on Instagram
## • Approachable
## • Personal
## • Customizable
## • Engaging & distinctive
## • Milk smells like a sophisticated dessert…
## • for ME: as a migraine suffer having three different strength options is really good as I cannot handle strong smells
## • Minimalist/focused
## • Signature Scent Worthy
## • Cool
## • Modern
## • Creative
## • Natural
## • Out of the ordinary fun
## • Just amazing!!Trade-Up Destination (Q45)
## Other responses ( 28 total):
## • Scent dependent. I love the Commodity fragrances but if I found something that I enjoyed more I would consider paying more.
## • L’Orchestre
## • Maybe but I personally haven’t enjoyed fragrances from the options presented.
## • Guerlain Memo paris Killian Louis Vuitton but that's a price range thing
## • I owned all the above before buying commodity.
## • Premium not as important as a preferred scent profile
## • Commodity has been able to craft unique scents that stand out. As long as the brand keeps mixing together unique notes I have no need to look elsewhere.
## • Bring back Tonka!!!! And Tea!!! Been a fan even before the refounding <3
## • I like commodity i have two bottles and have considered buying more
## • depends on how something smells tbh
## • Diptyque
## • I vary in price. It’s less of price more of my connection to the scent
## • It would really depend. I don't tend to buy fragrances from only one brand as I like to check out whichever brand is working with my favorite notes.
## • Kilian
## • I want to clarify that I am only interested in TF Gris Clair. I really want to like Juliette Has a Gun but its very strong. Its like Atelier Cologne being obsessed with citrus- it sucks that they don’t do alternative formulations like you do!
## • I love Commodity Fragrances but I like to try new brands as well. I don't consider trading Commodity for another brand.
## • I would add to my collection but I would never replace my signature commodity milk I’ve been using it for years now
## • None of these
## • I haven’t tried however the others just sell way too masculine for me and I would never wear them.
## • I love commodity and Dior best
## • This question doesn’t make sense. Most people own a mix of scents at various price points.
## • lattafa
## • I see commodity for more layering of products than most of these brands.
## • Andrea Maack Fugazzi Cult of Kaori Jovoy
## • I would not switch without experiencing the scent first. Simply because in the end the only thing I want my husband to think about when he hugs me is how good I smell.
## • None of the brands here are MY vibe...I'd be a Giardini De Toscana Zoologist Sorce Imaginary Authors Untamed Fragrances kinda gal...
## • I wouldnt "trade up" I wear/would wesr all of the above if they had scents I like
## • Commodity is honestly my favorite brand I look forward to the unique options that come out frequently. Rather than wanting a perfume at a higher cost range I’d prefer to buy more of the options at commodity in the various variations.Correspondence Analysis — Brand Words × Brand Cluster (Q44 × Q43)
Supplementary Analysis
Competitive Perceptual Map
PCA biplot using mean attribute scores (premium, sophisticated, luxurious, trustworthy, approachable) per brand across all H2 image conditions. Brands that cluster together are perceived similarly; attribute vectors point toward their strongest associations.
##
## ── Variance explained ─────────────────────────────────## PC1 PC2 PC3
## Standard deviation 1.883176 1.201317 0.1019481
## Proportion of Variance 0.709270 0.288630 0.0020800
## Cumulative Proportion 0.709270 0.997900 0.9999800
| Brand | approachable | luxurious | premium | sophisticated | trustworthy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tom Ford | 3.29 | 3.69 | 3.79 | 3.78 | 3.46 |
| Byredo | 3.27 | 3.41 | 3.52 | 3.53 | 3.35 |
| Commodity | 3.50 | 3.07 | 3.20 | 3.13 | 3.35 |
| DedCool | 3.76 | 2.81 | 2.96 | 2.98 | 3.54 |
| DS&Durga | 3.36 | 2.78 | 2.95 | 2.85 | 3.11 |
Segment × Hypothesis Cross-tabs
Do Prestige Buyers and Aspiring Millennials respond differently to premium stimuli than Value Seekers? Cross-tab of buyer segments against H2 (image) and H3 (ad) premium scores per brand.
| Buyer Segment | Mean Premium | N |
|---|---|---|
| Mid-Value | 2.99 | 96 |
| Low-Value | 2.95 | 94 |
| High-Value | 2.83 | 52 |
Brand Equity Index
A composite brand equity score averaging premium, sophisticated, luxurious, trustworthy, and approachable across all H2 image conditions per brand. Provides a single-number comparison across all five competing brands.
| Rank | Brand | Equity Score | Premium | Sophisticated | Luxurious | Trustworthy | Approachable | Gap to Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tom Ford | 3.602 | 3.79 | 3.78 | 3.69 | 3.46 | 3.29 | 0.000 |
| 2 | Byredo | 3.413 | 3.52 | 3.53 | 3.41 | 3.35 | 3.27 | -0.189 |
| 3 | Commodity | 3.249 | 3.20 | 3.13 | 3.07 | 3.35 | 3.50 | -0.353 |
| 4 | DedCool | 3.210 | 2.96 | 2.98 | 2.81 | 3.54 | 3.76 | -0.392 |
| 5 | DS&Durga | 3.012 | 2.95 | 2.85 | 2.78 | 3.11 | 3.36 | -0.590 |
Stimulus → Perception Correlation Path
Does a respondent who perceives H2 imagery as premium also rate H3 ads as premium? And do higher perception scores relate to customization interest (H4)? Tests whether brand signals are coherent or sending mixed messages across stimuli.
| Variable | H2 Image Premium | H3 Ad Premium | H4 Custom. Interest | H4 Feels Premium |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2 Image Premium | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.17 | 0.10 |
| H3 Ad Premium | 0.60 | 1.00 | 0.08 | 0.11 |
| H4 Custom. Interest | 0.17 | 0.08 | 1.00 | 0.56 |
| H4 Feels Premium | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.56 | 1.00 |
Demographic Moderator Analysis
Do age and income moderate how respondents perceive Commodity’s premium stimuli? Key question: does the 18–34 cohort rate Commodity’s imagery differently than older, higher-income groups? Error bars show ±1 SE.
| age_group | mean_premium_Low (<$74K) | mean_premium_Mid ($74K–$124K) | mean_premium_High ($124K+) | n_Low (<$74K) | n_Mid ($74K–$124K) | n_High ($124K+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18–34 | 2.90 | 2.88 | 2.75 | 30 | 17 | 8 |
| 35–54 | 3.07 | 3.16 | 2.85 | 28 | 38 | 54 |
| 55+ | 2.33 | 2.60 | 2.90 | 3 | 10 | 10 |