Suzanne Bopp

Now smell this

Savvy consumer marketers are proving that the way to your pocketbook is through your nose.

  • more
    • All Share Services

In a German movie theater last month, audience members waiting for the feature wondered why they were seeing people lounging on a beach. After 60 seconds of waves and seagulls, a tag line for Nivea sunscreen appeared, and the scent of Nivea wafted into the theater through the air-conditioning vents.

Later, a survey showed that audience recall of the smelly ad was 500 percent higher than for the scent-free version. Whether moviegoers enjoyed the scent of sunscreen with their popcorn was not recorded. But that’s a number that advertisers certainly recall — and one that proponents of scent marketing love to broadcast.

“Scent will soon be a normal part of advertising and entertainment,” says Carmine Santandrea, owner of a scent marketing company in Santa Barbara, Calif. After circulating the smell of milk chocolate in the vicinity of a vending machine, he says, he saw a “sales lift of 300 percent for Hershey Kisses. That’s never happened in advertising before. Those results can’t be ignored.”

Neither can an odor. While you can turn a magazine page or change a television channel, you can’t avoid inhaling. “That’s the good and bad thing about scent — you can’t get away from it,” says Harald Vogt, founder of the Scent Marketing Institute. “In our environment, everything already smells. The question is how you manage the smells.”

The idea of scent in advertising is not new. Back in 1965, Santandrea created a scented Coke pavilion at the World’s Fair in New York. But science has now given Madison Avenue powerful new tools to fulfill its odorous promise. Today’s chemists, for instance, can capture the scent of a strawberry in varying stages of ripeness by taking samples of the air around the berry with a gas chromatograph. The bigger development, according to Avery Gilbert, author of “What the Nose Knows,” is that chemists can develop recipes for any smell, down to a single molecule.

“There’s a plant in the Sierra Nevada in the summer that gives off a cooked artichoke smell,” Gilbert says. “The Indians knew about it; John Muir noticed it. It’s called Sierra Mountain Misery. I took a sprig and sent it to a chemist and found that the smell comes from one molecule that makes up less than 1 percent of the entire formula.”

Scent marketing has also become more sophisticated because of what we’ve learned about olfaction. Smell may be the least lauded of the senses, but it’s the one most closely connected to our moods and recollections. (The loss of it, called anosmia, can produce tremendous anxiety and depression.) Memories inspired by fragrance are more emotional than those triggered by sights or sounds. In studies, scent-elicited memories cause subjects to mention more emotions, rate them as more intense, and report more of a feeling of being back in the time and place relevant to a smell. Catching a whiff of the perfume your grandmother wore is likely to bring back stronger memories of her — and the feelings associated with her — than seeing her photo.

That can happen before you are even conscious of the scent. That’s because an incoming odor proceeds directly to your limbic system, which handles memories and emotions; non-olfactory perception must go to the hypothalamus and then on to the cortex for further analysis. “Scent goes right to your emotions,” Santandrea says. “And if I can appeal to your primal senses, I’ve got you. That is what advertisers do. If you find that offensive, you have a problem with all of advertising.”

Scent marketing is not limited to products that have an inherent aroma, like Hershey’s Kisses; items such as clothing or stereos have their own universe of “scent abstractions” to brand themselves. Smell for yourself: Walk into the Samsung store on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and you may notice a melon aroma. Westin Hotels envelop guests with their White Tea fragrance. (Now you can buy Westin-scented candles to enjoy the hotel smell at home!)

Extensive research preceded the introduction of those scents. Companies start with a “fragrance brief,” describing the scent image they want to project. Fragrance vendors then create scents they imagine fulfill the descriptions. Because Samsung and Westin are global brands, and there is no globally agreed upon pleasant smell, they had to be certain that the scents would not be offensive anywhere.

“To use something ‘fruity’ and ‘light’ is the best bet for any scent marketing effort that is not connected to a product,” Vogt says. “A good example for a product-related scent is Thomas Pink’s ‘Line Dried Linen’ that smells, well, just like it. If you don’t have such a product, you look at your target audience, what they prefer and use, and start from there.”

Some people find smell advertising offensive, akin to subliminal advertising. But Gilbert has a quick defense. “If a pizzeria is venting out onto the street, and the smell makes you want pizza, is that somehow mind control?” he asks. “Scent is a weird channel that people don’t think about on regular basis. Once it becomes more standardized, people will get over it.”

Maybe they’ll even like it. Stores like Samsung want to forge a fragrance bond that creates positive feelings, customer loyalty and increased spending. Research gives them hope.

One study put a floral scent in an area of a casino over a weekend; gamblers there spent 45 percent more money than on other weekends, while the results for unscented areas of the casino remained unchanged. An Iowa State University study showed that introducing a pleasant scent caused shoppers to have more positive attitudes about a selection of sleepwear, as well as a willingness to pay more. But the scent needs to be congruent with the merchandise; a Lily of the Valley fragrance created the positive reaction, but the smell of Sea Mist, though judged to be enjoyable, didn’t have the same results with sleepwear sales.

That incongruity probably led to the 2006 backlash against scented ads in San Francisco. As part of a “Got Milk?” campaign, ads in San Francisco bus shelters were imbued with a chocolate-chip-cookie aroma. The idea was to make people crave milk. They didn’t. Complaints poured in, and the aromatic milk ads came down after just one day.

Commuters just didn’t understand why they would smell baked goods out there, says Rachel Herz, a visiting professor at Brown University and author of “The Scent of Desire.” “They’re in a bleak bus stop and they’re smelling something that doesn’t fit,” she says. She warns that people tend to judge unexpected and unfamiliar smells as unpleasant. “Our interpretation typically jumps to the negative,” she says, and that’s especially true post-9/11, as people are still sensitive to an unusual stimulus of any kind.

Even with all the ongoing olfactory research, much about odor remains mysterious. Chemicals with different structures may smell similar, while those with nearly identical structures can smell completely different. That’s a particular challenge to scent manufacturers trying to design the perfect scent. “If you take a novel assortment of odorous molecules, we cannot predict what that will smell like,” says Northwestern University neurology professor Jay Gottfried. “If we mix amyl acetate — a banana smell — with eugenol — a clove smell — there are no rules to say how the mixture will be perceived.”

Gender and experience, context and memory determine how an odor molecule is interpreted. When Herz had subjects sniff something identified as Parmesan cheese, they liked the smell. A week later she presented the same odor, telling subjects it was vomit. They found it revolting.

With so much ambiguity and sensitivity surrounding our olfactory systems, scent marketers have considerable responsibilities, Vogt says. They should not put their products in public spaces like bus shelters or spritz consumers without their invitation. And even though reputable scent marketing companies in the U.S. use approved fragrances, Vogt acknowledges safety concerns with foreign products; the Scent Marketing Institute is now establishing industry standards.

Even so, companies know there will be complaints — Vogt recently received an e-mail with a subject line that read, “You are making us sick.” A vocal population considers itself chemically sensitive, and scent marketers have already become a target elsewhere. Halifax, Nova Scotia, has declared itself a completely fragrance-free city. “In some Scandinavian countries, they’re legislating against letting vaporous scents into the air,” Santandrea says. “We’re going to have legislation against us. But if the scent doesn’t cling to you, we have a right to do it.”

Santandrea insists that scent marketing helps consumers by giving them information. “We’re democratizing scent,” he says. “Shopping is merely hunting, and in the past when we hunted, we used our noses to inform us of what we were coming to.”

At least for now, practical limitations remain. With many different smells mixing in the mall, the results could quickly become unpleasant. After 15 minutes or so, the nose adjusts to a scent and stops perceiving it. And when you go from one scented store into another, the fragrance of the second store may seem distorted to you, or hardly smell at all.

Still, efforts to introduce scent to everything seem irresistible. A few years ago we almost witnessed the release of iSmell, a “personal scent synthesizer” that would have released odors from scented Web sites and e-mails out of your computer. Although the company involved fell victim to the dot-com bust, the technology is available.

Motorola has a “smell-o-phone” in the works (so you can look forward not only to hearing the conversation of the person next to you but to smelling it too. Scent-a-Vision should be available in the next two or three years, according to Santandrea, who has invented an appliance that synchronizes scent tracks with movies. Some techno clubs have hired ODO7, an “aroma jockey,” who mixes smells onstage to add a “third dimension of entertainment.”

Those kinds of applications, Gilbert says, likely hold the key to scent’s future. “There will be a breakthrough in a popular culture application — clubs, concerts, maybe scented artwork,” he says. “Maybe then there will be a quiet revolution and scented ads will be no more ominous than billboards in Times Square.”

Who’ll start the rain?

China is spending millions to modify the weather for the Olympics. As the U.S. knows, nature doesn't bend to human will.

  • more
    • All Share Services

This week, days before Friday’s opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, cannons and rocket launchers by the thousands will be trained on the Chinese skies. In the cross hairs: the clouds.

This is latest of China’s many efforts to control the weather. China is probably the world’s largest practitioner of cloud seeding, spending about $90 million a year. Last April, it claimed a major weather victory after seeded clouds deposited a centimeter of snow on the Tibetan mountains. Now, eager to ensure rain comes before — not during — the Olympics, the Beijing Weather Modification Office plans to seed the clouds that float by beforehand, hoping to wash the pollution from the air and wring out any event-delaying precipitation.

But U.S. scientists are skeptical. “China is promising something they can’t deliver,” says Bruce Boe, director of meteorology for Weather Modification Inc., a Fargo, N.D.-based company. “To alter a cloud’s aerosols in such a dramatic way that it won’t rain — the cost will be extreme, and I don’t know how to do it confidently. Nature is so large and powerful it can always overwhelm you.” China has no scientific evaluations to support its promises. And, he says, it’s just not possible to exercise such precise control over the weather.

Whether or not it’s possible to exercise any control at all over the weather remains subject to debate. While countries around the world — including the United States — continue to fund cloud seeding in drought-stricken regions desperate to refill reservoirs or water crops, the efforts have been beset with failures and few successes since the very first clouds were treated.

That was in the 1950s, near the New York labs of General Electric, following the discovery that dry-ice shavings could convert super-cooled (colder than freezing) water droplets to ice crystals. That mattered because clouds need ice crystals (or some kind of small particles ) to form precipitation. Cloud seeding tries to fill that need. Today silver iodide — its structure mimics that of ice crystals — is most commonly used in a method called glaciogenic cloud seeding.

Another method, hygroscopic cloud seeding (which some scientists say holds the most promise today), uses materials such as salt to provide a droplet-attracting nucleus; it can be used in warmer clouds. Both methods, whether dispersed through planes or rocket launchers, need to start with a cloud; they can’t create clouds. Cloud seeding is more like cloud fertilizing: It tries to make a cloud a more efficient producer of rain or snow.

After the discovery at GE, the company hired a plane to release dry ice into clouds during the winter of 1946. On the final day of the experiment, Schenectady, N.Y., had its heaviest snowfall of the season, causing GE to worry about the legal liabilities of changing the weather.

The initial promise of the discovery was quickly swamped by disillusionment. “People had all kinds of immediate aspirations that they could control the weather,” Boe says. “But there was a lot of overselling. If your town had a drought, people would show up and try to sell this, then get out of town fast if it didn’t work. That did a lot of damage to cloud seeding’s reputation. Worldwide, that still happens.”

While dozens of foreign countries — Mali, Burkina Faso, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Australia, to name a few — continue to try to get the weather they want, the U.S. hangs back slightly. “In other countries, you don’t have people sitting around saying, ‘We’re not sure this works,’” Boe says.

In America, that refrain is heard frequently, but cloud seeding continues on the order of 60-some projects in 10 Western states a year, funded mainly by local and county governments, agricultural interests and, occasionally, ski resorts. Although the American Meteorological Society says some studies have shown a 10 percent increase in rain volume, the National Academy of Sciences has said there is no conclusive evidence that cloud seeding works.

It’s not the initial cloud-seeding equation that is in doubt: Silver iodide does produce ice crystals in clouds. “You can see on a radar how it grows to larger particles,” says Dan Breed, a project scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “But the chain of events between that and precipitation hitting the ground is much more complicated.”

Some clouds, it turns out, are less complicated than others. Winter orographic clouds, which form over mountains in winter, are simpler to work with than convective clouds, which cause thunderstorms. Orographic clouds occur almost every day in the Western mountains, where shortages of winter snowpack (needed to fill lakes, rivers and reservoirs in the spring) mean extra precipitation is most often needed.

Glaciogenic seeding is also used for hail suppression; by providing many ice particles for hail to form around, it prevents very large hail from developing. But hailstorms are extremely complicated, Breed says, and experiments with hailstorms are risky. “You do a project or experiment and you can end up with insurance claims or crop damage,” he says.

In Calgary and Red Deer, Alberta, insurance companies are the ones that have funded a hail suppression project for more than a decade, in an effort to reduce their damage claims. The fact that they are spending a couple million dollars a year on this program should be taken as proof that cloud seeding works, says Don Griffith, president of North American Weather Consultants, a Sandy, Utah-based weather modification company.

For insurance companies, and many other funders of cloud seeding, the chance of success is worth the money. That’s what drove the $8.8 million cloud-seeding project in Wyoming, initiated in part by dry local irrigation districts. Scientists found funding to piggyback research on the project, but the whole thing has hit early stumbling blocks, thanks to its proximity to designated wilderness areas.

To environmentalists, wilderness areas should be protected from such intrusions. “The most defining concept in the Wilderness Act is ‘untrammeled by man.’ The idea behind cloud seeding is anathema to that,” says George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch. “It’s hard to envision something more offensive to the idea of wilderness.” In fact, the Forest Service’s own regulations command, “Do not permit long-term weather modification programs that produce, during any part of successive years, a repeated or prolonged change in the weather directly affecting wilderness areas.”

Nevertheless, the project has proceeded, with minor modifications: The silver-iodide-releasing generators are to be placed outside, not inside, the wilderness areas. That’s not a satisfying solution for the protesters — it will still introduce more pollution.

“Under that same logic, if I wanted to dispose of toxic waste, I could do so to my heart’s content on Forest Service lands as long as I dumped the stuff out of an airplane instead of packing it in on horseback,” Jonathan Ratner, Wyoming director of the Western Watersheds Project, wrote in a statement. Part of his concern is what would come with increased rainfall over the forest — increased pollution. Rampant gas and oil development in Wyoming has raised emissions several-fold; rain could bring that out of the sky into the water and cause nitrification.

Neither protests nor the deep discomfort about changing the weather has translated to a glut of weather-modification-related lawsuits. No doubt that’s partly due to the fact that a plaintiff seeking damages would have to prove the cloud seeders were responsible for the harmful weather, and causation is as difficult to prove for attorneys as for scientists. It’s not uncommon to hear the complaints that someone’s cloud seeding stole someone else’s rain. But scientists point out that that’s also impossible to prove.

A bigger worry is that cloud seeding might be having the wrong effect. “Right now there’s no guarantee, but we might be spending time and money and reducing precipitation,” says Colorado State University atmospheric science professor William Cotton.

U.S. funding for research to answer such questions remains paltry. Down from a high in the late 1970s of $20 million, today less than $500,000 goes to cloud-seeding studies. Because studies are lengthy — it takes about 10 years to look at weather trends — even those that get funding often run out before the study is complete. Bills currently moving though Congress seek to establish a national weather-modification program, but such bills have been introduced, and disappeared, before.

This time around, there may be renewed interest, courtesy of climate change, which presents some of the same fundamental questions as weather modification. Scientists are more interested than ever in learning how we’re already changing our weather, perhaps to learn how to change it back.

It seems certain we’ve altered precipitation patterns in measurable ways. “We’re finding aerosol pollution reduces precipitation in orographic clouds,” Cotton says. “It introduces very small particles, and they all compete for the same amount of water. Pollution means huge numbers of particles, so it’s hard to go in and seed clouds that are polluted.”

Over the past few decades, pollution seems to have decreased precipitation considerably, especially in the West, where clean ocean air passes over polluted urban areas before moving inland. In the Sierra Nevada mountains, the loss is estimated at 3.2 million acre feet (an acre foot covers an acre of land in water 1 foot deep) each year.

Can we learn to seed polluted clouds so we can get that precipitation back? What about the effects of changing temperature? We know low clouds tend to have a cooling effect on earth, and high clouds create warmth by absorbing more long-wave radiation. Could we use some of these effects to alter not just the weather but the climate itself?

Such climate engineering could be the next hot topic among atmospheric scientists. “We may have no choice,” Cotton says. “Twenty years down the road, if the warming trend has increased enormously and half of Florida is underwater, politicians will say, ‘Do climate engineering.’ Doing something is better than sitting on your hands. If, at that point, we don’t have the scientific knowledge, and we introduce the technology, we could find ourselves in the middle of an ice age. We won’t be able to figure this out that fast.”

Attempting such a strategy would raise all of cloud seeding’s questions — of control, unintended consequences, environmental effects — to a new order of magnitude. But we need to start looking at it now, Cotton says. “If politics take control, and we don’t have a science basis, who knows what could happen?”

Continue Reading Close