I really wanted to represent young women in beauty in a more modern, contemporary way - to give them something they can identify with and have ownership of.
[...] For me it's about being bold. That's why we called it Pop. It's pink, but it's a powerful pink. It's the kind of fragrance I'd love my daughters to wear when they grow up - I want my daughters to look up to those girls.1
That's Stella McCartney, talking to Vogue about her latest fragrance, Pop. Pop is geared towards millennials, and more specifically, towards young women who might be buying a perfume for the first time.2 The campaign is fronted by Grimes, Lourdes Leon, Amandla Stenberg and Kenya Kinski-Jones. Those aren't the sort of models you'd typically expect to find in a fragrance ad, and the campaign's messages, about things like friendship and sustainability and animal rights and whatnot, are likewise unusual. McCartney said she wanted to give this generation of women “a voice and a fragrance”, and Elle excitedly noted that Stella McCartney's New Scent Breaks All the Major Fragrance Rules.
Any cynical perfumista can already guess that Pop is going to break all the major fragrance rules except those that relate to the juice itself. Pop, the juice, is said to be about tuberose and sandalwood, but in keeping with the brand message about sustainability, no trees or flowers died in its making, and even if you didn't know that in advance, you'd guess as soon as you smelled it. Vogue called Pop a "bubblegum tuberose", but it's not a bubblegum tuberose in the same way that Frédéric Malle's Carnal Flower is a bubblegum tuberose. Pop is indeed young, bright and pink, with none of the richness of real tuberose, and in the modern, shampoo-inspired way, it manages to combine plenty of fruity sweetness with an element of clean — tuberose haters need not fear the indoles in Pop. It's one of those sheer-to-middleweight fragrances that starts off with some sillage, but doesn't really have any depth or fullness to speak of; within an hour or so, it's relatively quiet. Most of the notes (tomato leaves, violet leaves, green mandarin, violet, plumeria, cedar and musks) go by in a fruity pink blur, and the dry down is the usual pale woody musk, lightly vanillic.
Verdict: McCartney may have given the young ladies of the millennial generation a voice, I couldn't say, but the fragrance she has given them is hardly anything new. Pop smells pretty much like the gazillion other cheerful pink fruity floral fragrances already on the market.3 For what it is, it is fine, even fun (I liked it better than some of its competition), and in terms of sophistication, it's arguably a step up from the sweetest of the sweet and the pinkest of the pink. You could argue that it's a poor fit with its advertising, or you could argue that young people today don't see fragrance as a way to express their rebellion anyway? At any rate, don't count on Pop to rock the boat.
Stella McCartney Pop is available in 30 ($50), 50 ($72) and 100 ($92) ml Eau de Parfum, and in a 7.4 ml rollerball ($22), and in matching body products.
1. Via Stella's New Audience at Vogue UK.
2. Via Women's Wear Daily, 3/4/2016.
3. From the (very mixed) reviews at Sephora: "Honestly it makes me feel like I'm waiting for my mom to pick me up from the mall." For an opposing (or perhaps not) view, from John Lewis, "The scent is light, summery and quite sweet and my teenage daughter loved it."
I agree with you, Robin..it is a fun and well made pink fragrance..it’s nicely done. It made me smile 🙂
But that said, it is a bit meh. It is not really a fragrance that say “POP” and if it does it is very minimal.
I thought it would be much more cheerful and I hoped to smell much more of the tomato.
Maybe I am too old for this and it is really not market for the adult audience. So perhaps some in their late teens and early twenties will find it lovely. I wouldn’t mind smell it on some close to me 🙂
If it says Pop, it says Pop in the sense of mainstream pop music, which presumably is not the sort of music the young ladies in the ad are listening to.
I am well older than the targeted audience for this perfume so, you know, what do I know? I like Stella McCartney just fine and have worn Stella and found it to be just fine.
The cynic in me wants to know how young women are going to have “ownership” over this. Because the models are different (though still celebrities in their own right)? Because the ad talks about being “bold” (just like every other fragrance of that ilk)?
Yeah, I’m too old for this. 🙂
Stella was a great scent.
I am too old too. Mostly I don’t understand why young rebellious people don’t want young rebellious fragrances. Maybe the really rebellious young people are rebelling by not spending their money on fragrance at all?
Haha, “counter rebellion”! When I am in the locker room of my gym, I do see young girls and young women spraying fragrances on themselves after they shower, dress and put minimal makeup on. However, the fragrances I’ve smelled that they spray all smell the same, and most have that dominant “apple” smell.
Recently at my gym, noticed two young women who were sporting what smelled like the feminine counterpart to Axe (is there such a product?)
There is this:
http://www.axe.ca/products/anarchy-for-her-daily-fragrance
Sounds like a pink floral but since they advise more minimal application than that used by young men who knows.
This one can’t be all that different — it is a sort of peachy-melon-berry mix.
For what it’s worth: All my twenty-something millennial friends smell like apple-type fruit, too. I’ve found they just don’t know that there’s a whole indie world out there between generic fruity florals and Shalimar, Poison, et al. We don’t have Anthropologie or Urban Outfitters, let alone an actual indie-shop scene, so I can’t really blame them when seemingly everything that winds up on our generation’s pop-culture radar follows a few tried-and-true money-maker formulas.
One time a friend tried my sample of CB I Hate Perfume Black March, and it was a revelation; then I tried to replicate that success with other friends and a rollerball of Diptyque Philosykos, and they literally recoiled from the bottle. Not sure what to make of that except maybe growing up in the age of CK One and Issey Miyake was incredibly formative?
“…Maybe the really rebellious young people are rebelling by not spending their money on fragrance at all?”
BINGO.
The thing is, I am sure this is very lovely, but us Gen Xers/Millenials have a lot of curiosity about perfume, but no 19-24 year old I know has $50 to spend on 1 bottle of perfume. That can get 4-6 very good lipsticks, a week’s worth of Happy Hour drinks, an outfit from Zara….you get the idea. But you can get rollerballs of mass market perfumes for $25 or less. Indie makers have made scents available for lower prices without the sexy adverts. Branded boutiques like Anthropologie will often have interesting perfumes to try on sale. With the Great Recession I think that younger people have learned to be VERY selective with their money.
That all said, I hope that this is in a rollerball.
It is in a $22 rollerball.
TRIUMPH!
Thank you!
You make some excellent points. When I was in my 20’s, I didn’t have the selection of clothes, makeup, indie perfumes, etc… that are available today vying for my money. Thank goodness! ????
Hahaha!
As a millennial* who loves tuberose, Pop sounds disappointing. I was hoping it would do for tuberose what Stella McCartney Stella did for rose, probably because the brand brought up first fragrance purchases and mine was Stella.
*Though, “millennial” increasingly just means the children of the 90s and neglects to include we 80s-born thirty-somethings who remember life without the internet and a time when our moms’ perfumes were bigger than their shoulder pads. #BringBackGenY
Fellow Gen Y here! And agreed- I remember going to library and reading stuff in books to do projects!
It absolutely does not do for tuberose what Stella did for rose, at least, not in my opinion. You can tell Stella is a primarily a rose fragrance. I don’t really think most perfumistas will smell Pop and think oh, a tuberose fragrance. More like they’ll think “pink fruity floral” and then maybe notice that tuberose is in the floral mix.
But would love to hear from others who have smelled it, perhaps I am way off base.
Perhaps, but I rather doubt it 😛
Oh — and really don’t think this is geared at anybody who remembers life before the internet — they are after much younger women than that if they’re going after women buying their first perfume. The models are all late teens / early 20s. And more from Vogue: “It’s a time of great change for these customers – when you’re a girl becoming a woman, working out what you want to do for the first time.”
Well, if any company out there would like to target those of us who are only a step older than Pop’s target audience, please consider a non-pink for-serious tuberose. Many of us have actual, honest-to-god disposable income. Thanks in advance. (Celebrity fragrances need not apply.)
A step older is probably Yves Saint Laurent Mon Paris. Still pink, unfortunately.
I did not think “tuberose” when I smelled this either. I got what you described-pink fruity floral- with an initial juiciness. Like those first few chews of a fresh piece of Fruit-Striped gum (I’m dating myself). It’s an “OMG! You smell, like, amaaazing” kind of thing. I found it kinda fun, but I probably wouldn’t wear it. I think See by Chloe are for the younger set who do remember pre-internet existence, and I’ve worn that one.
Money saved!
Which never hurts.
I saw a beauty YouTuber that loved this perfume and she said the smell instantly reminded her of Barbies, but in a good way. I thought that was funny.
Well, yes, I’d say that’s about right. It’s pink and it smells pink. Pink is not the color of rebellion, not even for hair these days.
I truly love the conversations here. I asked for a sample of Pop on a Sephora purchase. I did overwhelming smell tuberose but I was waiting for the woody base that I did not get. I do like tuberose but this fragrance didn’t do it for me. Thank goodness for samples.
Good, thanks for chiming in — so perhaps my answer to Aleta above is quite wrong!
I was hoping it would be really bubblegummy, bright and fun (you know, in the spirit of Pulp), but reading this I see it probably isn’t… Will try it anyway when it arrives in Belgium. Thank you for the review!
Well, it is arguably bubblegummy, bright and fun, but not exactly in the spirit of Pulp! Do try it, maybe you’ll like it more than I did.
I love Stella and have a deep respect for Stella McCartney so I was really curious about Pop, in spite of beeing twice the age of the targetgroup.
I thought the top notes was intersting and fun, and that when they settled, a whole new scent appeared. The smooth woody middle and base was a bit of a surprise to my nose. I really can’t see someone as cutting edge as Grimes choose Pop as her scent.
I think the scent is missmarkeded. Stella McCartney have never been a “young and trendy” designer. She might be adventurous and brave, but not hip.
Stella edp and its offsprings, and Lily, are both classy scents with a buit in sense of family, history, love, decency. I think that as a scent Pop could have fitted in better in that mindframe then in the present one. A romantic Wuthering heights- kind of theme maybe?
Lily of course didn’t make it, maybe that’s why she is changing gears?
Lily is discontinued? That seals it, I must find a bottle now then.
Yes. I think you can still find it.
The amount of discussion over Pop is remarkable. I’ve got to try it now. I’m happy it will fit a “rollerball budget” (another term for the perfumista lexicon that was coined by someone on another comment thread a few days ago).
This little review sounds pretty accurate, from @fragrantreviews
“Stella McCartney POP: Watermelon flavoured bubble gum chewed with a transparent swig of tuberose. Fun, but perhaps a touch too sheer ****”
Yep — as usual, they managed to say it all in far fewer words than I did 😉
Ha! Variety in word counts is the spice of life. I wouldn’t have given POP a second thought if it hadn’t been reviewed on NST. 😀