Ahh, the old scratch ‘n’ sniff. This is one of those hardy perennials that pops up from time to time at newspaper conferences as an example of how to offer advertisers more ‘value-add’. As such, it plays to one of the strengths of print on paper compared to the dreaded tablet or e-reader by appealing to our sense of smell.
In this instance, it is the scent of lemon myrtle which is being released in order to promote a brand of Easter bun. Chocolate and perfume are other favourites although I reckon it would be interesting, albeit perhaps a little more challenging, to introduce more subtle aromas such as ‘new car smell’.
These things must be exciting for advertisers and creatives desperate to find new ways to engage with jaded, cynical consumers – beyond the dreary task of taking great photographs and writing stand-out copy. But, to my nose at least, it always screams (or stinks) of ‘gimmick’ rather than ‘buy me’. Rubbing a newspaper doesn’t make me want to buy a bun.
As the publisher in this example noted at the time, “our intelligent, curious readers are always keen to know how it all works, e.g. how is the scent applied?”
Exactly. They remember the process not the product.
The other thing I’ve often wondered is that if scented papers are so successful at engaging with readers then why not use them all the time? Why not make newspapers smell attractive instead of just smelling of ink and paper (which, admittedly, I rather like in a perverse kind of way).
No doubt there is a cost factor involved but surely, somewhere, there is a market for a newspaper that, as you pass it in the newsagents or cafe, gives off a gentle whiff of freshly baked bread or just-made coffee in the morning.
Perhaps news pages could be given their own trademark smells – sweat and grass for the sports, money for the business pages, bullshit for the political commentary etc etc. It’s got to be worth a shot, surely?
