Microsoft VP Thinks Money-Scented Perfume Can Make You Stinking Rich
A Chicago man has dreams of being stinking rich -- and thinks a line of fragrances with the smell of money is just the ticket for combining dollars with scents.
Patrick McCarthy, a vice president of sales at Microsoft, took a break from his day job to create His Money Cologne and Her Money Eau de Parfum, a line of his-and-hers fragrances that are designed to make the wearer smell like a million bucks -- or more, depending on how much you put on.
It's the first time he's attempted a fragrance, but he's certain the idea will be successful enough to fatten his bank account -- and the ones of those who wear it as well.
"I really feel that people who wear this will feel more confident," McCarthy told AOL News. "I got the idea after reading a story about a Japanese study that showed a significant increase in worker productivity when the smell of money was pumped through vents into factories."
And when McCarthy went to his ATM and noticed how much he enjoyed the scent of fresh, crisp bills, he really smelled the potential for making a mint.
"[The odor of money] is a unique fragrance," he said.
Once McCarthy decided to create a cash cologne, he trademarked the term "money" in relation to a fragrance.
Then he sniffed out a man named Larry Murrison, who is known as "the Nose" in the fragrance industry for his ability to create new scents.
"It turns out he lived only three miles away," said McCarthy. "He created a Michael Jordan fragrance and one for Johnny Carson and was willing to help me out."
McCarthy says "the Nose" explained how a perfume is put together, from the oils and other chemicals to the bottles that hold the scents.
"I asked him what the best-selling fragrances over the last 10 years were, because I didn't want to emulate something that was only popular for two years or so," he said. "Those turned out to be Acqua di Gio by Armani and Happy by Clinique."
Once the order was placed, Murrison took the smell of real money and reverse-engineered it into a solvent that smelled like cold, hard cash.
"Then we added the right mixture of oils to make it work for men and for women," McCarthy said.
According to the official press info, the male version, His Money Cologne, combines "the woody aroma of newly printed money with a bold fusion of fresh ocean breezes, and bright citrus notes are joined by rosemary, grass, and precious woods."
Meanwhile, the ladies' version, Her Money Eau de Parfum, "begins with the clean scent of freshly minted bills. Vibrant pink grapefruit and mandarin give it a citrus kick that's enhanced by freesia, passionfruit, Hawaiian wedding flower and a soft hint of melon."
Both of the cash-scented fragrances sell for around $35 online, and that's a bargain, considering each of them is packed in what McCarthy estimates is $500 of shredded U.S. money.
McCarthy figures that's a reasonable price to pay since smelling like money is sure to give someone confidence.
"We have had quite a bit of positive customer feedback," he said. "I'd like to think that people will use it as part of our economic recovery. I got an order from a serviceman in Afghanistan and sent him a bunch of extra bottles.
"They understand what they're fighting for and a lot of it is money."
Even better: So far, no one using the fragrances has been mugged yet by a thief who assumes he's robbing a millionaire.
It's the first time he's attempted a fragrance, but he's certain the idea will be successful enough to fatten his bank account -- and the ones of those who wear it as well.
Bella PR
Entrepreneur Patrick McCarthy is hoping to get stinking rich by selling perfume that smells like money.
And when McCarthy went to his ATM and noticed how much he enjoyed the scent of fresh, crisp bills, he really smelled the potential for making a mint.
"[The odor of money] is a unique fragrance," he said.
Once McCarthy decided to create a cash cologne, he trademarked the term "money" in relation to a fragrance.
Then he sniffed out a man named Larry Murrison, who is known as "the Nose" in the fragrance industry for his ability to create new scents.
"It turns out he lived only three miles away," said McCarthy. "He created a Michael Jordan fragrance and one for Johnny Carson and was willing to help me out."
McCarthy says "the Nose" explained how a perfume is put together, from the oils and other chemicals to the bottles that hold the scents.
"I asked him what the best-selling fragrances over the last 10 years were, because I didn't want to emulate something that was only popular for two years or so," he said. "Those turned out to be Acqua di Gio by Armani and Happy by Clinique."
Once the order was placed, Murrison took the smell of real money and reverse-engineered it into a solvent that smelled like cold, hard cash.
"Then we added the right mixture of oils to make it work for men and for women," McCarthy said.
According to the official press info, the male version, His Money Cologne, combines "the woody aroma of newly printed money with a bold fusion of fresh ocean breezes, and bright citrus notes are joined by rosemary, grass, and precious woods."
Meanwhile, the ladies' version, Her Money Eau de Parfum, "begins with the clean scent of freshly minted bills. Vibrant pink grapefruit and mandarin give it a citrus kick that's enhanced by freesia, passionfruit, Hawaiian wedding flower and a soft hint of melon."
Both of the cash-scented fragrances sell for around $35 online, and that's a bargain, considering each of them is packed in what McCarthy estimates is $500 of shredded U.S. money.
McCarthy figures that's a reasonable price to pay since smelling like money is sure to give someone confidence.
"We have had quite a bit of positive customer feedback," he said. "I'd like to think that people will use it as part of our economic recovery. I got an order from a serviceman in Afghanistan and sent him a bunch of extra bottles.
"They understand what they're fighting for and a lot of it is money."
Even better: So far, no one using the fragrances has been mugged yet by a thief who assumes he's robbing a millionaire.
Congress about to undermine our basic constitutional rights
1:54 pm December 1, 2011, by Jay
It is a question that in a rational world should not have to be asked, because the answer is so damn obvious:
Should the U.S. military be given the power to arrest U.S. citizens, here on U.S. soil, and to detain those citizens indefinitely in military prisons, without access to legal counsel or due process, and without trial in civilian court?
The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights say hell no. Holding U.S. citizens in military prisons without right to trial or counsel? Really?
Centuries of American liberty also say hell no. The CIA, FBI and the entire U.S. intelligence system say no, as does the military. They do not want the power to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, and any legitimate reading of our nation’s traditions, beliefs and founding documents says they should never have it. It is antithetical to a free people.
Yet a majority of the U.S. House and Senate says otherwise. Despite a stern veto threat by President Obama, Congress is about to pass such language into federal law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. I hope and pray that Obama has the guts to carry out his veto threat, and I hope freedom-loving Americans of all ideologies rally to support him in that cause.
The theory behind the proposed law is that the United States is part of the battlefield against the war on terror, and that the military must be given free rein to fight that war, even here in the United States itself. Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA say that the military can arrest and detain anybody “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
Look, if U.S. citizens are suspected of aiding and abetting terrorists, they should of course be arrested and tried. If convicted, they should be put away for a long long time. But there is no reason to suppose that civilian courts are not capable of handling such cases competently and fairly. And without access to our civilian system of justice, what agency or body is supposed to determine whether a citizen has “directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces?”
Would Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield, for example, have been tossed into a military brig without a lawyer under such a law? If so, he might still be there, despite the fact that the FBI was later forced to acknowledge that he was absolutely innocent. What about the people falsely accused of terrorism as documented here and here? What about the million or more people whose names have somehow ended up on the government’s “terrorist watch list?”
Some advocates of the proposed change in federal law claim that it would not apply to U.S. citizens. They are either wrong or deliberately misleading. Any lawyers out there can confirm that claim by reading the provisions in question. They contain no language protecting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil from being swept into military custody.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, an advocate of the provisions, certainly understands that they apply to U.S. citizens. As he said on the floor of the Senate:
“But we need to let this president know, and every other president, that if you capture someone in the homeland, on our soil — American citizen or not — who is a member of al-Qaida, you do not have to give them a lawyer or read them the rights automatically. You can treat them as a military threat under military custody, just like if you captured them overseas…. Under domestic criminal law, you cannot hold someone indefinitely without giving them a lawyer or reading them their rights, nor should you. But under military law, if you have evidence that the person is a military threat, you don’t have to give them a lawyer.”
This is not some temporary provision. As Graham said, he expects the war on terror to continue long after he is dead. Nor is there any compelling need for such legislation. It tears a huge hole in the U.S. Constitution, and for what reason?
Earlier this week, a group of senators attempted to strip the provisions in question from the defense bill. By a vote of 38-60, they failed. Two Republicans — Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rand Paul of Kentucky — voted to kill the change, while 15 Democrats voted in favor of it. Since the bill has already passed the House of Representatives, it seems almost certain to end up on the president’s desk.
Again, I hope that he has the courage to veto it. And in an era when some Americans claim to see a dire threat to their liberty in some health-care reform law, I hope the American people are still wise enough to recognize a very real threat to their freedom when one arises.
– Jay Bookman
No comments:
Post a Comment