Skip to content
46

lavendel raumduft

Skip it

Soft demand (-35.4% this quarter) — this niche doesn't clear our bar today.

Market size 48Growth 7Conversion 67Competition 47Returns 97Price range 46Avg price 64Brand share 12Review moat 49Quality gap 55

Returns

Incredible0.5%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Conversion

Good6.0%

search→purchase rate — share of searches ending in a sale

Avg price

Good€13.71

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Quality gap

Good4.4★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Review moat

Okay1,613.63

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Market size

Okay€260K

€260K/yr · 316K searches

Competition

Okay57%

top-5 click share — leaders hold, buyers still browse

Price range

Okay€2.76–€25.32

cheapest to priciest tracked listing — scored on the share inside $15–$100

Brand share

Bad95%

top-5 brand share — brand-locked demand

Growth

Bad-35.4%

90-day search growth — must beat 0% to launch

Competition

The top 5 products take 57% of clicks — established leaders, but buyers still shop beyond them.

Brands

9 falling

Sellers

28

Top-5 brand share

95%

Open market

3%

  • Air Wick83%
  • Ipuro7%
  • Frosch2%
  • Airkeep2%
  • Inovida2%
  • Fresh Line1%
  • Open — no brand owns it (3 brands, 3%)

Product shelf

Each bubble is one product — market share against review moat; bubble size tracks estimated sales, color grades how beatable the incumbent looks.

0%10%€26K20%€52K30%€78K40%€104K101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)1 product missing review or click data not plotted

All 24 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -35.4% search growth over the last 90 days.
4K3KPrime Day '24Spike '24Spike '25Prime Day '25SepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

Peak months: Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct · busiest ÷ quietest = 3.0×

Reviews

What buyers praise and complain about, mined from review topics.

What buyers love

Geruch59%

“Düfte”

Qualität insgesamt7%

“Super Qualität”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis7%

“Unter 5€ jedenfalls empfehlenswert”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt4%

“Erfüllt seinen Zweck”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit2%

“+ Einfache Handhabung”

Design insgesamt2%

“elegantes Design des Spenders.”

Gesamtgröße1%

“Passt”

Komfort insgesamt1%

“angenehm in der Handhabe”

Haltbarkeit1%

“effektiv und langlebig”

Effizienz1%

“Funktioniert Super”

What buyers complain about

Geruch51%

“Stinkt nur”

Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis5%

“mega teuer”

Gesamtgröße5%

“Fallen sehr klein aus”

Funktionalität insgesamt5%

“funktioniert nicht”

Haltbarkeit4%

“hält nicht lange”

beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt2%

“Irreführende Anzeige man bekommt nur 3”

Qualität insgesamt2%

“SCHADE”

Akkulaufzeit2%

“Akkuleistung: Auch bei diesem Gerät ist die Batterielaufzeit absolut ungenügend”

Benutzerfreundlichkeit1%

“Alles nicht so einfach”

Stärke1%

“Richt Super leider nicht so stark wie gehofft”

Top return reasons

Geruch34%
Funktionalität insgesamt23%
Gesamtgröße9%
beworben Vs Tatsächliches Produkt6%
Auslaufsicher5%
Stärke3%
Farbe3%
Qualität insgesamt3%
Akkulaufzeit2%
Haltbarkeit2%