Richard Mille

chris4
579

• Show profile
• Show other posts

But Stats Lie...

..and there is not enough info with a statement like 'rejection rate of 90%'....Firstly as a bean counter it would make me question the whole production of an item and the true final value of it if 90% of the production went in the bin. Say it was an RM11, if 90% were binned surely the actual price of an RM11 could be 10% of what it actually is if there was no rejection at all..wow that would make it a very reasonable watch to buy.

Secondly the rejection rate comment doesnt actually indicate what it is referring too...again as a bean counter I do not believe that 90% of complete watches are discarded..Im sure a carbon baseplate might crack quite often, but say a titanium case maybe does not have a very high rejection rate, or white gold cases are surely not rejected very often, maybe the titanium screws are little sods to manufacture & have a high mortality rate etc etc

Yes I am sure there is a high rejection rate in various componenents on the cutting edge of design, but I think it far too sweeping to say that RM as a manufacturer has a 90% rejection rate overall, surely that would indicate that as lessons are learned & production is improved then retail prices would drop as the rejection rate would fall drastically..somehow that seems unlikely

I am not disbelieving what you say It just sounds to me that there is probably a little more detail required to justify the  90% Rejection rate statement by Mr Mille, as it seems an impossible stat for any business model