Zenith

I took the liberty of taking a few days to ponder about this decision. Initially, I was taken aback by it, but the more I think about it and the more I read the contributions here (THANKS SO MUCH!) the more I am confident that (partially) resorting to outsourced movements is a reasonable strategy for Zenith.

Zenith is as Ms North correctly states still a brand for the 'in-the-know' - despite the famous movement, despite the head-start they had at the dawn of the watch revival, despite much efforts by Mr Nataf and by Mr Dufour to bring the watch back into the center of the watchmaking universe.

The Zenith case clearly shows that being the true and tried manufacture might not suffice to survive. Zenith's management recognised this fact and acted accordingly. We might not like the decision, but I think it is a very professional decision being taken. They knew they would likely offend the enthusiasts, considered the odds and decided to risk it - brave!

Are they alone with that?

Definitely not: Just look at the recent offerings from Montblanc: the new heritage collection is powered almost entirely by ETA/Dubios-Depraz movement despite their considerable in-house capacities. Nevertheless, the collection was received very positively. The argument for the use of ETAs is exactly the same as for Zenith: being able to attract more customers at lower price points. IWC is (traditionally) following a similar strategy.

Essentially, if you look at it as a whole Swatch Group does also something similar, however they pulled the marketing trick of having the distinguishing line coinciding with brand levels: everything including and above OMEGA is in-house (or at least manufacture), everything below (such as Longines or Tissot) is ETA. Cleverly avoids a split within a brand!

Still, Swatch Group manages to sell huge quantities of in-house Omegas, but that brand is a staple name just like Rolex, known to even non-watch enthusiasts, therefore barely comparable to Zenith.

Directly comparable is the fact the Jaquet-Droz uses long-term Piguet movement, and I have no idea about the status of their rumoured in-house movement (which is rumoured since 10 bears already...). Same situation at a higher market range?

Others will follow, but who? I am not sure whether Baume & Mercier will be successful with their manufacture movement. Even AHCI watchmakers like Peter Speake-Marin are increasingly using off-the-shelf movements.

Let's face it: the times where you could attract someone with offering an in-house movement alone are gone. Too many brands did it, so where is the news, where is the added benefit? That is exactly what brands have to answer, for themselves individually but ultimately also to the customer. If you cannot and you just want to be different - a (costly) failure is likely.

Zenith learned the lesson that they need to broaden their audience in order to be sustainable in the future, and they recognised that the key is a two-pronged strategy: the 'stars' with the El Primero, the bread-and-butter with high-quality but bread-and-butter powered watches.

I think however that there should be a clear distinction between in-house and Sellita-powered timepieces. A mix within a given collect could confuse customers and this severely and negatively impact on the brand.

Let's see how this will turn out!

Best,

Magnus

  login to reply