Horological Meandering

This is the M.A.D. 1 watch from the brilliantly creative mind of Max Busser. It’s a relatively inexpensive piece launched by Max as a way of saying thank you to everyone who has contributed to his success over the years. What it is not, and I believe was clearly never intended to be, is an MB&F watch. That’s a separate brand created by Max with pieces typically six figures and up.

And yet I constantly see this watch being referred to as an MB&F.

The first question is does that matter? Well, as the owner of a few MB&F pieces that I paid $$$ for, I’m not super-thrilled with that prestigious brand being associated with such a lower priced piece. Maybe that’s a bit elitist of me, but I think Max recognized this and tried hard to keep the brands separate. It’s like if you spent $200K on an Aston Martin and then they made a $10K Aston Martin and sold tens of thousands of them, you’d probably miss your exclusivity a bit, too. That’s the reason most high-end luxury producers segment their brands and keep them distinct and apart.

However, it hasn’t worked here, as this watch is widely referred to as an MB&F. So does it matter? And if it does, does that hurt Max or help him?

I’m honestly not sure. I know as an MB&F owner, I wish the distinction was more widely respected. But I do know this piece has been tremendously successful in raising awareness for Max and his products and I think that is awesome. But exclusivity is a real thing, with value to consumers, and once lost it’s gone for good. I remember having the chat with a senior executive at Rolls Royce. They knew in great detail what the true global demand for new Rolls Royces was, and they always maintained production below that number. The key was always to maintain the prestige and mystique of the marque. And perhaps that’s my point here, in my opinion MB&F has lost a little mystique with this project. But the extend to which anyone else cares, or how it affects demand for true MB&F pieces is unknown.

So this is either a disastrous branding mistake, pure genius, or just a tempest in a tea cup that changes nothing. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the three

I totally get and agree with your point. 

This is, logically, M.A.D. 1., the first piece from that brand. I bet over time we see more.

It certainly doesn’t help that websites such as Chrono24 never set that up as a separate brand. So anyone selling this piece lists it as an MB&F.

Sometimes, brands leverage this “grey area” to their advantage. In my professional career, I’ve seen many, many executives who did a two-week professional course at Harvard Business School, list it on their LinkedIn profile as if they attended Harvard. No, no, you kind of didn’t. That’s reserved for people who went there for four years and earned a degree. But Harvard knows people do this all the time and it’s a big selling point for their courses….

"That’s a separate brand created by Max with pieces typically six figures and up.  And yet I constantly see this watch being referred to as an MB&F."

My “rant” as you say, was definitely not intended to blame anyone for anything. Yes, they are two separate brands that are often associated together. My post was simply to provoke thought on what are the consequences, if any, of that? And if I missed the mark…… well, won’t be the first time……

And I can totally see where you're coming from. Yes, MB&F is definitely at that "Aston Martin" level in the watch world. A solid analogy. And yes, I can understand Aston Martin owners being upset. All I can say is, if that $10K Aston Martin has a growling V8 and all the trimmings, I would agree, the superiority of my Aston Martin (if I owned one) would be threatened. But considering the M.A.D. watch is SO VERY MUCH NOT AN MB&F - not even close, I think you're safe. At least not among serious watch collectors. As in the case of the Aston Martin Cygnet, I don't think the 1.3 liter engine, tiny brakes, and econobox hatchback look is fooling anyone.

What’s the deal with the Cygnet? I’ll have to go do some research, but that is so far off the ranch. What was Aston Martin thinking, and did it have any long-term affects on the Aston Martin brand? Just, at first glance, that was crazy…..

I don't know the full story about the Aston Martin Cygnet, but let me hypothesize... To me, it looks like the idea of a management consulting group. Probably a McKinsey or Gallup or Bain. Aston Martin probably said that to the consulting team that here are our objectives; sell more cars, get huge profits per car, gain a new type of customer, gain female customers, and gain younger customers. McKinsey's Consultants probably put this in their great "Great Automatic Grammatizator" (it's a Roald Dahl short story) and the machine probably spat out this solution. The McKinsey team probably pitched this with their full hearts and the board and/or management team was probably swayed and eventually green lit the project.
Now, Max Busser knows his customers pretty well. He always wanted to create a lower end brand, one that was more mass market. He even had a name for it, which he scrapped, and then chose M.A.D. as the name. He also knew that the M.A.D. watches had to be very different than the MB&F products, a clear separation. Knowing Max since 2007/8/9 (can't claim to know him extremely well, but I've known him over a long period of time) he's always been a fairly consistent fella; and I think he's one of the few who has the correct overall vision, has the creativity, has the charm that makes me like HIM very much, AND the business acumen to keep it all afloat. I'd say he definitely worked hard to keep the two brands very separate. I also find that MB&F is only known by watch people, people whom would know the difference.
Nevertheless, despite all of the above, I can see where you're coming from. Although personally, I'm not too worried, as I don't think anyone with a M.A.D. watch can successfully fool anyone that they're wearing an MB&F product.
You're actually the first person to really bring it up, as I never really thought of it - as I saw the gap between M.A.D. watches and MB&F watches to be substantial. But, after reading your post, I realized you're right, there will be a segment of the population who will just look at it as a Max Busser creation and attribute it to MB&F. It's probably a small segment, but still... So all I can say is, you're not wrong. And I thought of the Aston Martin Cygnet tiny car when you mentioned Aston Martin. And as someone who just bought the Omega Moonwatch, I thought it'd be threatened by the MoonSwatch. After seeing the MoonSwatch in person - I realized there was no threat nor confusion. Have you seen the M.A.D. watches? I guess to someone who doesn't really know movement quality, they'd see M.A.D. watch as a high quality product and it's really not bad at all. But seeing and handling an MB&F is just a whole different level. There's just something special about the MB&F that just isn't there with the M.A.D. watch. The weight, the way it feels, the corners on the MB&F just feel so smooth, and the corners on the M.A.D. feel a little more industrial. Toyota makes really small tiny cars, and they also make a very expensive grand Lexus car or if you live in Japan, the Toyota Century - the Japanese Rolls Royce equivalent. That's even more confusing since they all are branded Toyota. Although the Century has a phoenix logo instead of the typical circular Toyota logo.
I'm pretty sure that this is not a brand misstep. But then again, I'm just one opinion, and your opinion is very valid here. You bring up a valid argument. But personally, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Those who know MB&F, definitely know the M.A.D. isn't anywhere close.

... watches to cars, even when it comes to branding.
I remember seeing the Aston Martin IQ / Toyota Cygnet at the dealer ... the Aston dealer and the difference between these two cars was heaven & Earth ... I suppose this should be the same between the MAD and any MB&F watch but I highly doubt that ... or am I seeing this wrong ?
And no .. you don't sound elitist about these watches, you put it in a very clear and clever way. I only wish I could afford several 100K watches ... but I'm happy I can still buy 2, 3 and sometimes a 4 figure Seiko

I can see how my position could be interpreted as elitist, heck I said that myself. But I’m just being honest and saying if part of the value proposition is exclusivity, you’d like that to be defended.

As example - I live in Vegas, and a developer put up a luxury condo high-rise just off the strip. Small condos on the tenth floor or so were going for about a million bucks. After he sold all the units, the same developer put up a second high-rise right next door. It was about twelve floors high and blocked the first fifteen floors or so of the first building from their views of the strip. Prices of those units fell from a million to around $400K. The point is, people bought those units for exclusivity and great views of the strip. That value proposition got diminished. Similarly, and I’m guessing here, most Aston Martin owners were at best indifferent, at worst against, the Cygnet when it launched. Was anyone jumping up and down and celebrating it?

And so, yeah, I’m just being honest when I say I’m not super-thrilled at all the MAD 1 watches being listed as MB&Fs on Chrono24. And I don’t like how many of them are being flipped for a quick buck, I think that’s not a great look for the brand, either. If this makes me elitist, I plead guilty. But you’ll have to explain to me what exactly I’m gatekeeping, as I’m not tracking your point there?

To me it is quite clear MB&F makes that clear distinction. It is how the “market”, “collectors” keep on associating the two. And it is not wrong the MAD is the brainchild of Max.

I think Max clearly intended to keep the two brands separate. But the “market”, as you say, keeps on associating the two. My post was simply meant to provoke thought on what are the consequences, if any, of that? Thanks for your considered reply.

Capitalism and exclusivity are strange bedfellows, one often betraying the other

I think in the end, pricing and further market penetration of M.A.D. as brand, compared to MF&F pieces, will be clarified over time in the market place as both become better known. The disctinction will become clearer when selling prices show that there is a huge difference between the brands' watches. I am not sure if my analogy here fits, but some people perceive their Tudor watches as being "Rolex" watches. They are in a sense. On the other hand, Rolex and Tudor are totally different/distinct when one compares the selling prices and brand appeal. I think that this will become true for MB&F and M.A.D.

The Cygnet would like a word…

In Zurich, crazy cars come at you like an onslaught. But I saw a Cygnet parked amid the sea of Ferraris and AMG'd G-Class 4x4s, and I lost my mind. It felt like spotting a '57 Chevy in North Korea. The interior work - its only real link to Aston - was impressive. But the weirdness and rarity are what get me excited about this one.
Best,
Tim

Painted by hand at the Rolls-Royce factory, no orange peel. Interior is also made from the same leather. It's the perfect city car for the urban dweller when you can't go out in your Rolls Royce - maybe your "mediocre neighborhood" car.

Just like I doubt anybody's ever cancelled his Asaoka Pura Tourbillon because of Kurono Tokyo, and I doubt anybody's ever bailed on a waitlisted Omega Ed White Cal. 321 because he was offended by the Moonswatch. 

I just don’t know why you’d do it? Why would a high-end luxury marque bring out much lower priced offerings? What is that achieving other than devaluing the mystique and exclusivity of the brand? I don’t know why Aston Martin built the Cygnet. They must have had a reason. I didn’t know Journe made a $12K quartz watch. Now I do, but I don’t know why. It just strikes me as you’d have more to lose than gain. If you get it wrong, it’s so hard to regain your original brand equity. Clearly, these are brand decisions made above my pay grade!

Akin to fashion, some designers / stylists have ideas for both entry, mid, and top-level manufacturers. It's all good
PS: As much as it pains me to say this, Max may want to consider outsourcing for a strap stylist imho.

It's a tiny diminutive city car with a 1.3 liter engine, based off a minuscule Toyota hatchback that was rebadged as an Aston Martin!  

As I replied above, and maybe I’m being overly-sensitive, I’m not a huge fan of the large number for sale on watch websites listed as MB&Fs. It’s also a piece I think a lot of raffle-winners looked to flip, so that’s a separate question of whether that’s a good look for the brand or not.

Someone made the great point about Rolex and Tudor and I think that’s a perfect example of how two brands can live side-by-side with total clarity.

Some non raffle winners too. I wouldn't flip mine, been offered twice. Besides, the MB&F team knows me, so that'd be a tough conversation.

Web searches for M.A,D, 1 seem to land one on the MB&F site. They could try for better separation of the brands. I was paying some attention to the recent raffle and I never thought at the time about M.A.D. as anything other than MB&F. The new brand message didn't come through clearly, at least not to me. 

And I don’t think it devalues my pieces, I just don’t like the scope for confusion. But I have to say that with a smile, because I’m guilty the other way. I have a white ceramic Hublot Spirit of Big Bang. I’ve honestly been stopped three or four times and asked if it’s a Richard Mille Bubba Watson. Of course it is, I respond! I’m sure no one sold their Bubba Watson because of my Hublot. In the same way, no one’s thinking less of an MB&F because of the MAD pieces. But I think most of us are agreeing there is scope to better differentiate the brands and clean up some of the confusion that the general public, not so much the collector community, might have.

Brandwise i think it is helpfull for making a larger audience aware of MB&F, as with the ( early ) cheap Ming watches and also the Bunkyo Kurono ( Asaoka ) watches.

by that I mean, it is marketing hype by dealers and wannabe's,

I am a hardcore turnaround CEO that has done exclusively consumer deals across a variety of verticals, and this was pretty textbook. Well executed. Most of the cos I've run are sub $100m in rev, which is what I think MB&F is. Seems like they do ~$15m - $30m.