Comments:
Tim, I am a huge fan of GP and UN, which are among my favorite brands. It's been a good 15 years that nothing really exciting was offered to us, with too rare exceptions, from these two brands.
A few Laureatos and super high end watches from GP ( MR Titanium Tourbillon for example ) and from UN ( Marine Tourbillon Enamel, Executive Tourbillon Gree Wheel WG Osmium Dial 18 pieces 2019, or Marine Grand Deck, Moonstruck )...
Compare the new offers to those we used to discover some 20 / 25 years ago... Every watch fair was a source of excitement, delight, dream... And now???
Compare the new offers to those we used to discover some 20 / 25 years ago... Every watch fair was a source of excitement, delight, dream... And now???
Don't you think this comment is fair for the industry overall rather than only for UN and GP?
May be my memory is failing but over the last 15y I can't recall many interesting new offers from market darlings - Rolex, AP, PP, etc... Some playing around - yes, but little really new. Instead, IMHO, for successful ones we have 2 factors in play: 1) decades of smart marketing and status building; 2) luck of having well known bracelet offers when the world suddenly became casual and athleisure.
Just my 2c...
Just my 2c...
Sure. Not only GP and UN, but most of the brands... Except maybe Tudor, and some Indies like Arnold and Son and Angelus...
Tim, you are spot on.
These are not the offenders of those general crimes against watch collectors.
I think the sentiment is really more that this is a harbinger and the actual offenders may too suffer and folks will be happy to see that.
Some of the direct criticisms towards these two may be more valid; in terms of identify, their line ups and “good” product. “Good” is very subjective.
To me, as stated elsewhere in this thread, the piece that jumped out at me was the broad comment about how many companies within the Jura availed of this program. And what does that mean more broadly.
As a side note, always appreciate your contributions here as you sit in a unique spot and those perspectives in addition to the knowledge you’ve built up through the years is valued.
I think the sentiment is really more that this is a harbinger and the actual offenders may too suffer and folks will be happy to see that.
Some of the direct criticisms towards these two may be more valid; in terms of identify, their line ups and “good” product. “Good” is very subjective.
To me, as stated elsewhere in this thread, the piece that jumped out at me was the broad comment about how many companies within the Jura availed of this program. And what does that mean more broadly.
As a side note, always appreciate your contributions here as you sit in a unique spot and those perspectives in addition to the knowledge you’ve built up through the years is valued.
Nobody enjoys reading about these problems of the mid-tier brands.
To me, one of the problems is so much attention is being polarized. One one hand, toward maniac proportions toward Rolex, PP, AP, and to a certain extent toward VC. And only toward a select models. There is still some hope because watch enthusists appreciate Breguet, ALS, IWC, JLC, which will hopefully do well.
Now GS is becoming popular. On the other end of the pollarization spectrum, there are brands and watches that people don't even know or care about, sadly, because all they hear is Rolex, PP, AP, etc.
And yes, there are too many brands and too many watches, but there has to be a bigger shift in directing the public..
I think more direction should be given to marketing, branding, and image-building if that's possble.
The world needs to know that there are more brands worthy of consideration than only Rolex, PP, AP, and the top of the line brands.
And retail prices should reflect the true market price so people feel that they get what they pay for. Setting a ridiciulous RSRP at 10,000 when the watch sells heavily discounted at ADs and on the gray market for 6,000 new and 4,000 used , doesn't build confidence in the brand and company. RSRPs should be more realistic. Fist set an honest price at the gray-market price, and see what happens.
Now GS is becoming popular. On the other end of the pollarization spectrum, there are brands and watches that people don't even know or care about, sadly, because all they hear is Rolex, PP, AP, etc.
And yes, there are too many brands and too many watches, but there has to be a bigger shift in directing the public..
I think more direction should be given to marketing, branding, and image-building if that's possble.
The world needs to know that there are more brands worthy of consideration than only Rolex, PP, AP, and the top of the line brands.
And retail prices should reflect the true market price so people feel that they get what they pay for. Setting a ridiciulous RSRP at 10,000 when the watch sells heavily discounted at ADs and on the gray market for 6,000 new and 4,000 used , doesn't build confidence in the brand and company. RSRPs should be more realistic. Fist set an honest price at the gray-market price, and see what happens.
I'm sad for both brands but the path UN has taken since its modern glory days of 20-30 years ago is particularly bothersome. I'm not sure what the answer is but would love to see a
reverse of fortune. Staying their current course would seem to be suicidal.
I wish them the best. GP and UN are among unique brands with heritage and used to be unusual (perhaps can be called innovative)
I think the management must be restructured. I had high hope on Patrick.
I agree with most of the gentleman here. Wipe out 50-60% of the unpopular models noboby wants. Focus on honest product with classic models , modern movement. Reasonable price.
I personally think the price they asked for theiir watches is unreasonable. I mean, OK the Laureato has great design. But the movement is nothing to speak about in terms of technology, except the thinness. No antimagnetic, no longer power reserve, advanced balance spring, shock resistance etc. All for 14K. They want to be the new RO , Ingenieur, or even aquanaut. But they are not.
I agree with most of the gentleman here. Wipe out 50-60% of the unpopular models noboby wants. Focus on honest product with classic models , modern movement. Reasonable price.
I personally think the price they asked for theiir watches is unreasonable. I mean, OK the Laureato has great design. But the movement is nothing to speak about in terms of technology, except the thinness. No antimagnetic, no longer power reserve, advanced balance spring, shock resistance etc. All for 14K. They want to be the new RO , Ingenieur, or even aquanaut. But they are not.
Video of Nicolas Hayek interview
Does this advice still apply to the watch industry today?
Hear what the legedary Nicolas Hayek had to say circa 1990 or so when this interview took place.
https://youtu.be/Z8pe4lmXZyA?si=3mQ3s6mjMNm1iLEo
🤝
Hear what the legedary Nicolas Hayek had to say circa 1990 or so when this interview took place.
https://youtu.be/Z8pe4lmXZyA?si=3mQ3s6mjMNm1iLEo
🤝
He had such a strong vision for generating value through production. Love it! His interviews were always thoughtful..... and consistent.
wish I could watch some interviews with A.L. Breguet!
Where to start…
First of all, the furlough or short work (in the German speaking world) can be a useful instrument for healthy companies during a period of economic difficulties. What it does not do is to solve your problems if these are ‘home made’.
One of the issues of the watch industry is the inbreeding of management, leading to everyone (a bit simplified, I know) using the same one playbook in all the companies they work at.
I understand the desire for industry experts and there often are reasonable justifications for people to understand the industry they work in. However after a while this can become highly problematic as it doesn’t allow any innovation anymore.
It makes watch brands interchangeable as a result and that’s a problem.
I know it’s not only a watch industry problem - n the car industry you also get certain managers with the ‘if a hammer is the only tool you have, every problem looks like a nail approach.’ Luca de Meo did his performance sub-brand thingy everywhere he went, with differing success.
Coming back to the watch industry, there is little coming out these days that would excite me - which is the main problem. No fascinating product in a category that’s not essential is not a recipe for success. And I love far away from places where I would feel peer pressure to buy things just to belong 😊🤷🏻♂️
One of the issues of the watch industry is the inbreeding of management, leading to everyone (a bit simplified, I know) using the same one playbook in all the companies they work at.
I understand the desire for industry experts and there often are reasonable justifications for people to understand the industry they work in. However after a while this can become highly problematic as it doesn’t allow any innovation anymore.
It makes watch brands interchangeable as a result and that’s a problem.
I know it’s not only a watch industry problem - n the car industry you also get certain managers with the ‘if a hammer is the only tool you have, every problem looks like a nail approach.’ Luca de Meo did his performance sub-brand thingy everywhere he went, with differing success.
Coming back to the watch industry, there is little coming out these days that would excite me - which is the main problem. No fascinating product in a category that’s not essential is not a recipe for success. And I love far away from places where I would feel peer pressure to buy things just to belong 😊🤷🏻♂️
Interesting topic, dear Marc!
The news that Swiss watchmakers like Girard-Perregaux and Ulysse Nardin are seeking state aid is certainly a wake-up call for the entire industry.
The economic downturn, particularly the sharp drop in demand from China, has forced even some established brands to seek stability…
Given the current climate, it’s clear for me that the watch industry needs to evolve.
State aid just might be a temporary idea, but for long-term sustainability
many brands must adapt!
They need more modern, customer-centric approaches!
I am looking for brands to take bold steps. Enough with the endless iterations of classic models! Let’s see some daring innovations that push the boundaries of traditional watchmaking.
Furthermore a more approachable and customer-friendly attitude would do wonders.
And last but not least: Please more realistic prices!! 🙏
Just my 2c.
Best
Thomas
The economic downturn, particularly the sharp drop in demand from China, has forced even some established brands to seek stability…
Given the current climate, it’s clear for me that the watch industry needs to evolve.
State aid just might be a temporary idea, but for long-term sustainability
many brands must adapt!
They need more modern, customer-centric approaches!
I am looking for brands to take bold steps. Enough with the endless iterations of classic models! Let’s see some daring innovations that push the boundaries of traditional watchmaking.
Furthermore a more approachable and customer-friendly attitude would do wonders.
And last but not least: Please more realistic prices!! 🙏
Just my 2c.
Best
Thomas
The horological world needs a correction. Flippers, grey dealers have binged and distorted the landscape. I think people are now voting with their wallets.
There is a lot of truth to many of the comments posted here.
My biggest issue with the watch industry is lack of transparency in their products, marketing and sales.
The opaqueness prevalent in the industry and seemingly “part of the furniture” so to speak, has lead many buyer/collectors to be rather indifferent to what they are being told. Also, better education of watch buyers is needed in order for them to be better informed and understanding of what they are buying.
There are far too many ways to discover truths now with the web, social media and online fora. The old days of operating have to change.
I see the brands still operating as if it is the 2000’s or before. People are not stupid and they do not appreciate slick marketing and sales speakers trying to pull the proverbial wool over their eyes.
How is that watch companies are still able to have owners wait 6+ months for a routine service of their treasured watch? The conditioning and compliance of buyers/owners has to change, hold these companies accountable and demand more infrastructure for service. Why should an owner wait that long for what is in reality a 3-4week service?
Instead of creating marketing BS, put those CHF’s into the service aspect/infrastructure. Take care of existing clients better. Then you’d have better long term loyalty.
To the product side, ultimately there are too many “me too” watches being made. Over production will always produce many of the issues we see now.
Little to no imagination, nor innovation coming out of the “think tanks” that the brands employ. Heritage is one aspect, but it shouldn’t be all a brand relies on to create interest in their products.
I’m biased and arguably jaded, however I think that the industrialization of what used to be a “luxury product” of truly limited production, by these behemoth marketing luxury conglomerates, is a shame.
They have removed the magic of what once was. You only have to look at the watches prior to 1970’s to see the difference. Watches then were made for different reasons and the buyers were either needing them for work (tool watches) telling accurate personal time (majority of time only) or the rare collectors of haute horology, who supported the high end historical interesting brands, by buying complicated mechanical watches because they could.
Nowadays the buyers are a very different demographic and the reasons for buying have changed.
Engaging with the actual buyers, is key and those brands that do, will survive and prosper. Finding out what they want will go a long way to being profitable and relevant.
Ultimately there is so much to unpack here and it certainly isn’t a one size fits all solution.
The independent watchmakers that I tend to focus on, have their own issue that differ from the brands!
I’m a big fan of UN and GP, however they have drifted away from their core competences imo and are now suffering the consequences. Running a watch brand is not easy and we are now seeing the results across the board.
There will much wailing and gnashing of the teeth in the short term as the realities of poor management come to fruition…
Enjoying this discussion. Thanks all for chiming in.
Cheers,
Tim
The opaqueness prevalent in the industry and seemingly “part of the furniture” so to speak, has lead many buyer/collectors to be rather indifferent to what they are being told. Also, better education of watch buyers is needed in order for them to be better informed and understanding of what they are buying.
There are far too many ways to discover truths now with the web, social media and online fora. The old days of operating have to change.
I see the brands still operating as if it is the 2000’s or before. People are not stupid and they do not appreciate slick marketing and sales speakers trying to pull the proverbial wool over their eyes.
How is that watch companies are still able to have owners wait 6+ months for a routine service of their treasured watch? The conditioning and compliance of buyers/owners has to change, hold these companies accountable and demand more infrastructure for service. Why should an owner wait that long for what is in reality a 3-4week service?
Instead of creating marketing BS, put those CHF’s into the service aspect/infrastructure. Take care of existing clients better. Then you’d have better long term loyalty.
To the product side, ultimately there are too many “me too” watches being made. Over production will always produce many of the issues we see now.
Little to no imagination, nor innovation coming out of the “think tanks” that the brands employ. Heritage is one aspect, but it shouldn’t be all a brand relies on to create interest in their products.
I’m biased and arguably jaded, however I think that the industrialization of what used to be a “luxury product” of truly limited production, by these behemoth marketing luxury conglomerates, is a shame.
They have removed the magic of what once was. You only have to look at the watches prior to 1970’s to see the difference. Watches then were made for different reasons and the buyers were either needing them for work (tool watches) telling accurate personal time (majority of time only) or the rare collectors of haute horology, who supported the high end historical interesting brands, by buying complicated mechanical watches because they could.
Nowadays the buyers are a very different demographic and the reasons for buying have changed.
Engaging with the actual buyers, is key and those brands that do, will survive and prosper. Finding out what they want will go a long way to being profitable and relevant.
Ultimately there is so much to unpack here and it certainly isn’t a one size fits all solution.
The independent watchmakers that I tend to focus on, have their own issue that differ from the brands!
I’m a big fan of UN and GP, however they have drifted away from their core competences imo and are now suffering the consequences. Running a watch brand is not easy and we are now seeing the results across the board.
There will much wailing and gnashing of the teeth in the short term as the realities of poor management come to fruition…
Enjoying this discussion. Thanks all for chiming in.
Cheers,
Tim
Well,
I have little sympathy for brands that have ignored outreaches from dedicated members of this site whilst pissing aways millions to celebrity brand ambassadors.
1) Our requests to JLC for many ideas let alone collaborations have been dismissed out of hand but belle horlogerie at astronomical prices goes on... does that pay JLC's bills?
2) I have no sympathy for Georges Kern, who hurt IWC as a brand and yet somehow was able to parlay his regime into CEO position at Breitling
3) When I met one of only two US sales reps for UN in Arizona and asked if he could get me a certain watch, he took glee in telling me what a small manufacture UN was, and I would never qualify to buy the watch which I wanted because I was nobody
With attitudes like these, it is no wonder that regular customers form negative opinions about certain brands, and dealers.
The watch industry is strange indeed -- it certainly does not believe in the classic wisdom that "the customer is always right"; rather many name brands believe that the customer should be paying them homage and be grateful for whatever scraps are thrown to them.
And yet we still love watches