Watch marketing - is it too cheesy?
Discussion
Killing ten minutes yesterday I found myself window shopping at a decent watch shop. On diplay were Cartier, Panerai, Breitling etc etc.
I was particularly drawn to the Panerais which looked nicely finished. They ranged between £5k and £10k. Then I noticed that on the watch display was a small metal model of a submarine, it was a naive interpretation and a bit dusty. Presumably this was a reference to Panerai's heritage, but I pondered why the shop or manufacturer though this might enhance my desire for a Panerai watch.
Other displays included bits and bobs of marketing material or "exciting" images involving racing cars, boats or aeroplanes. All of them just slightly naff.
A similar thing is true of magazine advertising for watches. They often involve cliched photos of yachtsmen or pilots gazing into the distance and looking a bit serious. I am sure the intention is to make the reader want to associate with that lifestyle and aspire to own that brand of watch. Speaking personally, these images probably make me LESS likely to buy a brand.
I would consider buying a Panerai for my next watch and I am sure I am as susceptible to marketing as the next man. But I do not want to feel that I am the sort of person that associates himself with a small, dusty model of a submarine.
Is this just me, or does anyone else find watch advertising a bit cringeworthy and counterproductive?
I was particularly drawn to the Panerais which looked nicely finished. They ranged between £5k and £10k. Then I noticed that on the watch display was a small metal model of a submarine, it was a naive interpretation and a bit dusty. Presumably this was a reference to Panerai's heritage, but I pondered why the shop or manufacturer though this might enhance my desire for a Panerai watch.
Other displays included bits and bobs of marketing material or "exciting" images involving racing cars, boats or aeroplanes. All of them just slightly naff.
A similar thing is true of magazine advertising for watches. They often involve cliched photos of yachtsmen or pilots gazing into the distance and looking a bit serious. I am sure the intention is to make the reader want to associate with that lifestyle and aspire to own that brand of watch. Speaking personally, these images probably make me LESS likely to buy a brand.
I would consider buying a Panerai for my next watch and I am sure I am as susceptible to marketing as the next man. But I do not want to feel that I am the sort of person that associates himself with a small, dusty model of a submarine.
Is this just me, or does anyone else find watch advertising a bit cringeworthy and counterproductive?
Well, the original wearers used to travel on ride-on mini submarines hence the "naive interpretation" (it was probably very accurate as a model of a ride-on mini submarine 
).
Remember, Panerai made diving tools back then and branched out into watches.
http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/chapter-3-co...
).Remember, Panerai made diving tools back then and branched out into watches.
http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/chapter-3-co...
Edited by ShadownINja on Saturday 8th January 11:05
ShadownINja said:
Well, the original wearers used to travel on ride-on mini submarines hence the "naive interpretation" (it was probably very accurate as a model of a ride-on mini submarine ).
Oh well that does it then, I must buy a Panerai. Riding about on a mini sub is so.....what I aspire to do ).Manks said:
ShadownINja said:
Well, the original wearers used to travel on ride-on mini submarines hence the "naive interpretation" (it was probably very accurate as a model of a ride-on mini submarine ).
Oh well that does it then, I must buy a Panerai. Riding about on a mini sub is so.....what I aspire to do ).PS it isn't so much the notion of riding about on a mini-sub as it is blowing up allied warships.
Edited by ShadownINja on Saturday 8th January 11:32
ShadownINja said:
Manks said:
ShadownINja said:
Well, the original wearers used to travel on ride-on mini submarines hence the "naive interpretation" (it was probably very accurate as a model of a ride-on mini submarine ).
Oh well that does it then, I must buy a Panerai. Riding about on a mini sub is so.....what I aspire to do ).I can see what they are trying to do, but IMHO it doesn't work. A small dusty model of a submarine doesn't make me want to spend £10k on a watch. Okay so they used to make diving stuff. Hey ho. It doesn't turn me on and I suspect I am not alone.
What WOULD make me want to splash out on one is style, exclusivity, build quality and support. From my recollection, Cartier had no such imagery associated with their products and I was probably more drawn to them as a result.
Manks said:
I can see what they are trying to do, but IMHO it doesn't work. A small dusty model of a submarine doesn't make me want to spend £10k on a watch. Okay so they used to make diving stuff. Hey ho. It doesn't turn me on and I suspect I am not alone.
What WOULD make me want to splash out on one is style, exclusivity, build quality and support. From my recollection, Cartier had no such imagery associated with their products and I was probably more drawn to them as a result.
A different target group, possibly, though. Panerai have to use their heritage (even thought it is somewhat tenuous as they are not the original Panerai, as I understand it; something about Anonimo in the recent history plus until recently weren't their movements bought in?). Cartier are more a jewellers than a watch manufacturer, aren't they? What WOULD make me want to splash out on one is style, exclusivity, build quality and support. From my recollection, Cartier had no such imagery associated with their products and I was probably more drawn to them as a result.
In any case, how do you advertise build quality and support in a shop window? How did Cartier get this message across? As for style and exclusivity, that's down to individual taste and the price, irrespective of model subs and aircraft.
Manks said:
ShadownINja said:
Manks said:
ShadownINja said:
Well, the original wearers used to travel on ride-on mini submarines hence the "naive interpretation" (it was probably very accurate as a model of a ride-on mini submarine ).
Oh well that does it then, I must buy a Panerai. Riding about on a mini sub is so.....what I aspire to do ).I can see what they are trying to do, but IMHO it doesn't work. A small dusty model of a submarine doesn't make me want to spend £10k on a watch. Okay so they used to make diving stuff. Hey ho. It doesn't turn me on and I suspect I am not alone.
What WOULD make me want to splash out on one is style, exclusivity, build quality and support. From my recollection, Cartier had no such imagery associated with their products and I was probably more drawn to them as a result.
The Panerai website (www.panerai.com) has lots of information on the history of the brand, the movements used and the manfacture ... This will help sell the watch to you!Harrods have a small Panerai display, but it's not particularly inspiring either! If you want the best buying experience in terms of displays, you'll need to head to a Panerai Boutique (Closest is Paris):
The shop window is a very difficult arena for watch manufacturers to advertise properly in. Essentially the aim is to get the brand values across - which, as we know from this example, can be ambiguous at the best of times; fully explaining the Panerai brand ethos would probably take several sentences - but they only have a tiny, tiny space in which to do it as well as devoting enough of that limited space to the most saleable and most marketable element of the brand, the watches themselves.
The brands are constrained by space and so have to get their key values across boldly - hence the submarines, the motorsport images, etc. It's important to note that they have very little say on how their point-of-purchase material is displayed - this will be determined largely by individual shop staff, and whilst Panerai can supply guidelines as to how they want the display set up, the interpretation and maintenance of this display is out of their hands.
As mentioned above, when they can control all elements of the shopping experience - in this case, through their own boutique - the results are much more successful, as those who know the brand intimately create the sales environment.
The brands are constrained by space and so have to get their key values across boldly - hence the submarines, the motorsport images, etc. It's important to note that they have very little say on how their point-of-purchase material is displayed - this will be determined largely by individual shop staff, and whilst Panerai can supply guidelines as to how they want the display set up, the interpretation and maintenance of this display is out of their hands.
As mentioned above, when they can control all elements of the shopping experience - in this case, through their own boutique - the results are much more successful, as those who know the brand intimately create the sales environment.
What gets me about watches is the price 'premium' brands charge. I saw a Rolex being talked about on the PH watch thread, as I recall it was in the £5k bracket. So far so ordinary, but what really got my attention was the £700 extra they wanted to replace the leather strap with a steel bracelet. Steel, last time I checked, is 98-99% iron. Where's the justification for this sort of pricing? Clearly it doesn't bother premium watch buyers as they seem entirely happy to pay what they're asked. If Tissot, Seiko etc can build a decent mechanical watch for £200, or even £500, why does it cost ten, fifty or a hundred times that for another brand to make their (also mechanical) watch? The internal design isn't going to be radically different, is it? The cases aren't big enough to make that much difference on metal meltdown value. And I'm not even considering the £500k+ follies from such as Richard Mille, which as far as I can see are so over-designed they hardly fulfil their basic function ie time-telling. I promise I'm not trolling here, I just feel there is a massive con going on in the watch business.
tonym911 said:
What gets me about watches is the price 'premium' brands charge. I saw a Rolex being talked about on the PH watch thread, as I recall it was in the £5k bracket. So far so ordinary, but what really got my attention was the £700 extra they wanted to replace the leather strap with a steel bracelet. Steel, last time I checked, is 98-99% iron. Where's the justification for this sort of pricing? Clearly it doesn't bother premium watch buyers as they seem entirely happy to pay what they're asked. If Tissot, Seiko etc can build a decent mechanical watch for £200, or even £500, why does it cost ten, fifty or a hundred times that for another brand to make their (also mechanical) watch? The internal design isn't going to be radically different, is it? The cases aren't big enough to make that much difference on metal meltdown value. And I'm not even considering the £500k+ follies from such as Richard Mille, which as far as I can see are so over-designed they hardly fulfil their basic function ie time-telling. I promise I'm not trolling here, I just feel there is a massive con going on in the watch business.
Simple answer is that they will charge what the market will accept. As long as there is a steady stream customer willing to pay the asking price then that's what they'll charge. WRT Rolex they do trade a lot on their history. My father was a scuba diver in the days of Cousteau, and the dive watch to have then was the Sub. A lot of his mates bought them on a tool makers wage, which was probably the equivalent of about 20k a year. Prices have gone up because the product has moved from the tool of choice to a fashion item.
rhinochopig said:
tonym911 said:
What gets me about watches is the price 'premium' brands charge. I saw a Rolex being talked about on the PH watch thread, as I recall it was in the £5k bracket. So far so ordinary, but what really got my attention was the £700 extra they wanted to replace the leather strap with a steel bracelet. Steel, last time I checked, is 98-99% iron. Where's the justification for this sort of pricing? Clearly it doesn't bother premium watch buyers as they seem entirely happy to pay what they're asked. If Tissot, Seiko etc can build a decent mechanical watch for £200, or even £500, why does it cost ten, fifty or a hundred times that for another brand to make their (also mechanical) watch? The internal design isn't going to be radically different, is it? The cases aren't big enough to make that much difference on metal meltdown value. And I'm not even considering the £500k+ follies from such as Richard Mille, which as far as I can see are so over-designed they hardly fulfil their basic function ie time-telling. I promise I'm not trolling here, I just feel there is a massive con going on in the watch business.
Simple answer is that they will charge what the market will accept. As long as there is a steady stream customer willing to pay the asking price then that's what they'll charge. WRT Rolex they do trade a lot on their history. My father was a scuba diver in the days of Cousteau, and the dive watch to have then was the Sub. A lot of his mates bought them on a tool makers wage, which was probably the equivalent of about 20k a year. Prices have gone up because the product has moved from the tool of choice to a fashion item.
By the logic of Tony, why buy a watch at all? My Blackberry tells the time just as well, possibly better, and carries out a number of other functions. You're surrounded by the time on everything, radios, cars, ovens etc.
It's as much a (very, very nice) piece of jewellery as anything else now.
Edited by al1991 on Saturday 8th January 16:02
Edited by al1991 on Saturday 8th January 16:12
I do have a watch, it's a Pulsar I bought about 20 years ago, cost me less than £50, never seems to need a new battery (it's had one in all that time). The glass is unscratched, the watch keeps perfect time, I think it looks nice so it even fulfils some kind of jewellery function. Have a plastic Casio backup that I paid £11 for on ebay but haven't had to use it. Good luck to the expensive watch owners, I've no problem with it, but I do feel they are being massively ripped off.
tonym911 said:
I do feel they are being massively ripped off.
It does depend; if the watch was put together by an expert's hand then when you add up all the hours it took, you're possibly getting value for money. If you're paying £200 for a machine-manufactured fashion watch that was built in China...Watch factory employing dwarven watch makers:
At this point, Cyberface would make an appearance...
If you're interested, I think it was Andy Tims's thread about his Dornbuth that shows what could go into making a watch worth more than £50.
Edited by ShadownINja on Saturday 8th January 16:30
rhinochopig said:
tonym911 said:
What gets me about watches is the price 'premium' brands charge. I saw a Rolex being talked about on the PH watch thread, as I recall it was in the £5k bracket. So far so ordinary, but what really got my attention was the £700 extra they wanted to replace the leather strap with a steel bracelet. Steel, last time I checked, is 98-99% iron. Where's the justification for this sort of pricing? Clearly it doesn't bother premium watch buyers as they seem entirely happy to pay what they're asked. If Tissot, Seiko etc can build a decent mechanical watch for £200, or even £500, why does it cost ten, fifty or a hundred times that for another brand to make their (also mechanical) watch? The internal design isn't going to be radically different, is it? The cases aren't big enough to make that much difference on metal meltdown value. And I'm not even considering the £500k+ follies from such as Richard Mille, which as far as I can see are so over-designed they hardly fulfil their basic function ie time-telling. I promise I'm not trolling here, I just feel there is a massive con going on in the watch business.
Simple answer is that they will charge what the market will accept. As long as there is a steady stream customer willing to pay the asking price then that's what they'll charge. WRT Rolex they do trade a lot on their history. My father was a scuba diver in the days of Cousteau, and the dive watch to have then was the Sub. A lot of his mates bought them on a tool makers wage, which was probably the equivalent of about 20k a year. Prices have gone up because the product has moved from the tool of choice to a fashion item.
Rolex and others simply cash in on this.
Also there's an element of Veblen goods in here - Google it; a group of products whose attractiveness increases with price - which certain groups see esteemed watches as.
The extreme lengths premium Swiss outfits go to to protect their brands (on a par with fashion and scent makers) shows the massive brand value that has been built up apparently independently of the intrinsic value of the watches. Friend of mine brings an armful of premium fakes back from Asia just about every year. Takes great delight in bringing in his 'real' watches and asking us to pick which is which. None of us can. Another friend has a real Breitling. Costs him £300 to get it serviced on what seems a frighteningly regular basis - and even when it comes back it's still losing or gaining minutes a month. Odd.
Rolex (for example).
Cost of manufacture (plus expenses) say £1k
Cost to buy say £4k
Resale value £4k
True cost = cost of servicing plus loss of interest on capital = not a lot.
My MY 2000 Exp II hasn't cost a bean (well, apart from a £300 service) for ten years reliable use.
Artificial market prices aren't all a bad thing until the bubble bursts (as we all know)...
Buying s/h is also a pretty cost effective way to indulge if you're reasonably canny.
I think marketing works for a certain level of consumer and is ignored by the more knowledgeable as a necessary evil, and that's not restricted to watches...
"When you stop seeing something in terms of what you like and what you don't like, and see it more in terms of what it is, you will be a happier person" is a quote to bear in mind perhaps?!
Finally, have a look here - http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39... to put market forces into perspective.
Cost of manufacture (plus expenses) say £1k
Cost to buy say £4k
Resale value £4k
True cost = cost of servicing plus loss of interest on capital = not a lot.
My MY 2000 Exp II hasn't cost a bean (well, apart from a £300 service) for ten years reliable use.
Artificial market prices aren't all a bad thing until the bubble bursts (as we all know)...
Buying s/h is also a pretty cost effective way to indulge if you're reasonably canny.
I think marketing works for a certain level of consumer and is ignored by the more knowledgeable as a necessary evil, and that's not restricted to watches...
"When you stop seeing something in terms of what you like and what you don't like, and see it more in terms of what it is, you will be a happier person" is a quote to bear in mind perhaps?!
Finally, have a look here - http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39... to put market forces into perspective.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff