Been thinking a lot about the 1957 re-issues, and a thought came to my mind.

By re-issuing the trilogy, is Omega demonstrating it's in touch with its loyal and devoted collectors by re-issuing a much sought after but generally unobtainable set of old models?

Or is Omega cynically looking to cash in from the market for its vintage pieces by looking to exploitatively sell a new knock-off to collectors who fear this is their only chance to get their hands on an original-looking watch.

Perhaps is it both?

 

I think it's a bit of both, but Omega does stay in touch with the loyal and devoted collectors imo, SpeedyTuesday for example

 

I don't think it's #2. Collectors know they're buying a tribute edition, not vintage. Vintage prices won't drop, at least not because of the tribute editions.

 

Do not read the ABTW comments on these... so much fail.

 

I think they thought...it is a 60th anniversary so we had better get some stuff out there....if we do something completely new, some people will be pissed off.....if we do something old, some different people will be cynical. I think they did as good as could be expected without reinventing inventing the wheel.

 

Still surprised that a diamond dust panda dial was not part of the Diamond 60th anniversary.

 

I suspect.....Omega Shareholders do not give a 'Monkeys butt' about loyal & devoted collectors .......We are already 'the converted' ....( think Vampire bite ??)

The bottom line......& yet another opportunity to exploit their cash cow heritage, is foremost in the Marketing Dept's mind, ....as they seek out, the next generation of would be collectors / social media devotees ...

How else could they justify charging a premium value on 3 x virtually identical watches, on identical bracelets ?

However emotionally subjective we are, as collectors about our watches………Omega is a Global business, after all...so yes it is cynical

 

Bunch of trolls out there. I wonder why do they employ themselves to read something of which they DON'T care at all.

 

That is certainly true, but then I believe I'm right in saying Robert-Jan approached Omega about doing a collaboration and not other way around.

 

Of course Omega is trying to make money. You know what happens to companies that don't. If there's a demand, Omega tries to make as much profit as they can while filling it. But they're honestly good watches, and if you don't like Omega's prices, there are other watch manufacturers, and the vintage market.

 

I think they say no to 90% of approaches about collaborations.

There are now some rumours about a Hodinkee x Omega

 

The shareholders: no. But the designers could. They might come up with an idea for a watch they believe collectors will like, and convince management that it's a good idea to produce it.

Why is it that making money is so often equated with cynical greed? Some companies still make money by making and selling things that people actually need and/or like.

 

I'd like to think they are in touch with collectors and us forum-going enthusiasts and these 57s and the Speedy Tuesday watch are proof of that... then they do a 360 no scope and release 45mm PO GMTs and whatever the hell an Aqua Terra XXL is (yes, that's the official name of the watch)

 

Businesses exist to make money. Omega sees a market, they are not forcing you to buy

 

That could be interesting, but realistically they'd have to wait at least a few years, surely? Also not too sure what they could do, at least with the Speedmaster line - the reverse panda was the obvious missing piece from the family history.

 

I think you are being extraordinarily naive, if you believe the Design Dept gets to determine, the creative direction of the manufactured pieces...the best they can hope for, is to tweak the peripheral design.....a cartoon character or some ridiculous script

This is an algorithmic decision, based on focus groups, social media, & what has worked before - The endless iterations of the Speedmaster being a good example

As a Group Director for a major U.K. Advertising Agency, for 25 years, ( before Academia called ), I can testify that Blue chip Brands seek to create an 'aspirational lifestyle'.. so, of course Buyers like the products...& the marketing is designed to promote a 'call to action'...a sale

I doubt, whether the abstract concept, that people actually need their products ?…… enters Corporate heads

 

This tends to be my experience: that business development/sales people task designers to create a product, rather than designers coming up with a product idea they then pitch to BD.

Doesn't mean that BD don't care about their customers or the products they're creating tho.

 

A manufacturer's job is to design products they think will sell well, and at a profit. Chasing one's vintage following is generally not very profitable, as those are the people who rarely buy new. The car world is similar. Some of the people I know who are most vocal about how 'horrible' Porsche's latest design may be have never bought one newer then 25 years old, so they really are not Porsche's target audience.

 

I think it's #3: While wristwatch styling and personal taste change over time there are some consumers who prefer the simpler/cleaner look of older models.

With the LE's, Omega can have it's cake and eat it too. They can have something like the modern Seamaster with it's 90s styling, busy bracelet, and two-tone dial elements for today's 30 year old modern customer and they can have something like the '57 homage Seamaster with it's simple styling, clean bracelet, and monochromatic dial elements for today's 50 year old vintage customer. They can call these 'limited editions' to raise awareness and generate publicity, but in the end Omega is just catering to it's older niche who appreciate the older (better) styling and have the cash to pay a premium to get it.

This isn't much different than BMW taking the simple 3 Series Sedan/Coupe/Convertible which satisfied customers for decades and turning it into the 3 Series Sedan/Wagon/SAV and the 4 Series Coupe/Gran Coupe/SAV and the 2 Series Coupe/Convertible to cater to its niches. Today's consumer wants specialization, they want diversity, and in the case of watch aficionado's, more is better.

 

I never said determine...I said convince (as in: pitch to management, substantiated by focus group research results etc.).

From your argument it seems to follow that the decision makers also create the designs (or at least dictate them to their designers in great detail). That would be micromanagement to the extreme.

Almost every firm I have ever worked for as an innovation consultant gives designers the opportunity to pitch more radical ideas to management occasionally. But maybe it's a cultural thing.