Just received this in Nick Hacko's regular newsletter. While our government was too busy planning overseas junkets to do anything about the subject matter, it appears that their counterparts in the USA are.

Below is verbatim as reported by NH:


*** A major development in the US unfolding!

​

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anti-competitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly.

This is a major development. The FTC is looking into the restriction of spare parts by major Swiss brands in America and it is inviting watchmakers to provide evidence of how the spare parts restriction is impacting their business. Specifically, they are invited to submit any letters from brands denying them spare parts, invoices, voiding of warranties, and estimates of loss.

While I'm not an American watchmaker, I will certainly let the FTC know what a total ban of restriction of spare parts will look like if it is not prevented. There is so much to learn from our Australian experience.

What is important to understand is that an investigation like this comes once in a generation and watchmakers cannot afford not to get involved. The investigation could take many months so stay tuned for updates.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

All it would take would be for watchmaking to miss / skip a generation or two for things to get even more complicated -- at least for us.

Here's to hoping @JimInOz

 

Swatch group might just pull the plug and give them no access to parts at all, so they should be careful what they wish for.

 

I’d rather they look into Rolex restricting new stainless steel sports models.

 

And Donald could tweet that all Swatch Group products are now subject to a 90% import tariff if they can't make a deal.



(Why am I joking? That scenario is entirely plausible!)

 

Donald has tweeted quite a lot, but nothing much has changed.

 

The Swiss understand money and watches. If this becomes an issue in the US, I know who is going to win and so should the Swiss. When you have one of the biggest economies in the world beware of annoying DT. China is learning this lesson this very minute. DT appears to be a disruptor and so far it is working. Nothing stays the same and sometimes things change for the better.
Here's hoping.

 

I'm not familiar with how the watch repair process works out side of using the OEM so apologies if I have this massively wrong.

In Europe there was an issue a good few years back with getting your posh car serviced, the manufacturer stated in the dealers or no warranty, the repair specialists challenged this in court and won, now as long as the repair centre is qualified to manufacturer service standards then you can have your car serviced anywhere and your warranty remains valid. To counteract this manufacturers started offering 'free servicing' of 2 or 3 years to keep the car at the dealers and get you in the habit of using dealers rather than independents.

Now, can the same scenario play out in watch repairs, if the likes of Omega / Rolex et al, state that due to the complexity of watches, the new standards that they are setting METAS etc, watches have to be serviced in house, and for this you will get a 12-24 month warranty on the work carried out, what wrong with this?

Could the OEM's state that due to the declining number of old vintage watches it is no longer viable to have an unlimited number of parts available for these old watches but if you send your watch to the registered service centre they will be able to get access the parts bins?

The OEM's could allow honest, genuine and hard working working watch repairer (a small minority) to apply for accreditation and get access to the parts bin but those who cannot meet the very exacting standards (the vast majority) will not be given access. (Maybe this happens now?)

Also, is there any need for the OEM's to look after a watch that has gone beyond what could be reasonably expected to be its natural life, yes you could argue that 'loyalty' is key but is looking after a 40 year old watch a good business plan for an OEM?

Is the above something that would or could play out to avoid as @marco states having DT tweet about disrupting trade between the USA and the watch elves of Switzerland?

 

I'm sure the very same words were uttered in Germany between 1933 and 1939

 

That’s interesting because I know at least one watch enthusiast who’s a competition law specialist and I’ve never been able to get an answer I could understand as to how those restrictions could fly under EU competition law.
There must be a watch lover sitting at the FTC!

 

Please note that the FTC investigation being referred to is not specifically related to watches, as the information in the original post may lead you to believe. The bulk of the investigation has been focused on the repair of electronic devices like phones, automobiles, and farm equipment.

The spare parts restrictions by brands have been fought on many levels over the years, from class action lawsuits, COMCO investigations, and the FTC in the US has been petitioned about this for years. The watch business is so small compared to these other industries, that a few wealthy watch collectors complaining about not being able to get their fancy watches fixed is not something most people are going to care about. It has to be worth the effort for governments to act - being "right" will only take you so far in these arguments. In some instances lawsuits have been settled in favour of watchmakers and customers - in a case against Cartier (Richemont) the customers all got a voucher and the watchmakers were invited to apply for parts accounts - a total of 9 accounts were granted across the US. If that is what winning looks like, I'd hate to see what losing is like.

In other countries the parts restrictions have been struck down, and nothing has happened to grant access - the governments in question are "waiting to see how things go" with other investigations before they act. What seems significant can quickly turn useless - I've seen it happen too many times already to get too excited about this.

If something positive comes out of this I will certainly celebrate, but in the end I am very skeptical that anything substantial for the watch industry will happen.

Cheers, Al

 

That’s a good update, there is something similar going on in Europe as far too many Companies are refusing to make or hold spare parts for older models. Even if parts are available it is often more expensive to have the item repaired than buy a new one.

The issue is often that the fault could be repaired quite simply, maybe an internal switch or belt etc., but it’s just not available. The EU are starting to force manufacturers to make parts available so that the item can be repaired rather than replaced with the old item being sent for scrap or if you are very lucky recycling.

In the past when something broke you would have a go at fixing it, make do and mend, but now we throw and replace, creating an adverse effect on the environment.

 

There is a slight flaw in this thinking, if you have everything repaired for evermore what happens to innovation and new products?
It might better for the manufacturer to state that a product will be supported for spares and repair for a set time after the last unit rolls off the production line.

 

This kind of action started years ago when The Swatch Group said they were going to restrict, or slow down, deliveries to third parties. Many lawsuits have been tossed around in the ensuing years with no clear winners. I don't think this latest news flash is of anything significant.

 

I agree, we require innovation and new products to keep the wheels of industry turning, but there should be a balance in being able to get something repaired

Try getting a washing machine less than 3 years old repaired, got told when ours broke last year that it would be replaced as it was more economical. The fault was a blown circuit board.

On the other side a 17 year old dishwasher was replaced when the main motor went with a newer eco friendly model, this uses less electricity and less water so theoretically kinder to the environment but it doesn't seem as well built so we will have to wait and see how it lasts.

The key issue in both cases was that no repair was offered.

Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the days when you called in your local ‘expert’ to come and fix your broken appliance, and they could as parts were available.

No one is saying that there cannot be innovation but the throwaway mentality that seems to exist when something breaks should change and be balanced with an element of repair and fix.

So yes, by all means let’s have a timescale when parts have to be available but how would that work for watches?

 

It started long before that mate...

 

I still have it done on household appliances.

Watch companies already keep spare parts in stock for older watches. Most use a 20 or 25 years time frame, from the time that the watch or movement is no longer being manufactured. However in practical terms they tend to support watches far after these time frames. I can still get all the parts for the Cal. 55X/56X/75X movements that Omega hasn't made for a very long time - pushing 40 years now.

 

My washer & Dryer are from 1999, all analog push/pull rotary switches (of which I have spares), made in Ohio. I have done almost all the maintenance myself on both of them thanks to Youtube, and when I got stuck on the motor in the dryer and had an expert come in, he told me he has the exact models and that I need to keep both of them alive as long as possible considering everything on the market today is total garbage.

Oh, and any energy and efficiency benefits of newer machines are completely offset by the cost or replacing the units every 3-5 years. Repair is always better than replace.

 

Me too. I wonder though, as official repair channels are more and more grossly overcharging repairs, if they won't lose customers to brands that play a fairer game... (I've seen repair quotations -refused by the clients of course- from Breitling and Tag that were pure greedy madness)