Hi there,
Hodinkee has had over the years some wonderfully interesting content.
However, all institutions wielding power need scrutiny, because as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
While @lethalwl is definitely a "writer," I take exception to the use of the word "reporter", or "journalist"
The use of that term implies the core mission is to bear witness and describe (ie "report") events as they happen.
However Hodinkee are a market player which makes money from the sale and marketing of watches.
1/ Louis' LinkedIn Profile lists his title as "Director of Watch Sales at HODINKEE".
Louis Westphalen | Professional Profile - LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/louis-westphalen - Traduire cette page
New York, New York - Director of Watch Sales at HODINKEE, Inc. - HODINKEE, Inc.
2/ He gave an interview in that capacity to a Swiss newspaper (Le Temps de Genève) as recently as June 21
https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2017/06/21/hodinkee-bien-plus-quun-simple-blog-horloger
The article entitled «Hodinkee is much more than a horology blog" cites him as director of watch sales,
highlights his MBA background, and the whole thrust of the piece is to highlight Hodinkee's identity as a sales site, an event organizer, and partner to major watch brands for the design and launch of certain products.
Selling what you write about is NOT journalism or being a "reporter".
In fact it flies in the face of the most basic principles of journalism, and calling Hodinkee writers "reporters" or "journalists" is an insult to those who practice that profession for reasons and causes other than financial gain.
While the practice of journalism today is no longer what it used to be at the Washington Post during the Watergate era, there are more journalists than ever who put their lives at risk in war zones and die trying to inform the public or to document injustices in their countries. (as a matter of fact, several died in Mossul just three weeks ago).
To be fair and as @CajunTiger points out many outlets and publications blur the lines, but Hodinkee has squarely crossed the rubicon.
There's nothing wrong with financial gain, but you can't have your cake and eat it.
Don't call yourself a reporter if you're a sales person.
Yes "reporter" was not intended, I meant writer...I posted from my cell.
BTW- Great detective work...looks like you did more research than Hodinkee 😀
I agree with all your points...although keep in mind, the article in question is an ongoing series revealing collectable watches in the market (not Hodinkee related). It was started well before they sold watches. I don't think this specific reference benefits from any more hype.
I write Bring A Loupe out of passion.......Of course, nor Hodinkee nor myself does get any commission on those watches, it is just about highlighting some vintage pieces that we love, sharing a passion as you do on this forum...
So I am sorry to disappoint the believers in a grand scheme, nothing that sophisticated or devilish in place...
And if you wish to know about my COI... I am heavily biased towards ultra thin mechanical watches from the 1950s, the same watches I saw my grand fathers wear through my childhood.
And even if I talked about those pieces 24/7 on Hodinkee, I doubt the current pool of 3 people interested in them would grow any further 🤪
Hello, I signed up to OF a month ago because I discovered I had a bad nina for thirty years since I did not wear watches I would have used it a dozen times on baptism or marriage occasions thanks to you I did a Yes of "culture" and it's amazing how interesting this world is! I decided to share a bit of photos with you, it is definitely one of the first ones released by the universal serial number 2411 ###. Hello to all
@Syrte very fair points, this is exactly the reason why I am not considered as a journalist within Hodinkee, you can see that in our team directory: https://www.hodinkee.com/pages/masthead
So we definitely agree here, writer works for me in the case of Bring A Loupe, amateur writer would be even more accurate 😀
@R3D9 the separation between editorial and commerce is a concern we take very seriously, we have a full separation between both sides as I explained in the article to Le Temps.
We were able to remain impartial while Hodinkee relied primarily on advertising, and now that the Shop grew as well, we still hold firmly to that position. You will for instance see clear labels on any content that is sponsored, such as the recent videos for Omega. And the separation is of course true in the roles that we each have, Jack for instance is never involved in any project for the Shop.
That said, the question around Limited Edition is a fair one and the answer is simple: those projects stem from the opposite angle that @wkimmd presents.
It is because we loved the design of the Cornes de Vaches, or the unique standpoint of Ressence or MB&F, or the vintage offering of Zenith and Heuer that we turned to those brand to ask for a Limited Edition, not the other way around. So any of those Limited Editions did not change in any ways the enthusiasm and affinity that we initially had for the production pieces.
So you can still expect the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the site, and beautiful pictures and videos 😀
I don't doubt that the praise and admiration for the watches/brands you've highlighted via the limited edition series is genuine.
Where the organizations' ability to adhere to journalistic pricipals becomes problematic is when your opinion of a watch brand, or one of their releases, is entirely negative.
Could the John Mayer / IWC article be posted on Hodinkee today? Possibly, maybe, because John is a quasi-third party... but no way Ben could write a similar article about Vacheron today.
For example: my understanding is that in the watch industry, it is commonplace for the various watch blogs and writers to have their expenses covered by the watch brands themselves. Writers, from what I've read, are routinely flown around the world on dream-like vacations... snorkelling in exotic locations... attending galas in the most luxurious cities and hotels in the world.
Acceptance of these gifts and benefits creates massive conflict of interest for the writers involved. Note that it does not even need to be true that a writer's opinion or willingness to express negative opinions is genuinely hampered. The mere possibility of conflict of interest is enough to call into question the truth of what ends up being printed on the page.
The problem is, how can you be expected to trash someone's creation who just treated you like a king or queen?
How do you eviscerate the next Vacheron release when your boss is in the middle of partnering with them on a JV?
Imagine if the journalists from the Post or Times covering Trump were to accept similar luxuries from his team?
If Hodinkee was a legitimate journalistic enterprise today, we would see in the coming weeks a behind-the-scenes true account of the departure of Kerns at Richemont.
He just left one of the most important jobs in the watch industry after four months. The simple explanation that he wants to turn around Breitling cannot possibly be the only thing going on here. There's dirt to uncover, and surely with Hodinkee's connections, someone on your team will become aware of what really happened.
This is news that would be interesting and relevant to watch enthusiasts. If watch "journalism" was the same as it is in the standard press, we'd soon hear about what happened. Journalists covering similar occurrences within a different field would be climbing over each other to get to the truth. I'll wait and see, but I doubt any expose on the truth behind his departure is forthcoming.
I've worked in banking all my life. There are strict limits to what we can accept from our clients. Limits that very often put us in a position where, quite literally, we must insult our best clients by refusing what are honest, genuine gestures of appreciation or friendship.
The reason why we must do this is justified. We can't allow ourselves to be exposed to potential conflict of interest... Real or perceived.
Because of where the business of watch writing is going, what we end up seeing is overwhelmingly positive articles from most of the watch blogs.
My assumption is that the negative articles often simply don't get written.
Have a look at this recent article from the independent blog, Timepiece Chronicle:
https://www.timepiecechronicle.com/features/2017/6/19/why-modern-reissues-dont-excite-me
The author directly calls out brands for lacking the desire or will to innovate. The current state of watch brands regurgitating re-issue after homage after re-issue is something that needs to be examined and criticized. It is damaging the future of the watch industry and offenders need to be called out.
Just one example of many... we just don't see the kind of critical coverage from watch writers from large websites as we do from traditional journalists. The proof is in the content on display.
Again, my intention is not to attack Hodinkee or any other watch blog. You guys need to make a living and this is the environment that currently exists. I only take issue with asserting yourselves as a journalistic entity. That asks for a level of trust from the reader that I don't think, as presently structured, you're capable of earning.
There is generally a trend in most lifestyle publications, especially the big names like Vogue (and most of Conde Nast I believe), in that any idea, product or design that's not good, or deemed bad, is simply not reviewed. The absence of a review of a new thing is a negative signal in itself - in that that new product/design might be deemed unimportant enough to spend the time and effort an article requires, or to save a review into the annals of internet history. I think the idea is that people come up with things that aren't great sometimes (which is probably true, for everyone) - why spend time and energy talking about those, when instead you can spend more time appreciating and immortalizing the classic, the innovative and the better?
You can look at that in a few ways - one, that these lifestyle publications are too dependent on advertising revenue to really provide negative criticism of things; or two, that it is emblematic of class or luxury to ignore and tolerate instead of criticize. And honestly, at the end of the day we're talking about commentary on design and aesthetics, where everything is subjective, and something that's in vogue today might not be ten years from now. That means nothing really makes a positive or negative commentary more right or wrong than another - no one is really reporting "facts" here, so to some extent your traditional criterion for objectivity could be relaxed slightly.
I don't doubt that the praise and admiration for the watches/brands you've highlighted via the limited edition series is genuine.
Where the organizations' ability to adhere to journalistic pricipals becomes problematic is when your opinion of a watch brand, or one of their releases, is entirely negative.
Could the John Mayer / IWC article be posted on Hodinkee today? Possibly, maybe, because John is a quasi-third party... but no way Ben could write a similar article about Vacheron today.
For example: my understanding is that in the watch industry, it is commonplace for the various watch blogs and writers to have their expenses covered by the watch brands themselves. Writers, from what I've read, are routinely flown around the world on dream-like vacations... snorkelling in exotic locations... attending galas in the most luxurious cities and hotels in the world.
Acceptance of these gifts and benefits creates massive conflict of interest for the writers involved. Note that it does not even need to be true that a writer's opinion or willingness to express negative opinions is genuinely hampered. The mere possibility of conflict of interest is enough to call into question the truth of what ends up being printed on the page.
The problem is, how can you be expected to trash someone's creation who just treated you like a king or queen?
How do you eviscerate the next Vacheron release when your boss is in the middle of partnering with them on a JV?
Imagine if the journalists from the Post or Times covering Trump were to accept similar luxuries from his team?
If Hodinkee was a legitimate journalistic enterprise today, we would see in the coming weeks a behind-the-scenes true account of the departure of Kerns at Richemont.
He just left one of the most important jobs in the watch industry after four months. The simple explanation that he wants to turn around Breitling cannot possibly be the only thing going on here. There's dirt to uncover, and surely with Hodinkee's connections, someone on your team will become aware of what really happened.
This is news that would be interesting and relevant to watch enthusiasts. If watch "journalism" was the same as it is in the standard press, we'd soon hear about what happened. Journalists covering similar occurrences within a different field would be climbing over each other to get to the truth. I'll wait and see, but I doubt any expose on the truth behind his departure is forthcoming.
I've worked in banking all my life. There are strict limits to what we can accept from our clients. Limits that very often put us in a position where, quite literally, we must insult our best clients by refusing what are honest, genuine gestures of appreciation or friendship.
The reason why we must do this is justified. We can't allow ourselves to be exposed to potential conflict of interest... Real or perceived.
Because of where the business of watch writing is going, what we end up seeing is overwhelmingly positive articles from most of the watch blogs.
My assumption is that the negative articles often simply don't get written.
Have a look at this recent article from the independent blog, Timepiece Chronicle:
https://www.timepiecechronicle.com/features/2017/6/19/why-modern-reissues-dont-excite-me
The author directly calls out brands for lacking the desire or will to innovate. The current state of watch brands regurgitating re-issue after homage after re-issue is something that needs to be examined and criticized. It is damaging the future of the watch industry and offenders need to be called out.
Just one example of many... we just don't see the kind of critical coverage from watch writers from large websites as we do from traditional journalists. The proof is in the content on display.
Again, my intention is not to attack Hodinkee or any other watch blog. You guys need to make a living and this is the environment that currently exists. I only take issue with asserting yourselves as a journalistic entity. That asks for a level of trust from the reader that I don't think, as presently structured, you're capable of earning.
If there are entities trying to compete with Hodinkee the above post lays out a clear path in how they could separate themselves from the top dog imo.
Unfortunately they wouldn't compete JS. The watch industry(and dealer/auction biz) is simply too close for that. They would be frozen out of the "club". No interviews, no "insider" info, no invites to launches, no sample watches to review etc. They'd have to report at a distance.
Other industries are similar and it's worse it's getting not better. The car industry an obvious example. Journalists are feted and fed and flown to exotic locations to review the latest supermini or supercar. In return they're expected to give overall glowing reports, maybe throw in a whinge about a door handle being a bit stiff to look "independent". If they don't they don't get invited back. Jeremy Clarkson was frozen out by Opel for many a year(before he got the massive worldwide audience he has now) because of his scathing review of one of their cars. He's not the only example. Unless a media outlet is huge, like say Autocar and the industry can't afford to freeze them out.
That's the thing, Hodinkee are now at that level within that industry and could if they chose to actually be more journalistic, but I'll bet the farm they won't. Over time they've become less, not more journalistic. Less supportive of buyers and collectors and more supportive of industry. Demonstrably so. EG look at their sales site. Once they showed movement shots in every sale and in articles on the matter rightfully advised collectors to avoid buying vintage without one and yet now? The majority of their stock is notable by the absence of movement pictures. Given how the whole market grew in the last two decades is largely based on the fact these watches have mechanical movements that omission says much. May as well have a one dollar Chinese quartz in there.
