Guess the folks who own Casablanca have a good lock on the use of clips...so:

"I'm shocked, Shocked to discover that there is shilling and pumping of watch prices going on here!"

 

I love this thoughtful response. Thanks @Syrte

 

Well, I didn't think a simple request for clarification would have led to such an interesting debate !

 

[/QUOTE]

Thanks @CajunTiger, agree on Bring a Loupe (and I appreciate @lethalwl's funny reply about writing it out of passion with a bias toward 1950s watches nobody cares about).

However, the outlook changes when Jack Forster writes a huge article about a Vacheron Constantin Cornes de Vaches chronograph as an "IMPORTANT" watch on August 2016, with big words like in a greek tragedy, "fidelity", "authenticity", "philosophical bagage".....
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/v...ronograph?mc_cid=5df0520ae7&mc_eid=906e1a5eeb
And lo and behold, what do we find out in February 2017? Hodinkee had been for a year working with Vacheron Constantin to market a watch based on the same chronograph.
So what?
We had been all so convinced to think the watch was a major World Heritage --was the greek tragedy a hidden sales pitch?
And this begs the question, how many pieces of writing in Hodinkee are affected by similarly undisclosed dealings?

There may not be a major scheme.... but with all due respect, there's a contradiction at the heart of Hodinkee's current business model.
On the one hand, it has built its initial influence from its delivery of interesting information.
On the other hand, however, with the concern now deriving profit from its activity as a marketing tool, by definition it can no longer function as an independent source of information.
For that reason, callling the writers "journalists" as Louis himself does in The Temps de Genève is at best wishful thinking.

Best regards,
S

 

Thanks @CajunTiger, agree on Bring a Loupe (and I appreciate @lethalwl's funny reply about writing it out of passion with a bias toward 1950s watches nobody cares about).

However, the outlook changes when Jack Forster writes a huge article about a Vacheron Constantin Cornes de Vaches chronograph as an "IMPORTANT" watch on August 2016, with big words like in a greek tragedy, "fidelity", "authenticity", "philosophical bagage".....
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/v...ronograph?mc_cid=5df0520ae7&mc_eid=906e1a5eeb
And lo and behold, what do we find out in February 2017? Hodinkee had been for a year working with Vacheron Constantin to market a watch based on the same chronograph.
So what?
We had been all so convinced to think the watch was a major World Heritage --was the greek tragedy a hidden sales pitch?
And this begs the question, how many pieces of writing in Hodinkee are affected by similarly undisclosed dealings?

There may not be a major scheme.... but with all due respect, there's a contradiction at the heart of Hodinkee's current business model.
On the one hand, it has built its initial influence from its delivery of interesting information.
On the other hand, however, with the concern now deriving profit from its activity as a marketing tool, by definition it can no longer function as an independent source of information.
For that reason, callling the writers "journalists" as Louis himself does in The Temps de Genève is at best wishful thinking.

Best regards,
S[/QUOTE]
I wasn't even thinking about the VC...

 

@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
In any case, i just wished to underline that this column was about sharing a passion for vintage watches, which I love to do

 

Fair point too @lethalwl , you did call your colleagues "journalistes" in your interview with le Temps de Genève, but if you are content with "rédacteurs" or "contributeurs" as opposed to "journalistes" then we can perhaps agree on that front too.
Best regards,
S

 

On that point, I dont think we will ever agree @Syrte; Ben, Jack, Stephen, and Cara (among others) are esteemed journalists in the watch industry, just look at their background and the articles that they write daily

 

@lethalwl I think the issue here is the meaning we imbue upon the term "journalist" and what we expect of someone using that descriptor in their job title.

I have no doubt in the actual talent of your colleagues - all are extraordinary writers (Jack, in particular is, in my opinion, one of the best writers in any industry) but I think of a journalist as an inherently impartial observer, tasked with shining a light on the truth of a particular topic or happening.

Because of the direction Hodinkee the business has chosen - as a venture-capital-backed sales entity - while Jack et. al may have the capacity to act as journalists, the nature of their roles, and who they must answer to, precludes them as being regarded as reliable truth-tellers. This is not meant as an attack on their individual characters, mind you, simply the reality of the inherent biases that the nature of the organization they work for imparts upon them.

I love Hodinkee the website and begrudge Ben and his team none of the success they've enjoyed. I just don't expect the whole truth and nothing but the truth when I drop by the website. Once you began partnering directly with watch brands with profit as a motive, the proverbial ship left the port.

 

@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.

 

Thanks @CajunTiger, agree on Bring a Loupe (and I appreciate @lethalwl's funny reply about writing it out of passion with a bias toward 1950s watches nobody cares about).

However, the outlook changes when Jack Forster writes a huge article about a Vacheron Constantin Cornes de Vaches chronograph as an "IMPORTANT" watch on August 2016, with big words like in a greek tragedy, "fidelity", "authenticity", "philosophical bagage".....
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/v...ronograph?mc_cid=5df0520ae7&mc_eid=906e1a5eeb
And lo and behold, what do we find out in February 2017? Hodinkee had been for a year working with Vacheron Constantin to market a watch based on the same chronograph.
So what?
We had been all so convinced to think the watch was a major World Heritage --was the greek tragedy a hidden sales pitch?
And this begs the question, how many pieces of writing in Hodinkee are affected by similarly undisclosed dealings?

There may not be a major scheme.... but with all due respect, there's a contradiction at the heart of Hodinkee's current business model.
On the one hand, it has built its initial influence from its delivery of interesting information.
On the other hand, however, with the concern now deriving profit from its activity as a marketing tool, by definition it can no longer function as an independent source of information.
For that reason, callling the writers "journalists" as Louis himself does in The Temps de Genève is at best wishful thinking.

Best regards,
S[/QUOTE]
The VC is certainly a slippery slope, giving a very positive review to a watch you were going to be selling a version of I the future. BUT, if they didn't actually really live the watch, they probably wouldn't have chosen it for a collaboration.

 

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.

 

No arguments from me on any of your points. I love reading Hodinkee. I simply disagree with anyone characterizing what they do as journalism.

 

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.

 

Very good points and I think you are probably right. The need seems to be there. Well true journalism isnt easy. Being frozen out, no invites, no insider info etc- that is journalism & these are the real journalists who circumvent these obstacles to land a story imo.

 

Dear @lethalwl, their "background" (ie past activities or training) isn't relevant-- what's dispositive is Hodinkee's current activity of deriving profit not just from advertising (as other publications) but also from sales, consulting and marketing partnerships, as well as the relationships it builds in that process are inconsistent with independent information, "journalism", or the label of "journalists".

I concur with @R3D9 entirely in his various points, including his appreciation of Hodinkee's work.

However I must add the reason why terminology is important, and cannot be relaxed to accommodate marketing activities, is because "journalism" and "journalists" are essential to democracies, and undermined when those who blur the lines foster public cynicism and mistrust.

 

Quoted for Truth.