I don't understand the recent Rolex SS craze/shortage. What am I missing?

Jockywilson1

Yes I think we all agree, Rolex make iconic watches, market them well, keep them exclusive both through price and supply and are very successful. If your running Rolex your doing a fine job.

in terms of limiting supply, I don’t doubt they do this on purpose, with all their experience, are we really suggesting that they couldn’t have rammed up production over the last 5 years. They don’t want to because they want to keep their product exclusive. In the past they did this through price, but with cheap credit and the ability to borrow money very easily, the only way to maintain exclusivity is to limit supply. Their other option would be just to increase their prices considerably but then all you’d get would be threads asking why Rolex’s have gone up so much and accusations of price gouging.

Davidt

You're crossing two different aspects there.

You may think it's semantics but there's a difference between a company limiting supply or not increasing supply in reaction to a (temporary?) increase in demand. The former would make Rolex complicit in the lack of sports models at ADs and the rise of grey market prices. The latter does not.

I'm sure it's not a case of simply flicking a switch to create more supply. If their manufacturing is optimised it's reasonable to assume an increase in supply would require significant capital investment in manufacturing. If you're Rolex would you do this? I can see why they haven't. They're selling almost all their watches before they hit the showroom floor, demand and brand prestige is through the roof and they haven't had to spend significantly to achieve this.
They're not beholden to shareholders and why take the risk of spending a load of money to increase production to meet what is likely a temporary surge in demand. If they did this and demand returns to normal levels, they'll have spent a fortune to likely end up with a sub optimal manufacturing process and a loss of brand prestige.

My two penneth but I can completely see how we've ended up here by Rolex deciding not to have a knee jerk reaction to increased demand rather than them thinking "we'll cut back on supply to make watches even more desireable" which by the way would cost them money.

Archer

I agree they have no incentive to increase supply, because they are selling most of what they make. I don’t think Rolex has decreased supply overall, but I do believe they have decreased supply of the SS sport models. Although people may say this loses them money, the fact that they are able to sell every dog model they have now, when they used to sit on the shelves, tells me that they aren’t losing money doing this. They have gotten the crazies to buy up stuff in order to get the coveted model they want.

It’s really manipulating the product mix that is the key, not making fewer watches overall.

DoctorEvil

Wonder what the outcome of the trial will be and if Rolex will apply greater scrutiny to their AD network.

vitriol

Answering to OP, here is some tangible explanation "what we are missing".

A core of a lawsuit is into labour law, but a plaintiff was former employee of Rolex AD, hence in the body there is a good reading about AD, grey market resellers and 'the Scheme'.

Case 121-cv-00775

https://www.scribd.com/document/494310160/Rolex-AD-Complaint

I guess most of us already had own thoughts about BNIB watches popping up on the grey market, so this 'scheme' is not so surprising, but this here is probably the first time when we see it taken at legal level(?).

Martin_J_N

Just to let you know that you can get a sought after Rolex without jumping through any hoops, I picked my Submariner 41 up 23 days after the watch was announced, I don't have a huge spend at my AD, I am certainly a long way from being a big spender at the store, so was pleasantly surprised when the call came. The store I use is Mappin and Webb in Bluewater, part of the Watches of Switzerland group, great staff and a great attitude towards customers, cannot praise them highly enough.

cvalue13

At an AD, put my name down for the new no-date Sub and a few months later got the call. I had previously purchased a necklace for my wife, but nothing else.

Seems hard to extrapolate from/differentiate an ADs practices to/from the practices of “Rolex”?

Archer

As for extrapolating the details of who's policy this is...

cvalue13

I don’t really follow, sorry. This appears to be the AD’s policies, no?

The plaintiff’s brief, to me, doesn’t make clear how much it’s summarizing CDP’s policies (or CDP’s interpretation of Rolex’s policies), versus summarizing actual Rolex policies. Particularly hard to tell bc this pleading file doesn’t include the scheduled exhibits referenced. But, the title of the section you’re quoting is “CDP’s Rolex policies.”

So it seems like this is a plaintiff’s lawyer using the AD’s policies to try and extrapolate Rolex’s policies, which effort is obviously bent toward a plaintiff’s preferred interpretation -> is that what you’re also saying?

Admit I’ve not had my coffee yet so ...