- Posts
- 46
- Likes
- 35
stamplicker
·Too bad. More is always better. That summer blue ploprof at 16k is kind of insane, but wish they'd bring back the standard black dialed one.
Is Omega Losing Its Way? Price Hikes and Brand Criticism
- Posts
- 1,419
- Likes
- 763
spacemission
·Omega can still make a beautiful classic watch.
I recently picked up this lightly worn Tresor. Until I saw it, I had no idea that it existed. 18k gold, enamel dial, no date, and a jump hour for use when traveling. I confess to being surprised that Omega still made a watch like this, although it's been discontinued.
- Posts
- 1,419
- Likes
- 763
spacemission
·Is Omega reading along?
Well IMHO the "problem" is cooperation with "influencers" and "channels" who don't bother to do some basic research before churning out contents... I have seen the most basic mistakes, even on respected watch channels like Time+Tide and Revolution, to name a couple, who for instance have no clue that:
the Omega Speedmaster FOIS was not the first watch in space (In April & August 1961 Yuri Gagarin & Gherman Titov wore their military Shturmanskie pilot watch, in 1962 NASA astronaut Scott Carpenter wore the first Swiss wrist watch in space Breitling Navitimer...)
I could start a whole topic with mistakes delivered in volatile online watch content, but hé,
"Enough Internet For Today" !
I would join the thread to expose farsantes, predicadores, mercaderes, etc. That title could be sublime.
- Posts
- 729
- Likes
- 1,121
nicolamilton
·32% discount in my new Omega Aqua Terra turquoise. Bad for them, but good for me. Picture seen in this forum:
- Posts
- 4,126
- Likes
- 8,842
ErichPryde
·32% discount in my new Omega Aqua Terra turquoise. Bad for them, but good for me. Picture seen in this forum:
Congratulations. Can't wait to see some pictures.
- Posts
- 17
- Likes
- 6
SpeedyPrOmega
·Congratulations. Can't wait to see some pictures.
- Posts
- 1,421
- Likes
- 1,438
502 to right
·I keep demanding that Omega make a smaller SMP but with their constant price increases I think by the time they do (if they do), it will be priced beyond what I'm willing to pay for one watch. I've owned multiple watches of a value greater than $10,000 and sold them all. I just don't see the value in a watch that is that expensive. I have better things to do with my money.
What I did instead was buy a 2531.80 Seasmaster Professional 300m (the Brosnan Bond watch) in 2022 for a little over $2,000. Last year I had it fully serviced, cleaned movement, restored case, new gaskets, new bezel, new hands, new crowns, and even paid for a new dial. For under $4,000 I have a like new Seamaster 300m ready for the next 20 years. I get a smaller case, a thinner case, and a beautiful wave dial. I don't see the value in buying a new Seamaster for double that amount. And I've never been sold on co-axial movements so that's not a draw for me.
I'm content enjoying a 30 year old watch that looks and performs like it's brand new.
What I did instead was buy a 2531.80 Seasmaster Professional 300m (the Brosnan Bond watch) in 2022 for a little over $2,000. Last year I had it fully serviced, cleaned movement, restored case, new gaskets, new bezel, new hands, new crowns, and even paid for a new dial. For under $4,000 I have a like new Seamaster 300m ready for the next 20 years. I get a smaller case, a thinner case, and a beautiful wave dial. I don't see the value in buying a new Seamaster for double that amount. And I've never been sold on co-axial movements so that's not a draw for me.
I'm content enjoying a 30 year old watch that looks and performs like it's brand new.
- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 9
fm
·I think omega way overpriced at the moment, they have drove up cost in the last 10 years . Omega was always the sensible choice in Swiss watches good quality / reputation, but I feel they are competing with Rolex now , they are pushing what they think they can charge . only Rolex hold value , omega sadly doesn't .
- Posts
- 9
- Likes
- 4
Fatso
·Currently people just talk because they want to, social media and the internet has made it easy to critique anything and negative reviews gets more traffic than positives, also the price hike is tied to global inflation
- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 9
fm
·
you are probably correct . I think all brands are coping the Rolex model charge what you think you can get away with . wasn't that long ago you could pick up a navitimer for couple of K , look at the list price now .
- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 9
- Posts
- 1,421
- Likes
- 1,438
502 to right
·Swiss monetary policy is a significant factor too. The Swiss franc has gained considerably vs. the dollar, euro, and pound in the last five years. And then there's tariffs in the U.S. in the last two years.
That said, increases are increases regardless of the cause. It's up to the consumer to decide if they want to pay. I've decided I don't. Thankfully my collection is right where I want it so I can enjoy what I have. In other words, I've decided to opt out of price increases. 😀
- Posts
- 1,835
- Likes
- 3,582
DoctorEvil
·I think omega way overpriced at the moment, they have drove up cost in the last 10 years . Omega was always the sensible choice in Swiss watches good quality / reputation, but I feel they are competing with Rolex now , they are pushing what they think they can charge . only Rolex hold value , omega sadly doesn't .
Omega are raising prices to keep up with Rolex as they don't want to be seen as being significantly cheaper and inferior. However, they simply don't have the brand recognition to pull this off. They have priced themselves out of their traditional mid tier luxury market and these buyers are now looking elsewhere or are exiting the market altogether in tougher economic times. And that's why I think Omega are in trouble.
- Posts
- 1,568
- Likes
- 3,136
josiahg52
·The more I'm think about this and lament it, this is a risky move by Omega.
An observation that Omega is simply raising prices to compete with Rolex overlooks how complicated, and potentially risky, that strategy is. Rolex and Omega may compete in the same market, but they have very different brand positions, customer expectations, and pricing power. Omega can't necessarily command Rolex-level prices simply by charging them. Presumably there's a point where higher margins per watch no longer compensate for declining sales volume, and I wonder where that point lies for Omega. Are they actually improving profitability by moving upmarket, or are they risking alienating a substantial part of their traditional customer base? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I think there's considerably more to it than just trying to match Rolex's prices.
Presumably there's a point at which the additional profit from higher prices no longer compensates for the customers those prices discourage. I wonder where that point lies for manufacturers like Omega and Rolex, and whether they're approaching it. And then later, a manufacturer risks turning an enthusiast's purchase into something that feels financially irrational, even when the customer can technically afford it. I wonder whether the long-term benefits of exclusivity outweigh the sales and customer loyalty sacrificed along the way.
I'm not suggesting these watches should be inexpensive, or that manufacturers shouldn't make substantial profits. But there is a considerable market of enthusiasts who appreciate the engineering, history, and craftsmanship, and who can afford these watches occasionally, yet increasingly struggle to justify their prices.
I know, nothing really new, but I'm more concerned than annoyed.
An observation that Omega is simply raising prices to compete with Rolex overlooks how complicated, and potentially risky, that strategy is. Rolex and Omega may compete in the same market, but they have very different brand positions, customer expectations, and pricing power. Omega can't necessarily command Rolex-level prices simply by charging them. Presumably there's a point where higher margins per watch no longer compensate for declining sales volume, and I wonder where that point lies for Omega. Are they actually improving profitability by moving upmarket, or are they risking alienating a substantial part of their traditional customer base? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I think there's considerably more to it than just trying to match Rolex's prices.
Presumably there's a point at which the additional profit from higher prices no longer compensates for the customers those prices discourage. I wonder where that point lies for manufacturers like Omega and Rolex, and whether they're approaching it. And then later, a manufacturer risks turning an enthusiast's purchase into something that feels financially irrational, even when the customer can technically afford it. I wonder whether the long-term benefits of exclusivity outweigh the sales and customer loyalty sacrificed along the way.
I'm not suggesting these watches should be inexpensive, or that manufacturers shouldn't make substantial profits. But there is a considerable market of enthusiasts who appreciate the engineering, history, and craftsmanship, and who can afford these watches occasionally, yet increasingly struggle to justify their prices.
I know, nothing really new, but I'm more concerned than annoyed.
- Posts
- 209
- Likes
- 336
rebar
·I think this is a lot less to do with Omega v Rolex and moreso a wider trend from brands not named Rolex, PP, AP. Omega is the biggest and closest Rolex competitor in this segment, so it often draws comparisons. It's moves garner more attention so its often framed as an Omega issue.
Longines, Tudor, Cartier, JLC, GO, GP, IWC - off the top of my head - have all been moving upmarket, with various levels of success. But it's not merely about keeping up with Rolex. It's that sales are down, purchasing power is down, the buyers on the lower end of brands respective market are not splurging on this anymore. So why keep prices low enough for a market that has all but evaporated? They all see moving upmarket as the only chance. Sure, maybe you could keep prices at the same level and hope that maintains your sales volume, but at the expense of profits? And at the expense of brand prestige as lower priced brands up their quality and prices?
At the end of the day, these are luxury watches. If regular folks can't afford to own more than one, then that's OK. Plenty of actual tool watches made for regular people out there.
Disclaimer: I mean no offense about anyone's income levels. I'm just your typical middle class guy who has just spent more than is wise on these goods (no regrets though!)
Longines, Tudor, Cartier, JLC, GO, GP, IWC - off the top of my head - have all been moving upmarket, with various levels of success. But it's not merely about keeping up with Rolex. It's that sales are down, purchasing power is down, the buyers on the lower end of brands respective market are not splurging on this anymore. So why keep prices low enough for a market that has all but evaporated? They all see moving upmarket as the only chance. Sure, maybe you could keep prices at the same level and hope that maintains your sales volume, but at the expense of profits? And at the expense of brand prestige as lower priced brands up their quality and prices?
At the end of the day, these are luxury watches. If regular folks can't afford to own more than one, then that's OK. Plenty of actual tool watches made for regular people out there.
Disclaimer: I mean no offense about anyone's income levels. I'm just your typical middle class guy who has just spent more than is wise on these goods (no regrets though!)
- Posts
- 768
- Likes
- 1,784
- Posts
- 1,421
- Likes
- 1,438
502 to right
·I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, and I probably posted this in this thread somewhere (but it's 33 pages long so I'm not looking), but Omega's price increases in the last 10 years track very closely to the increase in inflation and the growing strength of the Swiss franc. In other words, Omega is just keeping up with the cost of producing watches--not "moving upmarket" or trying to compete with Rolex. Pretty much every Swiss brand has done this but you don't notice the price increases as much for Hamilton, Tissot, and Longines (just as an example) because a 10% increase on a $1000 watch is less noticeable than a 10% increase on a $7,000 watch.
- Posts
- 89
- Likes
- 421
karlenko123
·Omega is fine. They are not "moving upmarket" or anything. Just trying to keep it profitable enough in the current market. Competing with Rolex is in the past; no one is a fair competitor to Rolex at this point (talking about sales, not quality).
- Posts
- 4,126
- Likes
- 8,842
ErichPryde
·I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, and I probably posted this in this thread somewhere (but it's 33 pages long so I'm not looking), but Omega's price increases in the last 10 years track very closely to the increase in inflation and the growing strength of the Swiss franc
It's a classic third variable problem. The easiest thing for almost everyone to see is Omega vs Rolex so they frame the equation in those terms, missing all of the third variables that are potentially influencing price changes in both Omega and Rolex.
- Posts
- 1,568
- Likes
- 3,136
josiahg52
·I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, and I probably posted this in this thread somewhere (but it's 33 pages long so I'm not looking), but Omega's price increases in the last 10 years track very closely to the increase in inflation and the growing strength of the Swiss franc. In other words, Omega is just keeping up with the cost of producing watches--not "moving upmarket" or trying to compete with Rolex. Pretty much every Swiss brand has done this but you don't notice the price increases as much for Hamilton, Tissot, and Longines (just as an example) because a 10% increase on a $1000 watch is less noticeable than a 10% increase on a $7,000 watch.
I've also noted that. Despite the "crazy" price increases of the SMP over the years, its still averages over the decades, around +5% year to year. There was a large increase for the ceramic, coaxial rollout, but the price remained relatively flat for a few years after, too. It still seems uncomfortable despite the math.