Is Rolex Boring Anybody Else?

The video Mr Archer put up mentions they were editions limited to 250, so this was not a main model. Specific markets or customers have a demand for it and Rolex serviced the demand.

Even the second hand had 007 on it. Shame that 007 made a high quality lovely watch look cheap.

Still incorrect......it is anecdotal evidence but heavily cited that a majority of watch makers choose to wear Rolex....sure some wear none....some wear quartz...that said as a brand marketer it is a brand managers duty to hypothesize why and drive a brand vision in that direction. An assumption that it is the choice based on quality (ease of repair) is the right hypothesis test. Happy to help you achieve marketing enlightenment. No never worked for Rolex but I have worked with prestige brands on consumer segmentation and needs states analysis.

I was referring to the below quote which tied in with what you referred to:

. I would like to see where the watches above were actually Rolex mass manufactured releases.

I think going back to the original intent of the post....yes Rolex may seem boring from an outsiders perspective...yet iconic design has proven timeless and those that stick to general brand aesthetics tend to endure over time and can generally retain price points and margins they need. By introducing designs to far outside their aesthetic they will dilute the brand.

Lets go back to the Porsche example.......it took them forever to get into the SUV market. They have done well with the SUV but it still looks like a porsche. While a Porsche from yesteryear does not look exactly like a modern porsche you can still tell it is Porsche and not Ferrari.

I am only discussing marketing methodology facts. You test a hypotheses around why people buy your brand. It is never mutually exclusive but you try to capture the general segment as best you can. It is generally bantered about that watch makers prefer Rolex as a brand. You can find this cited in respected pubs like Hodinkee. It is anecdotal to be sure. That is the issue in Australia but not in most of the world and Australia is a small watch market statistically.

I LOVE a good ticking contest....



Bob
😉

What should Rolex do? IWC, Brietling have lost their way chasing fads and ignoring their heritage. Rolex tried chasing fads during the quartz crisis and look how that turned out.

I imagine along with Hublot Panerai is one of the fastest growing brands. They generally are also boring in their design and small tweaks. It is again the path they choose. It is why Rolex fans get all insane over red lettering. I mean thats insane!

It is boring but boring by design.

Research all those items yourself........marketing analytics and modeling for brands is my industry. Used to be mostly consumer goods for P&G, Unilever, Microsoft (trust me that is a hard one!) but started in luxury industry including watches a few years ago. My name is right there and as guy nicely stated you can google it!

Yes it's mine. Kinda like it though on the stretched jubilee.. I have some worn out vintage leather natos but I'll have to say that I prefer the jubilee for the most part. I'll post some more pictures later on if that's of interest 😀

I think everyone is right on this argument, as argument goes there is really no black and white on this one. Rolex is iconic...no question, Rolex has chosen a slightly more conservative design strategy that has hurt them on the market of "early adopters" but has establish them on the market of "Brand followers" and also helped with the status symbol they have acquired. This means the majority of their efforts (not all) and resources are on maintaining that status symbol and supporting the iconic and established brand and lines that a vast majority of watch lovers eventually gravitate to, either as a first luxury "i made it" benchmark watch, or a later Iconic staple watch. They venture into the bling, bling flashy tacky market as a secondary source- At equal quality Omega (as an example) is more geared towards the early adopter market with new models, strong marketing on media and film, looking for iconic brand ambassadors from Clooney to Bond to Phelps, The Olympic games...on other words a Young (or youthfully modern) sexy, sporty, dynamic market. The success of their new models and the effort over the more established models is clear indicative of the strategy. They are not by any means letting go of the moon watch, the seamasters, the DeVille's...but they are also very invested on being seen as innovative on design technologies and movement advances...even if those advances (coaxial, Master coaxial etc) are not really that new or, in real world application unless you operate MRI machines all day, that tremendously relevant to time keeping over a Rolex or even an ETA movement....but they make us believe it is, and it certainly is an added effort and value. So in this case the Iconic, historic market is secondary to Omega...not unimportant, but secondary. In other words they are supported by it and it brings value and $ to the brand, and most importantly historic legitimacy, but not as much as catering to their primary market...early adopters, sports, entertainment etc.

The Seamster300 MC fever pitch growth and sales since the Bond announcement is a perfect example...it won't last, not with that model, in fact there are an increasing number of units on sale on the secondary market...but they sold and for a while there was nowhere to look, nowhere to go without that watch being there... like the SMPc Brosnan Bond in the 90's, like the PO Bond in the 2000...and like the next bond 3 or 4 years from now.

Please note I am not saying either of these brands neglects their secondary markets, they both value them and both profit from them, but their primary efforts, bread and butter and Brand value is based on overlapping, albeit diametrically opposed strategies and identities.

Also, please note I am not qualifying either brand's strategy. I and own and love both brands and to date I am certainly not tossing either one away.

Lastly, the second hand and collector market is strong on both brands, but while brand value and new product value is often very linked to the second hand market value the fact that Speedmasters have such an amazing collector prize point for what they are as well as constellations and SMP300 (original vintage) watches does not take away from what the Omega Industries current strategies are. I am sure there are divisions within Omega heavily invested on keeping that legitimacy to their past, but unlike Rolex which is privately owned, Omega has no recourse but to seek continuous growth and relevance as they are part of a larger group, and subject to other business regulations and benchmarks...as much as they may want to be as conservative as Rolex, they cannot afford to because the investor boards and trusts behind it are as interested on watches as they are in diapers...the bottom line is all that matters to them. Not a criticism, just a reality, and if anything it is commendable that despite the pressure Omega continues to deliver high quality products and is committed to a certain brand standard.

Rolex cannot escape their anchoring...even when they tried to appeal to a submarket...or rather a broader market with Tudor, they still ended up creating another mid/high end brand for tool and sports watches that has tremendous Brand power behind it.

I walked by the Swatch store on broadway yesterday and they have many watches that strongly resemble Omega (they are after all part of the same company) or you could say that there are Omegas that closely resemble swatch as well. SWATCH is a good brand...a great brand...but a different demographic altogether from the higher end Omega...and certainly no one would put them on the same line with Rolex.

These are all CURRENTLY part to the Omega collection

My eyes.