Why would you buy a watch you don't want?
Bought my first Rolex's as anniversary gifts for myself and my wife a pair of DJ's, beautiful watches, now I am looking for my next Rolex, not sure what I fancy but a Blue Submariner might be nice, maybe a Milgauss, no worries plenty of choice, plenty of watches, after all they are sat in safes in the AD's waiting for those that have 'privilege'.
I so wish that were true.
This isn’t exactly a secret and nobody is condemning the practice. What’s the big deal?
Actually, I do condemn it as I don’t like dealing with dishonest people/companies.
I would recommend that people don’t support/condone this type of behavior. If we don’t nip this in the bud it will permeate every watch company. We can already see Omega angling this way with the 321.
Imo, they should. It would show their attention to detail is important. I mean, Rolex has the crown etched into the glass at the 6 o'clock position.
Not saying because Rolex does it..
Many will say it's a conspiracy by Rolex, so what if it is, if you were in Rolex's position what would you do?
Sorry, Martin_J_N, but TechFounder has both the facts and economic theory on his side. What puzzles me is why you seemingly won’t admit that Rolex creates artificial scarcity for its products by limiting supply. This isn’t exactly a secret and nobody is condemning the practice. What’s the big deal?
Wow... This thread has derailed... A bit. Nice to see watch enthusiasts discuss.
No big deal, he has his view I have mine, data can be interpreted in many ways and used in many ways.
My issue is that I struggle to comprehend why a Company would deliberately withhold product to create a secondary market that gives huge profits to 3rd parties instead of themselves. If you were Rolex and you increased production you could wipe out the big profits for grey dealers very quickly, stop all this 'flippin' nonsense and have more profit yourself couldn't you? And it is this fact that convinces me that it is not a deliberate policy.
Maybe as I find out more, learn more and understand more my views and opinions may change, who knows if it will but for now it is what it is.
My issue is that I struggle to comprehend why a Company would deliberately withhold product to create a secondary market that gives huge profits to 3rd parties instead of themselves. If you were Rolex and you increased production you could wipe out the big profits for grey dealers very quickly, stop all this 'flippin' nonsense and have more profit yourself couldn't you? And it is this fact that convinces me that it is not a deliberate policy.
All of you have totally missed the boat.
Omega is owned by Swatch, which is a public company. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to be as profitable as possible in the short-term, so that their shareholders get capital gains and dividends and cause the stock price to rise.
That means mass marketing, revenue maximization and profits for Omega.
Rolex is not a public company. They are owned by a charitable trust. Their fiduciary responsibility is to the charities they serve, their employees and executives. No one else. Therefore, they do not need to squeeze every dollar of profit from each sale. They can also afford to have marketing campaigns that might limit short-term profits for long-term market share.
Why does Rolex do this? Because they can.
gatorcpa
