- Posts
- 3,862
- Likes
- 8,353
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverPeople who believe illogical things in all aspects of life rarely ever question those beliefs, unfortunately
A statement as accurate as it is heartbreaking, unfortunately.
Recent Omega Negativity
A statement as accurate as it is heartbreaking, unfortunately.
- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 2,671
Caliber561
·I do think that the difference between Omega price increases, and say, Rolex price increases, comes down to two lines of thought.
Rolex:
The result is that people buying Rolexes, even at inflated prices, don't feel like they're going to lose money, even if the products haven't changed. A good population of Rolex owners buy grey, so the price increases don't even affect them.
Omega:
People feel like the hit they're taking on buying a watch is a bullet they're already biting—Price increases are salt in the wound, and only makes it harder to ignore.
On another note regarding Omega and the broader negative cloud that seems to have settled over it, I do think there are a number of valid critiques that go beyond the price discussion. Now more than ever, people are not just buying a watch, but buying into a brand. Customers don't understand Omega's strategy, or worse, don't like it. It's the same with the diverse lineup. They don't understand it, or don't like it. Omega has high expectations because it is seen as the premier competitor to Rolex—So people want it to do just as well in a way they understand. Omega has also not really formed a strong narrative for itself. Most people still look at it and think "The Moonwatch+Bondwatch Brand", rather than getting an appreciation for it's reputation for precision and watchmaking. I would say this manifests most clearly in the way that Omega's Professional sports watches make up the majority of their sales, and they still do not have a strong "classic/dress"-style family (Despite the attempts to neuter the Aqua Terra's identity and shoehorn it into the category).
As an aside, I'd recommend that anyone confused by why Omega having more choices seems to be a bad thing also check out some material on "The Paradox of Choice." It's actually a known, studied phenomenon. In sum, past a certain point, having more choices tends not to increase satisfaction. Larger selections tend to actually be less effective at driving sales.
Rolex:
- You already can't buy a watch at MSRP/the MSRP doesn't reflect 'market value'.
- The fact that most watches sell at or above the new MSRP on the secondhand market means people are still willing to pay.
The result is that people buying Rolexes, even at inflated prices, don't feel like they're going to lose money, even if the products haven't changed. A good population of Rolex owners buy grey, so the price increases don't even affect them.
Omega:
- Pretty much all watches can be readily had at discount from ADs, or even less in the used market. People already think they're losing money when they buy new.
- When the price increases happen, there are little to no changes to the underlying models.
People feel like the hit they're taking on buying a watch is a bullet they're already biting—Price increases are salt in the wound, and only makes it harder to ignore.
On another note regarding Omega and the broader negative cloud that seems to have settled over it, I do think there are a number of valid critiques that go beyond the price discussion. Now more than ever, people are not just buying a watch, but buying into a brand. Customers don't understand Omega's strategy, or worse, don't like it. It's the same with the diverse lineup. They don't understand it, or don't like it. Omega has high expectations because it is seen as the premier competitor to Rolex—So people want it to do just as well in a way they understand. Omega has also not really formed a strong narrative for itself. Most people still look at it and think "The Moonwatch+Bondwatch Brand", rather than getting an appreciation for it's reputation for precision and watchmaking. I would say this manifests most clearly in the way that Omega's Professional sports watches make up the majority of their sales, and they still do not have a strong "classic/dress"-style family (Despite the attempts to neuter the Aqua Terra's identity and shoehorn it into the category).
As an aside, I'd recommend that anyone confused by why Omega having more choices seems to be a bad thing also check out some material on "The Paradox of Choice." It's actually a known, studied phenomenon. In sum, past a certain point, having more choices tends not to increase satisfaction. Larger selections tend to actually be less effective at driving sales.
- Posts
- 1,721
- Likes
- 3,362
DoctorEvil
·That drop, or rather the entire report and its methodology, is strongly disputed by Swatch Group, apparently.
https://revolutionwatch.com/swatch-group-responds-to-morgan-stanley-report-in-open-letter
Interesting read.
- Posts
- 29,652
- Likes
- 76,783
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerAs an aside, I'd recommend that anyone confused by why Omega having more choices seems to be a bad thing also check out some material on "The Paradox of Choice." It's actually a known, studied phenomenon. In sum, past a certain point, having more choices tends not to increase satisfaction. Larger selections tend to actually be less effective at driving sales.
I don’t really believe that paradox of choice is a significant factor when someone is actually buying a watch. If you are going in to buy a Speedmaster, are you going to be “unsatisfied” by there being an Aqua Terra and a Constellation in the same display case? This is a very popular talking point on forums, but in real life I don’t think it’s all that relevant.
You are certainly on the right track with your comments on how people look at Rolex. In fact the idea that you should make money or break even on a watch you are selling, and that this is influencing what you buy is slowly killing this hobby, and it’s largely due to Rolex and the crazy market of the pandemic era.
There was a time when really no used watches made money, unless you were selling something really special. And by that I don’t mean a DateJust with a different coloured dial, but something truly special. You nearly always lost money when selling a used watch, and if you were lucky enough to break even or maybe make a few bucks it was a rare win, not an expectation.
The fact that so many decisions to purchase by noobs are made with the resale value being so important (pumped up by social media talking heads) is not a good thing, and the broader influence of that is coming home to roost. Very few brands will be immune to it…
- Posts
- 34,239
- Likes
- 38,863
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFOn that topic of the variety of models, something most people don't notice until receiving the book "A Journey Through Time" is the the watches 95% of people on this site own account for about 20% of the book. The rest of it is everything from complicated pocket watches, to jewellery pieces, oddball complications, a mountain of quartz, watches that look like desks, starter's pistols, just endless stuff.
It's not just a variety of models, throughout the history of the brand you see endless science projects, technical experiments and niche equipment that most brands probably dabble in but never actually sold to the public.
It's an extremely broad church, we've been working on a reference and calibre library and we keep finding weird clocks and watches that they must have lost a heap of money developing just because some bloke in Finland needs a means of timing an ice fishing competition or something.
It's not just a variety of models, throughout the history of the brand you see endless science projects, technical experiments and niche equipment that most brands probably dabble in but never actually sold to the public.
It's an extremely broad church, we've been working on a reference and calibre library and we keep finding weird clocks and watches that they must have lost a heap of money developing just because some bloke in Finland needs a means of timing an ice fishing competition or something.
- Posts
- 62
- Likes
- 162
Lode_Runner
·Omega may be more exposed to paradox-of-choice problems today than it was in the past because the luxury watch market itself has changed. The recent Morgan Stanley report highlighted an important shift: the Swiss mechanical watch industry now operates on lower volumes, higher prices, and a much smaller pool of wealthier buyers than it did a decade ago. At the same time, social media has become the dominant discovery channel, and its algorithms reward simple, recognizable, frequently repeated products—not sprawling, fragmented catalogs. That combination creates a tough environment for a brand like Omega, which has long relied on a very broad range of models that are sometimes hard to distinguish.
Brand dilution and fragmentation aren’t a problem—until suddenly they are. What worked for Omega ten years ago could become a liability today. There are many historical examples where paradox-of-choice dynamics hurt companies, especially in technology where markets can shift quickly. Apple in the 1990s is a classic case. The company had dozens of Macintosh models, plus printers, handheld devices, and endless vendor-specific variations. The complexity worked for a while—until it didn’t. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, one of his first moves was to cut roughly three-quarters of Apple’s product portfolio, eliminating entire divisions (including the profitable printer business) to focus the company around a small number of clear, iconic products. Rolex tends to follow a similarly disciplined approach to their product line, and they regularly purge models (and in some cases entire product lines) from their catalog to keep some semblance of focus.
It's not clear how Omega is going to respond to the new market conditions in which it finds itself, but I was surprised when they discontinued their sprawling Planet Ocean collection and replaced it with a single model with three different colorways, no doubt attempting to emulate the simplicity of the Rolex Submariner line. But history suggests that even after simplification, Omega will likely move back toward proliferation.
Brand dilution and fragmentation aren’t a problem—until suddenly they are. What worked for Omega ten years ago could become a liability today. There are many historical examples where paradox-of-choice dynamics hurt companies, especially in technology where markets can shift quickly. Apple in the 1990s is a classic case. The company had dozens of Macintosh models, plus printers, handheld devices, and endless vendor-specific variations. The complexity worked for a while—until it didn’t. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, one of his first moves was to cut roughly three-quarters of Apple’s product portfolio, eliminating entire divisions (including the profitable printer business) to focus the company around a small number of clear, iconic products. Rolex tends to follow a similarly disciplined approach to their product line, and they regularly purge models (and in some cases entire product lines) from their catalog to keep some semblance of focus.
It's not clear how Omega is going to respond to the new market conditions in which it finds itself, but I was surprised when they discontinued their sprawling Planet Ocean collection and replaced it with a single model with three different colorways, no doubt attempting to emulate the simplicity of the Rolex Submariner line. But history suggests that even after simplification, Omega will likely move back toward proliferation.
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,850
- Likes
- 2,805
Annapolis
·I’m not sure the issue is paradox of choice—if that means what I think it does: that we think we want more choices, but that having them actually makes us less decisive and less happy.
I think it might be something much simpler.
First, I take Archer’s point that Omega has always had lots of models available—this is nothing new. Though I do wonder if that’s simply more visible to consumers now than it used to be because of how information gets presented online, both via their website and via YouTube, etc. But that’s just conjecture.
Anyway, it could just be that we find it hard to accept that one brand could make so many different things well—well enough to be luxurious. Toyota makes 40 models; Rolls Royce makes 4? The greasy diner has a 12-page menu; the 3-Michelin-star restaurant doesn’t even give you a choice.
This could be closer to what some folks here mean by “diluting the brand,” but to me that suggests that the brand itself is diminished by a lack of coherence or focus. What I’m saying is actually just a bit of psychological fallacy on the consumer’s part: more options = less luxurious.
I think it might be something much simpler.
First, I take Archer’s point that Omega has always had lots of models available—this is nothing new. Though I do wonder if that’s simply more visible to consumers now than it used to be because of how information gets presented online, both via their website and via YouTube, etc. But that’s just conjecture.
Anyway, it could just be that we find it hard to accept that one brand could make so many different things well—well enough to be luxurious. Toyota makes 40 models; Rolls Royce makes 4? The greasy diner has a 12-page menu; the 3-Michelin-star restaurant doesn’t even give you a choice.
This could be closer to what some folks here mean by “diluting the brand,” but to me that suggests that the brand itself is diminished by a lack of coherence or focus. What I’m saying is actually just a bit of psychological fallacy on the consumer’s part: more options = less luxurious.
- Posts
- 34,239
- Likes
- 38,863
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFOmega may be more exposed to paradox-of-choice problems today than it was in the past because the luxury watch market itself has changed. The recent Morgan Stanley report highlighted an important shift: the Swiss mechanical watch industry now operates on lower volumes, higher prices, and a much smaller pool of wealthier buyers than it did a decade ago. At the same time, social media has become the dominant discovery channel, and its algorithms reward simple, recognizable, frequently repeated products—not sprawling, fragmented catalogs. That combination creates a tough environment for a brand like Omega, which has long relied on a very broad range of models that are sometimes hard to distinguish.
Brand dilution and fragmentation aren’t a problem—until suddenly they are. What worked for Omega ten years ago could become a liability today. There are many historical examples where paradox-of-choice dynamics hurt companies, especially in technology where markets can shift quickly. Apple in the 1990s is a classic case. The company had dozens of Macintosh models, plus printers, handheld devices, and endless vendor-specific variations. The complexity worked for a while—until it didn’t. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, one of his first moves was to cut roughly three-quarters of Apple’s product portfolio, eliminating entire divisions (including the profitable printer business) to focus the company around a small number of clear, iconic products. Rolex tends to follow a similarly disciplined approach to their product line, and they regularly purge models (and in some cases entire product lines) from their catalog to keep some semblance of focus.
It's not clear how Omega is going to respond to the new market conditions in which it finds itself, but I was surprised when they discontinued their sprawling Planet Ocean collection and replaced it with a single model with three different colorways, no doubt attempting to emulate the simplicity of the Rolex Submariner line. But history suggests that even after simplification, Omega will likely move back toward proliferation.
- Posts
- 28
- Likes
- 72
Gregcar
·Imagine a world where people bought or obtained what they want based on what they like, as opposed to what they were told to buy or “influenced”? Who gives a crap what “influencers” (hate that term) think or push. Think for yourself, get what you like, if anything, and enough of the armchair analysis. When you are dead, neither you nor anyone else is going to give a crap about what watch you wear, how many options a brand offered, or whether your watch was off by 2 seconds per day. Seriously, no one will care. And they won’t care which brand you supported. “They” will be on to the next nonsensical debate.
- Posts
- 2,835
- Likes
- 4,524
sheepdoll
·eliminating entire divisions (including the profitable printer business)
A lot of it was a self fulfilling doom loop. The rats quickly left the ship. Was fun while it lasted.
Looks now like we are in a repeat of the 1970s. Hyack did the same thing with the Swiss industry that Jobs did. Now they are back overproducing again.
Then I look at what is on my wrist now.
- Posts
- 1,066
- Likes
- 1,075
502 to right
·As an aside, I'd recommend that anyone confused by why Omega having more choices seems to be a bad thing also check out some material on "The Paradox of Choice." It's actually a known, studied phenomenon. In sum, past a certain point, having more choices tends not to increase satisfaction. Larger selections tend to actually be less effective at driving sales.
I'm aware of the argument. But any consumer who can't or won't choose an Omega watch because they are given too many choices is an idiot. I hope they enjoy their micro-brand watch that offers two models to choose from.
- Posts
- 1,066
- Likes
- 1,075
502 to right
·Looks now like we are in a repeat of the 1970s.
This isn't anything like the 70's. The quartz crisis caused two-thirds of Swiss watch industry jobs to be lost. Approximately 1000 Swiss watch companies went bankrupt and the Swiss global market share for watches dropped from 50% to 15%. It was devastating.
- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 2,671
Caliber561
·There’s no confusion really. Again Omega has always offered a very large selection of watches, and people who claim over and over again that “this is the problem” are not really looking at the bigger picture.
I don’t really believe that paradox of choice is a significant factor when someone is actually buying a watch. If you are going in to buy a Speedmaster, are you going to be “unsatisfied” by there being an Aqua Terra and a Constellation in the same display case? This is a very popular talking point on forums, but in real life I don’t think it’s all that relevant.
You are certainly on the right track with your comments on how people look at Rolex. In fact the idea that you should make money or break even on a watch you are selling, and that this is influencing what you buy is slowly killing this hobby, and it’s largely due to Rolex and the crazy market of the pandemic era.
There was a time when really no used watches made money, unless you were selling something really special. And by that I don’t mean a DateJust with a different coloured dial, but something truly special. You nearly always lost money when selling a used watch, and if you were lucky enough to break even or maybe make a few bucks it was a rare win, not an expectation.
The fact that so many decisions to purchase by noobs are made with the resale value being so important (pumped up by social media talking heads) is not a good thing, and the broader influence of that is coming home to roost. Very few brands will be immune to it…
I understand that Omega has always offered an exceptionally large catalog at virtually all times since it's inception, but that was at a time when buyers were only looking for a watch. On @Lode_Runner's mention of a changing market, the definition of what a luxury brand should be is definitely changing. Now, more and more buyers of luxury goods are seeking a status symbol that doubles as a store of wealth. It could very well be that instead of buyers being overwhelmed or intimidated by Omega's vast catalog, more simply don't think that Omega or any of its watches does an adequate job of protecting value. In any case, it's increasingly unlikely that an informed buyer would purchase an Omega new when once can find most models for nearly 30% off list on Chrono24 or some other site.
The closest analogue in Omega’s world would be replacing the sprawling Planet Ocean collection with a single model with three different colorways, no doubt attempting to emulate the simplicity of the Rolex Submariner line. But history suggests that even after simplification, Omega will likely move back toward proliferation. If past patterns hold, we may well see dozens of new Planet Ocean variants in the coming years.
- Posts
- 2,781
- Likes
- 4,693
Pastorbottle
·Effluencers shit me to tears........... does anyone with the disposable income to buy high end stuff really listen to these attention seeking turds?
Or is their audience a bunch wannabes and plastic posers who buy knockoffs?
Or is their audience a bunch wannabes and plastic posers who buy knockoffs?
- Posts
- 62
- Likes
- 162
Lode_Runner
·The real divergence is where there are entirely new models that riff on the mainline products: Aqua Terra small seconds, 300M chronograph, and the entire 'Two Counter' category of Speedmaster. These models necessitate the production and maintenance of entirely new case designs, dials, hands, and bracelets for 20-30 years. I would also argue that they dilute the unique identity of the mainline models they are based off of, wear too large for a large portion of buyers.
Compare that with the Aqua Terra, a truly great watch line (I own several), but what is the defining "mainline" or "flagship" product in that line? I am not sure there is one. A decade ago when there were fewer models, I might have said the 8500 Skyfall blue model. But today, there are so many variants with different case sizes, materials, dial colors, layouts, textures, and different strap, bracelet, rubber and nato combinations. So everytime you see an Aqua Terra somewhere, in a YouTube video, on someone's wrist, in a store, on a pre-owned website, etc., it probably looks different from other ones you've seen. That gives the Omega enthusiast customer a lot of options, of course, but makes it a lot harder to build brand identity among the wider consuming public. Compare that to the Oyster Perpetual or Datejust, they are instantly recognizable partially because there is so much more consistency in their appearance.
Omega is notoriously opaque about sales numbers, but ADs I have spoken with in the past have told me that the basic black Speedmaster Pro models, sapphire sandwich and heslite models, vastly outsell the other Speedmaster variants many times over. I suspect that's probably true, in large part because like the Submariner it has created strong brand identity through its consistency over time. Maybe Omega's problem is that it just doesn't have more of those types of truly "timeless" models in its catalog, so it has no choice but to continue endlessly iterating on existing designs to chase small discrete segments of the market, even if that dilutes their overall brand identity.
- Posts
- 6,854
- Likes
- 12,596
SpeedyPhill
·And yet many brands rely on "influencers" & "content-creators" ... Omega / Swatch on top 🤔😕
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,759
- Likes
- 5,499
Screwbacks
·garbage yt vlog
- Posts
- 13,690
- Likes
- 53,482
Larry S
··Color Commentator for the Hyperbole.I find the watch influencers on You Tube insipid. I’ve not made it through a single video. This is very unlike the music, audio, paddling, sailing and other topic specific stuff I watch. I think it’s because the watch Tubers all sound elitist and snobby.
- Posts
- 29,652
- Likes
- 76,783
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI’m not sure the issue is paradox of choice—if that means what I think it does: that we think we want more choices, but that having them actually makes us less decisive and less happy.
I think it might be something much simpler.
First, I take Archer’s point that Omega has always had lots of models available—this is nothing new. Though I do wonder if that’s simply more visible to consumers now than it used to be because of how information gets presented online, both via their website and via YouTube, etc. But that’s just conjecture.
Anyway, it could just be that we find it hard to accept that one brand could make so many different things well—well enough to be luxurious. Toyota makes 40 models; Rolls Royce makes 4? The greasy diner has a 12-page menu; the 3-Michelin-star restaurant doesn’t even give you a choice.
This could be closer to what some folks here mean by “diluting the brand,” but to me that suggests that the brand itself is diminished by a lack of coherence or focus. What I’m saying is actually just a bit of psychological fallacy on the consumer’s part: more options = less luxurious.
The point about Omega not being able to do a lot of different watches very well, well I think the evidence clearly contradicts that. Since we always compare them to Rolex, Rolex uses a very small selection of movements (mostly variations on a couple of movements) and a case style that varies very little. Omega is able to make a wide variety of movements, complications (far exceeding what Rolex has produced), and uses many different case materials. Their watchmaking prowess is not in question by anyone who looks at it objectively.
One man's "coherent" design language is another man's "boring and stagnant."
The question is, for those who believe this paradox of choice is the real issue here, what lines should they get rid of? The thing is you don't know what sells for Omega in what markets, so your bias towards say sport models might cost Omega a bundle of money by eliminating the Constellations that are big sellers in a particular market.
And I think people need to realize that it's not just goofy people on YouTube who are influencers. These people primarily reflect the watch community social media - they are not on the leading edge of critical thought for the watch collecting community. The more people repeat this narrative that Omega "makes too many models" the more people will believe this to be some big problem, and the bigger issue it becomes,. The more people that push the narrative that resale value is critical to your purchase decisions, the more it will become so. So if people really want a return to the good old days, I'm reminded of that old nugget of wisdom - if you find yourself in a hole you want to get out of, rule #1 is stop digging.
- Posts
- 1,970
- Likes
- 2,131
ErichKeane
·People have convinced themselves that having choice is a bad thing, when in reality no one here goes in to buy a watch and sees the variety, and thinks "This brand is out of control! I'm not buying!" It's useful for arguing the market analysis every single time this report comes out and panties are bunched, but other than that I doubt it's much of a influence in the actual buying decision of actual watch buyers.
The point about Omega not being able to do a lot of different watches very well, well I think the evidence clearly contradicts that. Since we always compare them to Rolex, Rolex uses a very small selection of movements (mostly variations on a couple of movements) and a case style that varies very little. Omega is able to make a wide variety of movements, complications (far exceeding what Rolex has produced), and uses many different case materials. Their watchmaking prowess is not in question by anyone who looks at it objectively.
One man's "coherent" design language is another man's "boring and stagnant."
The question is, for those who believe this paradox of choice is the real issue here, what lines should they get rid of? The thing is you don't know what sells for Omega in what markets, so your bias towards say sport models might cost Omega a bundle of money by eliminating the Constellations that are big sellers in a particular market.
And I think people need to realize that it's not just goofy people on YouTube who are influencers. These people primarily reflect the watch community social media - they are not on the leading edge of critical thought for the watch collecting community. The more people repeat this narrative that Omega "makes too many models" the more people will believe this to be some big problem, and the bigger issue it becomes,. The more people that push the narrative that resale value is critical to your purchase decisions, the more it will become so. So if people really want a return to the good old days, I'm reminded of that old nugget of wisdom - if you find yourself in a hole you want to get out of, rule #1 is stop digging.
Omega's prices I think are the problem. Rolex is still seen in the 2nd hand market (and thus the market in general) as worth more than their MSRP. Omega doesn't have that benefit when raising prices. So buyers are much more sensitive to the price increases.
Speaking of Rolex, every time they DO give folks a choice, they go nuts on buying up every single variation, even if it is silly (like the LH GMT Master that everyone is wearing despite not being lefty).
IMO, Omega COULD help themselves with MORE choices (or at least fixing some of the ones they've got!). The Speedy, AT, and 300 series are all really well developed, but the rest do pretty poorly. The Connie and Deville lines are basically non-sellers.
The poor SS Globemaster AC that my OB has basically can't get sold (yet they STILL raised the prices!). Those lines seem to need a market.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 5
- Views
- 941
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 432
