Hostile takeover!

 

Dennis, this is actually a genuinely good idea. If there are enough small shareholders willing to raise an issue at an AGM, it can get real traction!

 

..... and what would the shareholders say if they found out that manufacturing parts is not profitable as selling watches? .....because it isn't, and Hayek has said so, if I remember some of his interviews. (Don can correct me if I'm wrong) He also said he was tired of ETA getting the blame for shoddy workmanship by other companies using their parts / ebauches.

 

Stock price Down 3.38% last couple of days

 

This thread must be working.

 

Step 1: We scheme and take control of Swatch
Step 2: We realize our personal watch collections can grow if we tightly restrict supply of our parts business thus making us all rich
Step 3: We get rich and fatten our collections, and everyone else is pissed, so the watch collectors of the world unite
Step 4: They scheme and take control of Swatch...

 

Watch forum? You set your ambitions too low. Of course, Swatch could care less about 'us.' Of course. But you and everyone on here are opinion formers. People listen to you. You and every Omega enthusiast, vintage or new, support the brand and by this fact, you grant them the premium they charge.

And so… the point is to lead, not follow. To use your voice constructively.

As I said, I know that campaigns can be fought and battles won. I was surprised that we were able to make the difference we did, to be honest. But we started out determined to make a difference and ignore the cynics in our midst…

What, by the way, when you say 'something you have a chance of changing,' just wondering what you had in mind?

 

Underpants....

 

We discussed one idea via PM. Better chance of generic parts being made than changing the Swatch Corporation. There's also a better chance of the US watch industry making a comeback - RGM and a few others are making an attempt.

Phase 1 of the 3 parts of the gnome business model.

 

RGM even has a watch in a GMC truck commercial at least I think it's GMC.

 

That is truly surreal

 

They are simply making it easier for their comp to take market share, by listening to customers and giving them what they want.

That and I see a cottage industry propping up to provide restricted parts, in time some of these third party providers might even make higher quality replacement parts than Swatch.

 

Watch companies clearly don't want watch owners to be repairing their watches when repairs are needed. Modern watch production methods mean these companies can manufacture watches faster'n they can sell 'em! They want these people replacing watches rather than repairing them. Collectors are known to be able to find ways to keep older watches running far longer than the watch companies think they should. Collectors are the very last watch owners these companies are likely to listen to!

 

To get back the point and to re-state a point previously made when this topic has come up before: why is it 'OK' for Swatch, et al, to restrict parts supply – by any other terms restraint of trade – when a similar industry, the automotive, doesn't seem to feel the same need?

 

Deleted. Duplicate post.

 

Here's the bottom line:

EVERY (sry for screaming) watch maker wants to be Rolex. They'd really like to be Patek but they they know that's not reasonable.

The Rolex model is simple:


Market your brand as being the absolute and final arbiter and definition of success.

Raise prices 7 to 10% every year. No exceptions.

Shred watches before going anywhere near the Grey : Gray market.

Control the entire supply chain.

Weaponize local courts and law enforcement to viciously protect your trademarks and copy writes.



Not every watch maker can be Rolex but hot damn if they're not all trying.

 

However did Rolex get the US government to protect even imports of vintage/used Rolexes into the US? What a feat of protectionism! Rolex isn't even a US brand, so the idea of using a Swiss brand to protect the interests of the US domestic watch manufacturing industry took some skill and a fair bit of pocket lining.
(At least I assume this is the case as UK auctioneer Fellows have big notices stating that exporting Rolexes to the US is against regulation - not UK regulations, but US ones)
Everyone wants to be Rolex, but not everyone can be, of course. Brand managers just keep trying and score some successes, but Rolex (in marketing terms, at least) is the real deal and everyone else just wants to be. It won't stop Omega/Swatch trying, but the truth is they don't really get it - you can't be a luxury producer of the 'world's finest timepieces' and flog crappy plastic watches, too (doesn't stop them making millions, I get it). To my mind, Patek and Rolex work because of their singular focus on one thing.

 

Well my first question was, essentially, rhetorical. The watch business does because it can, and as evidenced here, a lot of people think that's just fine by them. Although my point was on principle, rather than by any statistically derived merits.

And the second point is great news, if it happens. A weird anachronistic practice as it stands. It's not as though a few vintage Rolexes have any impact on a multi-million dollar new watch business - as many here have said, in essence.