What’s happening on March 26th then?

claus1100xx

Fratello just posted the video.

nicolamilton

Like Casio Oak initial hype.
Wait a couple months, and will be plenty available online on Swatch web.

vbrad26

If watches are not a good investment, I need a new excuse for my wife ASAP please.
Thx.

F FL390

With this thing, I’m already seeing all kinds of comments on IG and YouTube like “Now I can finally afford an official Speedmaster”

F FL390

Non watch people (who everyone seems to think this is targeting) who buy it and then go “explore the brand” will think, Jesus, how can Omega charge 7000 dollars for one of these made out of metal? No way, the hands aren’t even aligned!

F FL390

Ok, I’m sure you’re right. It’s a genius move. I’m sure Rolex is already scheming on how to compete with a “Rolex x Timex” colab with a plastic Daytona...

cvalue13

This is an un-generous and silly take in a thread comprised entirely of people - including yourself - discussing essentially what is or isn’t “cool” (insert whatever word you want for what’s is obviously being discussed).

To suggest that it’s “shallow” for people to make fashion and style choices based in part on social signaling is disingenuous.]

What a weird take on what I said. I said, and still say, it is insecure to do something or not do something because it is cool. I wear what I want and don't give rats ass what you and these "trend makers" (a more annoying term I have not heard) think--same reason I always refuses to wear skinny pants, torn jeans, or the like. I wear my turquoise Rolex OP that I was lucky enough to get from my AD because that's my favourite colour and I don't care about the hype train that followed it or the type of people perceived to wear it. Who cares if a supposed greasy guy also wears one, that's his, mine is mine and I wear it because I like it. If something makes me think or feel a way, I like it and will get it. For example, the turquoise OP that people love to hate now is a favourite because the colours take me to childhood: my mom's very cool light blue car in the '90s, my sky blue coloured room, and a million other memories. Rolex itself reminds me of my grandfather who always had his on wrist and I would try it on my little kid wrist all the time; or my uncle who had his GMT on every single day; etc. Today, I am not going to not wear these watches because, as you suggest, "watch guys" or being perceived to be a "watch guy" is a "bad" thing and it's hip to not wear them--which I don't think is a true claim in any event, watch guys are not perceived as bad outside of the "hip circles" you apparently run in. I don't give, as I said, a rats ass and no one should.

[After all, you then go on to basically say “Brand is critical because it communicates with the consumer, it makes them feel something or allows them to experience something and, after all, that is the entire point of most luxury goods.”

Either everyone is equally “shallow” (because we all do it), or no one is (because we all do it).]

Again, I don't think you got the point of what I was saying and the logic you are using is broken. Branding is about trying to make people feel certain things when they think of your brand. That has nothing to do with whether an individual consumer buys into it or not. Effort and result are not always correlated. Your all or nothing point gives me all I need to know to stop trying to engage in this pleasant discourse though.

[Here, I’d be cautious to point your fingers because it just makes you sound like you’re one of the people from whom others are wanting to distance their own personal “brand,” and can smell of sour grapes.] Haha okay there.

For the below, it doesn't hang anything out because, as is hip these days, it is not taking into account context or nuance. Most of the collaborations you mentioned work because of the specific details. For example, LV with NBA works because the NBA is a damn league for a sport, it isn't another manufacturer of products that are central to LV. Same for BMW and Kith or Off-white and Ikea (and you can argue Off-White is not luxury anyway). The remaining brands you mentioned are either not luxury (Gucci, Yeezy,etc.) or were very unique and limited in scope. For example, it was not a collaboration between Dior and Nike, but Jordan Brand (which has been spun out by Nike) to create a collaboration for Jordan Air 1s which are hugely collectable and have a cult following, so it is a unique sort of collaboration. In any event, the point here is, these examples are more about cross-zonal collaborations than high-low. Again, I repeat, there is a reason you can't list LV and Kirkland or the Volkswagen 911 Turbo collaborations, those are more apt to what is happening here. A luxury manufacture of a product is combining with a very entry level manufacturer of the exact same product (watches), to make a very cheap product, that matches the design of the luxury brands iconic product, and they are stamping the luxury brand's name on it. Very, very weird.

[This leaves you hanging your arse out a bit, because if anything so-called high-low collaborations are rampant and in danger of being old news.

Versace, Balmain, Lanvin, Karl Lagerfeld, etc etc etc (there are dozens) seemed to have benefited from the exposure of their respective H&M partnerships over the past 15+ years.

Gucci X The North Face was a net positive for both companies.

Yeezy (street luxury) X The Gap is doing alright, if you’re in to luxury streetwear.

Dior x Nike created a 5 million person waitlist

BMW X Kith (NYC streetwear brand) went nuts

Jil Sander X Uniqlo

Louis Vuitton X NBA signed a multi-year collaboration contract

Off-White X Ikea

Balenciaga X Crocs

Hermès x Apple Watch

Could go on and on here, but one last one to mention on the point of this being entirely not new:

Target’s just celebrated 20 years of its “Design for all” collaborations in 2020, where items from collections were Missoni, Lilly Pulitzer, Michael Graves, Hunter, and John Derian all sold out in a matter of hours - and over the past 20 years managed to introduce large portions of the U.S. market to high-end European designers and lesser-known but equally luxurious (in Europe) fashion houses.

In all the above examples, the so-called high-low collaborations helped cement the luxury brands and designers in the minds of the broader popular culture. It is about assigning meaning and relevance to a brand by building up and shaping the awareness and context around them, creating an environment of cultural associations and connections to help the brand grow beyond a core market.

Not that it can’t go wrong (maybe Omega X Swatch will go wrong), but there are a lot of examples of it going very right both the collaborating brands.

The now late Virgil Abloh (artistic director of Louis Vuitton's and CEO of Off-White) said these high-low collaborations “need to engage both the tourist and the purist,” and that “expressing wealth isn’t the coolest thing right now. It’s expressing your knowledge.”

Abloh, who arguably reinvented and perfected the high-low collaboration over the past 10 years, also said of these high-low collaborations, “My internal tool for digesting the word ‘luxury’ is to determine whether or not something is ‘coveted.’ If you covet it, it’s luxurious to you.”

And here we are, on probably the most stodgy (in a good way) of horological nerd forums, with a critical mass of people either planning to line up in front of a Swatch store or disappointed that we can’t.

And conversely, there’s a universe of people who either can’t or wouldn’t put down a $13,000 deposit to wait 2+ years for a re-hashed Ed White 321, but who are about to have their Instagram and TikTok feeds peppered with the words “Omega” and “Moon” and “Mars” and “Speedmaster.”

I’m not saying this collab is an ensured hit, but I am saying it’s past silly to suggest this collab is somehow out of step with the luxury market. if anything, sich a collab is in danger of being possibly late to the game (no surprise for Swiss watchmaking). that’s why, earlier in this thread, I was cringing at the Swatch Group CEO’s comments about “collaborations are so hot right now” - they were at their peak in the 2010’s, and they do best when you act like they aren’t an intentional marketing ploy (cognitive dissonance the key).]

Sight. See my point above.

[Which brings back why I mention the feedback I’m seeing from people in the luxury goods and retail space. Call them shallow if you like, but these are the people who are arbitrating and internalizing the successes or failures of trends in design, luxury retail, etc. - and they (the point was) are responding positively to this collaboration, despite such high-low collabs waining in effectiveness (RIP Virgil) and despite the luxury wristwatch segment being viewed as the nexus of hype-beast tasteless self-seriousness.]

You seem almost worshipful at the alter of these people. We do not share the view 😀. I think you overestimate your circle of people's reach (unless you are secretly the editor of Vogue, I doubt you are at the epicenter of trend setting) and underestimate the ways in which your small demographic is blinding you to the opinions of others. I have sent the link to the Omega release to a dozen or so friends and acquaintances, not a single positive response back from anyone regarding Omega's role in this (varied types of people, only one is a watch person). My talking to people doesn't prove anything either by the way, in no way is it statistically significant lol, I'm just saying that to point out for every "trend setter" you are talking to, I am talking to a consumer who is not a fan. Swatch may well sell a bunch of these, it may also be hard to quantify the impact of this on Omega, but at best it's net neutral but, I fear (but hope not), it'll be a negative.

[These days, the increasingly hotter collab segment is the “Competitor collaboration” (eg this year’s Gucci X Balenciaga “hack” collection).

Now, imagine an Omega X Rolex watch…

Dan S

Winner of the most tone-deaf post of the week. 👍