What’s happening on March 26th then?

Posts
20,276
Likes
46,982
Until this week, I never realized that some Speedmaster aficionados took themselves so seriously. People ... it's just an ordinary watch. If you bought it because you thought it was a status symbol, you were mistaken.
 
Posts
360
Likes
367
Until this week, I never realized that some Speedmaster aficionados took themselves so seriously. People ... it's just an ordinary watch. If you bought it because you thought it was a status symbol, you were mistaken.

I don’t purchase anything for status, I even more a miser then a show off, I’m over 50 I really don’t need anything for status.
I wouldn’t consider the 50th moonshine an ordinary watch or the latest Snoopy or the ceramic Apollo 8 for that matter…..reason I’m a speedmaster fan is for the more recent additions where Omega’s really hit them out of the park, the ones that make Rolex fans jealous.
 
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
I’ve had critical posts re this Moonswatch deleted yes.

No, you flew into the “MoonSwatch Pictures Only Thread” to interrupt and exclaim they were sh*t, which is sort of like sh*tting in the pool. That’s not what that thread is for, it’s what *this* thread is for.

I’m also talking members politeness to each re difference of opinion.

See above.

(including the forum
owner)

There’s no such thing.


It has for me as modern speedmaster collector

Lots of stuff to buy out there
 
Posts
360
Likes
367
No, you flew into the “MoonSwatch Pictures Only Thread” to interrupt and exclaim they were sh*t, which is sort of like sh*tting in the pool. That’s not what that thread is for, it’s what *this* thread is for.



See above.



There’s no such thing.




Lots of stuff to buy out there

Posting a cheap plastic Swatch pictures only thread in the main Omega section is sh$@ting the pool (that’s what this section is now for), there is another watch brand sub forum.

Actually surprising few solid pm manual watches with the heritage equivalent to Omega around these days.
 
Posts
360
Likes
367
Ok less debating about the debate and more on topic.

I get and I agree anything that get more especially younger people into watches is positive.
However the swatch group could have achieved the same thing without the need for the Omega name all over this cheap plastic quartz, no?

I’ve even said it myself the mission to Mars for example looks great, I even think the Tiffany blue Uranus is more then a cool dig 😉
Omega has some balls without a doubt (Snoopy on a luxury watch for example) and we love them for it, but for me this time the quartz plastic is in bad taste.
 
Posts
261
Likes
179
I really don't understand why some people think that a mass-produced product is somehow incapable of being mass-produced? Swatch and Rolex are both mass-produced products. The only reason they can't meet demand is that they don't want to. In the case of Rolex, they've been reducing production since 2015. They can continue to do so because they still have plenty of demand. In the case of Swatch, they can not since the Swatch brand is seeing declines in demand due to the disinterest in the lower end of the Swiss watch market. What this means is that they will need to sell many, many watches in order to stay in business. They can use revenues from the rest of the Swatch Group to cover declines in the Swatch brand, but that's only a short-term solution. Like most businesses, Swatch is hits driven. These are not essential items that people must have so they must keep interest alive by creating products that people want.

The second point I want to make is that Rolex’s decision to squeeze supply is moronic. They should actually mimic the gold standard in a mass-produced product, namely Apple. Remember when people waited in long lines for the iPhone? Their answer wasn’t to play stupid games and create fewer iPhones. The correct answer is to produce as many as the customer is willing to buy. They became one of the biggest companies in the world with a 3 trillion market cap by following that rule. When they saw long lines in the U.S. with scalpers buying tons of supply ahead of other markets, what did they do? They produced more and made sure that they had worldwide simultaneous releases so as to kill the ability for flippers and other profiteers to make money from that trade. They effectively shut down that trade avenue and have kept all of the profits from selling their own product. Again, by making as many as people are willing to buy as quickly as possible.

So, let’s break things down:

Produce as many as the market wants
Producer: happy as revenues maximized
Customer: happy because they get to buy what they want
Scalper: unhappy because they can’t turn a profit

Limit supply artificially
Producer: unhappy as revenues not maximized
Customer: unhappy because they can’t get what they want
Scalper: happy because profit maximized

Which strategy is moronic as hell?
 
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
I don’t purchase anything for status, I even more a miser then a show off,

sure?







4 cocktails in, I barely had to think back on whether your posts seemed steeped in “status loss” regret. Quick review confirms!

Just own it! Much better look.
 
Posts
120
Likes
78
I think ultimately people need to vote with their dollar. If people buy it and it's a hit, swatch did well. If people don't, it'll be a bust. Consumers will decide this.

Imo anything new creates a lot of negativity at the start. Even rolex is not excluded from criticisms on their launches. But then those watches become desirable anyway.

I think swatch has brought some good hype to the brand. I have many friends who want it and their wives who do not like watches want one too. I think the line up is inclusive to both genders and all ages so has my tick of approval
 
Posts
360
Likes
367
sure?







4 cocktails in, I barely had to think back on whether your posts seemed steeped in “status loss” regret. Quick review confirms!

Just own it! Much better look.

think crossed wires here;
Maybe it’s my dyslexia but “status symbol” and something having “status” are different things.
 
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
The second point I want to make is that Rolex’s decision to squeeze supply is moronic.

“Tech Founder” here to tell the #1 Swiss watch company with 28% market share (~3X that of pOmega) how upsidedown their business model is

 
Posts
261
Likes
179
“Tech Founder” here to tell the #1 Swiss watch company with 28% market share (~3X that of pOmega) how upsidedown their business model is

So, you’re missing the point? The point here is that they could be 50% of a bigger market.
 
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
So, you’re missing the point? The point here is that they could be 50% of a bigger market.

Sure, man!

Every successful luxury apparel company of the past 15 years should hire you to double profits right away!
 
Posts
261
Likes
179
Sure, man!

Every successful luxury apparel company of the past 15 years should hire you to double profits right away!
I think you’re missing the point again.
 
Posts
261
Likes
179
Please re-read what I wrote above about businesses being hits-driven. There's a sign at the entrance of Apple's campus. This is it.
quote.jpg
Swatch will need to sell as many of these hits MoonSwatches as the market will take and then follow what Steve said on the plaque.
 
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
Please re-read what I wrote above about businesses being hits-driven. There's a sign at the entrance of Apple's campus. This is it.
quote.jpg
Swatch will need to sell as many of these hits MoonSwatches as the market will take and then follow what Steve said on the plaque.




the things they teach in B-School PowerPoints!
 
Posts
261
Likes
179



the things they teach in B-School PowerPoints!
Hey, you can't argue with results. They make more money in 2 weeks than the entire Swiss mechanical watch industry in a year. They are already killing the lower end of the Swiss watch market. They will continue to move upmarket. So, who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
 
Posts
2,380
Likes
2,504
I really don't understand why some people think that a mass-produced product is somehow incapable of being mass-produced? Swatch and Rolex are both mass-produced products. The only reason they can't meet demand is that they don't want to. In the case of Rolex, they've been reducing production since 2015. They can continue to do so because they still have plenty of demand. In the case of Swatch, they can not since the Swatch brand is seeing declines in demand due to the disinterest in the lower end of the Swiss watch market. What this means is that they will need to sell many, many watches in order to stay in business. They can use revenues from the rest of the Swatch Group to cover declines in the Swatch brand, but that's only a short-term solution. Like most businesses, Swatch is hits driven. These are not essential items that people must have so they must keep interest alive by creating products that people want.

The second point I want to make is that Rolex’s decision to squeeze supply is moronic. They should actually mimic the gold standard in a mass-produced product, namely Apple. Remember when people waited in long lines for the iPhone? Their answer wasn’t to play stupid games and create fewer iPhones. The correct answer is to produce as many as the customer is willing to buy. They became one of the biggest companies in the world with a 3 trillion market cap by following that rule. When they saw long lines in the U.S. with scalpers buying tons of supply ahead of other markets, what did they do? They produced more and made sure that they had worldwide simultaneous releases so as to kill the ability for flippers and other profiteers to make money from that trade. They effectively shut down that trade avenue and have kept all of the profits from selling their own product. Again, by making as many as people are willing to buy as quickly as possible.

So, let’s break things down:

Produce as many as the market wants
Producer: happy as revenues maximized
Customer: happy because they get to buy what they want
Scalper: unhappy because they can’t turn a profit

Limit supply artificially
Producer: unhappy as revenues not maximized
Customer: unhappy because they can’t get what they want
Scalper: happy because profit maximized

Which strategy is moronic as hell?
One strategy to one type of industry won't apply to all types. Apple builds iphones which are now essential to everyday life for most of the modern world. Watches are luxury products that are relics of the past that became jewelry and status symbols. Luxury products thrive on demand and producing so much to satisfy demand kills all future demand. There's a reason why all of the luxury brands under produces their most popular items (Ferrari, Rolex, Hermes, Patek Phillipe, etc). They know scalpers are getting rich off this but their leaving some money on the table today to ensure they'll have money tomorrow.
 
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
Everyone, quick: name top 5 demand-creating similarities between a luxury mechanical wristwatch Veblen good and a hand-held computer commodity, go!

 
Posts
261
Likes
179
One strategy to one type of industry won't apply to all types. Apple builds iphones which are now essential to everyday life for most of the modern world. Watches are luxury products that are relics of the past that became jewelry and status symbols. Luxury products thrive on demand and producing so much to satisfy demand kills all future demand. There's a reason why all of the luxury brands under produces their most popular items (Ferrari, Rolex, Hermes, Patek Phillipe, etc). They know scalpers are getting rich off this but their leaving some money on the table today to ensure they'll have money tomorrow.
So I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Hermes and Patek Phillipe are not mass-produced products because they require skilled craftsmen to produce. They're essentially handmade. That doesn't scale. Mass-produced products like Swatch, Rolex, and Apple iPhones are. Rolex and iPhones are both occupy the premium end of their category. They have more things in common than you realize.