Why did UG fall off so fast in the 70s and 80s?

Hey everyone! I've been diving deeper into Universal Genève watches over the last year and had an interesting thought yesterday while browsing some of their watches: Why did UG fall off in the 70s and 80s so hard, especially when they seemed to have such a solid foundation?

Here's what I know so far:

Innovation early on: Universal Genève was a pioneer in chronographs and one of the few to make wristwatch complications a key part of their lineup. They were ahead of the game.

Thin & stylish automatics: In the 50s-70s, their microrotor calibers, allowing them to produce ultra-thin, highly sought-after watches. They worked with top designers to create iconic, recognizable pieces.

Electronic watches & vision: UG was also early to the game with electronic watches, like the Polerouter Electric and Unisonic, long before the Quartz crisis began.

Strong Partnerships: In the late 60s, UG was sold to Bulova, and they focused more on the American and Asian markets. Universal was a globally established brand. They even had high-profile collaborations with Tiffany and Cartier and were regarded as a top-tier brand like Rolex and IWC.

The Gamble with the Asian market: Despite their strong foundation, UG gambled during the Quartz crisis, doubling down on the Asian market and Quartz calibers. Unfortunately, it didn't work as they wished, and they lost their track in other markets, leading to their sale to a Hong Kong-based company in 1989. A major relaunch in the 90s failed to revive the brand.

But here’s my question: With such a well-rounded catalog and global reputation, why did Universal Genève decline that fast? Focusing on the Asian market that was strong and established for them doesn't seem stupid. Other brands, like IWC, Omega, Heuer and Longines had similar issues during the Quartz crisis but seemed to have handled it better. Yes, they made products in the 70s and 80s that aren't well regarded by today's collectors as well and made serious mistakes that changed their perceptions massively. But not to a UG-level.

Was there a critical mistake made by UG that I am not aware of?

Would love to hear your thoughts and insights on this!

Even Rolex took a beating.
Rolex came up with oysterquartz at that time. There are even Day-Dates with this mechanism. Everyone rushed to “adapt” and respond to the new trend of battery operated watches. (Patek included. Patek keeps offering it…..they make tons of money on these models).

Most of the small independent watchmaking houses were in trouble at that time. Some kind of survived, the brand kept going, but nothing like it used to be. Longines come to mind.

UG had no ground to stand on. It was always a smaller brand and these are the first to go.
Don’t compare it to Patek, Vacheron or even Longines. It was never as popular as the big players.
It was always a niche brand, no matter how cool and inovative was.

Quartz was a rupture innovation back then. Take any such leaps in other sectors (digital cameras, smartphones, just to mention to obvious ones with Kodak, BlackBerry, Nokia etc.), there is usually a drastically changing landscape in companies before and after, no matter what the positioning is before the rupture technology comes in.

I guess it makes sense. A company, no matter how good they are, will always be much slower as an incumbent to get into the new technology, compared to this disruptive ones. The early years are critical I suppose to get repositioned and a bit of inertia in taking decisions (which must have been really tough to take back then) means you’re losing your market share and it’s then much harder to get it back.

Less marketing than the survivors? Like Kodak that lost out of sponsoring the olympics to Fuji Filmwho took their place in peoples minds.

The name Universal became a challenge cup for people and those interested in finance. Apart from the emblem, you can hardly recognize an individual design. This also applies to other products: well-known car manufacturers, for example. AUDI is going this way...concerning the emblem.
Two billions of people will give direction.

Thanks for all the responses! I see that there is a consensus that it was really the Quartz crisis itself that caused UG to fall so quickly, and not the decisions they made afterward.

I think your're right. They didn't have an "Oyster case" that definitely helped Rolex in terms or recognizablity. The variaty is great for collecors now, but surely harder to market.

I think IWC did great given the circumstances. But VDO took the majority in 1979, before they were family-owned. And they changed their catalogue drastically (complications, Porsche Design) in the 70s and 80s. So even they aren't a prime example for a Quartz crises survivor.