Why On Earth Has Rolex Not Increased Prices in Six Years?

[Chiboy]

Obviously, I am speaking from a U.S. perspective, because I believe they have increased at least U.K. prices to adjust for Brexit currency fluctuations/devaluations. But this is a heck of a long time to keep prices static. It's not like they are selling computers where prices staying level is almost like prices increasing. They obviously are leaving a lot of money on the table as secondary prices for more and more watches are now higher than MSRP. This is like the Rolling Stones pricing their tickets at $50, knowing scalpers are selling them for far more. While Rolex may be owned by a charitable trust, it isn't like they are a charity trying to promote mechanical watch ownership around the globe. Explain!

[037]

They've increased prices with updated models. Be grateful they haven't increased across the line.

Not sure why you're disappointed over this.

[piratepress]

Last Year, my BLNR was $8950. Now, I'm looking at $9250 for a Pepsi. I'm just thrilled it isn't more!

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by piratepress

Last Year, my BLNR was $8950. Now, I'm looking at $9250 for a Pepsi. I'm just thrilled it isn't more!

different bracelet and new movement. I think its not an increase at all. Its an "upgrade"

[tyler1980]

The watches are underpriced. Its true and we are due for an increase.

The top 5%, which lets be honest, is their "target" market. Their net worth is has increased dramatically since the last price increase so the watches are substantially cheaper then 2012 for sure as far as how much of their money it takes to acquire one.

Then you have the crypto people and they are buying a Rolex with the few hundred dollars they bought bitcoin with.

Its a case of too much money on the table and watches priced at the point where people dont think twice and buy as many as they get offered.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

The watches are underpriced. Its true and we are due for an increase.

The top 5%, which lets be honest, is their "target" market. Their net worth is has increased dramatically since the last price increase so the watches are substantially cheaper then 2012 for sure as far as how much of their money it takes to acquire one.

Then you have the crypto people and they are buying a Rolex with the few hundred dollars they bought bitcoin with.

Its a case of too much money on the table and watches priced at the point where people dont think twice and buy as many as they get offered.

You know we've been saying that for well over a year in the UK, despite the currency fidget, so I can't fathom why they haven't done anything, esp when they are so against flippers and starving the grey market which these low prices are only fuelling even tempting many WIS, a real case of having your cake and eating it.

[dmash]

Originally Posted by AK797

You know we've been saying that for well over a year in the UK, despite the currency fidget, so I can't fathom why they haven't done anything, esp when they are so against flippers and starving the grey market which these low prices are only fuelling even tempting many WIS, a real case of having your cake and eating it.

Because then what if the GBP goes back to 1.5.....they’ll have to raise prices again and go back and forth to accommodate the fluctuations. I think they’re honestly forecasting this, as even the Eur to USD price is still ~10% higher than the GBP to USD price.

[mulgogy]

Originally Posted by piratepress

Last Year, my BLNR was $8950. Now, I'm looking at $9250 for a Pepsi. I'm just thrilled it isn't more!

new movement and jubilee. I think prices jump $100 on DJs when going from Oyster to Jub. so seems to be right inline. Waiting for the 4 to 5 figure jump though!

[Speedbird-1]

You're THAT KID in school, ain'tcha!

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts

You're THAT KID in school, ain'tcha!

[crazymcmichael]

Originally Posted by lt virgil hilts

you're that kid in school, ain'tcha!

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by piratepress

Last Year, my BLNR was $8950. Now, I'm looking at $9250 for a Pepsi. I'm just thrilled it isn't more!

I just bought a BLNR this week for $8950. So actually the price has not increased.

You're technically referring two different watches. I'm sure if they redo the BLNR with the new movement and Jubilee option the price will be within $50-150 of the Pepsi, if not exactly the same. But again, historically the Jubilee option costs more.

[Speed]

Originally Posted by piratepress

Last Year, my BLNR was $8950. Now, I'm looking at $9250 for a Pepsi. I'm just thrilled it isn't more!

First world 2% problem?

[RHIII]

Sounds to me like this is more about the secondary market differential - under the cover of a price increase....yawn.

Rolex leaving money on the table? Because of the secondary market cost deltas? So you think a Stainless Daytona should sell for $20k?

Rolex is a (nearly) $10b company...I would submit they know exactly what they are doing. All of the supply ‘issues’ are truly creating a hyped up frenzy - which in turn could be increasing exclusivity - without badly injuring ‘their’ retail market. Pointing potential customers to boutiques and ADs vs. secondary markets...

Chalk up the ‘leaving $$ on the table’ to FREE advertising (from all the hype). Sounds like a GREAT deal to me — for what — MAYBE 10-15% (if that) increased profit from increasing the retail on the models that would truly sell for increased costs....

That’s my .02 worth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Chiboy

Obviously, I am speaking from a U.S. perspective, because I believe they have increased at least U.K. prices to adjust for Brexit currency fluctuations/devaluations. But this is a heck of a long time to keep prices static. It's not like they are selling computers where prices staying level is almost like prices increasing. They obviously are leaving a lot of money on the table as secondary prices for more and more watches are now higher than MSRP. This is like the Rolling Stones pricing their tickets at $50, knowing scalpers are selling them for far more. While Rolex may be owned by a charitable trust, it isn't like they are a charity trying to promote mechanical watch ownership around the globe. Explain!

They have no shareholders and no one to be accountable for except themselves. Translation: they can do anything they damn well please.

[037]

Come to think of it, prices in the US have gone up for many. Discounts are gone on stainless models and in many cases it's MSRP only.

I still don't understand the overall complaint, however.

[slide13]

Originally Posted by 037

Come to think of it, prices in the US have gone up for many. Discounts are gone on stainless models and in many cases it's MSRP only.

^this!

I think if you could look at the actual selling price of models you would see a 5-10% increase as discounts have dried up for many models. I think it's a very calculated strategy to make discounts a thing of the past first. Then we'll eventually see an actual price increase as well.

I'm glad I bought my sub when I did. Tried a couple dealers and they wouldn't budge on price but eventually found one that was willing to do 15% off without hassle. I don't think I would have any chance of a similar deal today.

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by Chiboy

Obviously, I am speaking from a U.S. perspective, because I believe they have increased at least U.K. prices to adjust for Brexit currency fluctuations/devaluations. But this is a heck of a long time to keep prices static. It's not like they are selling computers where prices staying level is almost like prices increasing. They obviously are leaving a lot of money on the table as secondary prices for more and more watches are now higher than MSRP. This is like the Rolling Stones pricing their tickets at $50, knowing scalpers are selling them for far more. While Rolex may be owned by a charitable trust, it isn't like they are a charity trying to promote mechanical watch ownership around the globe. Explain!

With this bull market the only thing increasing retail would accomplish is raising the market prices even further. These are luxury goods and there are always people with more than enough cash to burn no matter how ridiculous prices are. I don’t think most of us would be very happy with new SS GMTs and Daytonas going for $30k.

The only thing that would curb resellers is if people stopped paying these premiums and that simply is not going to happen with Veblen goods. Some people will pay any price for status. In fact higher prices make them more desirable if anything.

Perhaps if Rolex had never introduced the ceramic Daytona which was the catalyst for this craze, prices would still be normal today.

[Chillychow]

Originally Posted by lecorsaire

With this bull market the only thing increasing retail would accomplish is raising the market prices even further. These are luxury goods and there are always people with more than enough cash to burn no matter how ridiculous prices are. I don’t think most of us would be very happy with new SS GMTs and Daytonas going for $30k.

The only thing that would curb resellers is if people stopped paying these premiums and that simply is not going to happen with Veblen goods. Some people will pay any price for status. In fact higher prices make them more desirable if anything.

Perhaps if Rolex had never introduced the ceramic Daytona which was the catalyst for this craze, prices would still be normal today.

However, having MSRP Daytona's and GMT's at $20k WOULD pretty much eliminate waiting lists and Grey markets...

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by Chillychow

However, having MSRP Daytona's and GMT's at $20k WOULD pretty much eliminate waiting lists and Grey markets...

if you actually think that would change anything. It would only make both more desirable! We would be looking at $30k grey prices for both.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by lecorsaire

if you actually think that would change anything. It would only make both more desirable! We would be looking at $30k grey prices for both.

your are right... fixed prices are inherently inefficient. Dynamic pricing so the price constantly changes until it reaches the point that they sit on display for an average of 5 days is really the only way to truly eliminate the secondary market. There is a price where that would happen, but its not a set price.

we are in a modern world and if anything needs to change its pricing structures.

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

your are right... fixed prices are inherently inefficient. Dynamic pricing so the price constantly changes until it reaches the point that they sit on display for an average of 5 days is really the only way to truly eliminate the secondary market. There is a price where that would happen, but its not a set price.

we are in a modern world and if anything needs to change its pricing structures.

I agree. The ideal price is really one where the store always has inventory but relatively fast turnover.

[Chillychow]

Originally Posted by lecorsaire

if you actually think that would change anything. It would only make both more desirable! We would be looking at $30k grey prices for both.

Maybe! You're are bringing me back to my University Economics courses that I thought I'd never use. Remember the concept of price elasticity? Your assumption that price doesn't make a huge difference to demand is premised on Rolex SS models having significant price elasticity. Not many products have this, but, it could be true. Would be interesting to find out!

On a side note, this makes me wonder how much Rolex actually knows about their customer base. Their lack of price increases makes me think it's not that important to them. Personally, I've never completed a survey for them or been asked demographic questions by my AD to pass along to Rolex. Non profit or not, it's bad capitalist karma to leave profits on the table.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Chillychow

Maybe! You're are bringing me back to my University Economics courses that I thought I'd never use. Remember the concept of price elasticity? Your assumption that price doesn't make a huge difference to demand is premised on Rolex SS models having significant price elasticity. Not many products have this, but, it could be true. Would be interesting to find out!

On a side note, this makes me wonder how much Rolex actually knows about their customer base. Their lack of price increases makes me think it's not that important to them. Personally, I've never completed a survey for them or been asked demographic questions by my AD to pass along to Rolex. Non profit or not, it's bad capitalist karma to leave profits on the table.

or step one was to normalize retail purchases and eliminate discounts and make it stick. Step two is to get people to pay the new higher retail price when they implement that

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by Chillychow

Maybe! You're are bringing me back to my University Economics courses that I thought I'd never use. Remember the concept of price elasticity? Your assumption that price doesn't make a huge difference to demand is premised on Rolex SS models having significant price elasticity. Not many products have this, but, it could be true. Would be interesting to find out!

That’s exactly what was behind my rationale! They are relatively price inelastic.
Also considered Veblen goods.

[Chiboy]

Originally Posted by lecorsaire

Perhaps if Rolex had never introduced the ceramic Daytona which was the catalyst for this craze, prices would still be normal today.

Originally Posted by lecorsaire

What is so funny? What I said is true.[/URL]

Well, the idea that Rolex perhaps messed up by making something too desirable struck me as funny.

Originally Posted by Chillychow

Maybe! You're are bringing me back to my University Economics courses that I thought I'd never use. Remember the concept of price elasticity? Your assumption that price doesn't make a huge difference to demand is premised on Rolex SS models having significant price elasticity.

I studied economics way back when, and I believe you are talking about "price inelasticity" when demand is relatively unaffected by changes in price.

[lecorsaire]

Originally Posted by Chiboy

Well, the idea that Rolex perhaps messed up by making something too desirable struck me as funny.



I studied economics way back when, and I believe you are talking about "price inelasticity" when demand is relatively unaffected by changes in price.

That’s exactly what they did lol. Who would have thought that a simple ceramic bezel would make everyone go crazy? I’m sure Rolex thought it would be popular but not this popular.

[Chillychow]

Originally Posted by Chiboy

Well, the idea that Rolex perhaps messed up by making something too desirable struck me as funny.



I studied economics way back when, and I believe you are talking about "price inelasticity" when demand is relatively unaffected by changes in price.

You might be right - I'm afraid to say how long it's been since I was in University

[redfoxer]

Because Rolex are a charity :D

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by redfoxer

because rolex are a charity :d

sent from my sm-g950f using tapatalk

you are so right!! Lmao!!!