Should Seiko stop making low tier references?

[Fleetlord]

Based upon Basel 2019, Seiko is going more upscale...not just GS, which is already upscale and going MORE upscale themselves, but SEIKO...

There are now Prospex LX watches that retail for $5000 and above.

The problem I see is that when Seiko is thought of by the general public, this comes to mind:

https://www.macys.com/shop/product/s...%26slotId%3D38

There are many like the above. Hideous to a WIS...

Some deeply discounted, under $500 fashion styled watch found at Macy's or the usual mall jewelry outlets....

While this pricing disparity has existed for some time already, there is an increased focus by Seiko to move upscale...so the chasm is widening.

Can the new Seiko branded upscale references co-exist with the low tier fashion references?

Should Seiko eliminate these inexpensive references and commit to upscale?

Should they rename and create a new brand to funnel them through?

Should they keep on keeping on?

What say you?

[Etschell]

Heck no. That is their bread and butter.

[Brew]

Why? A person can spend his entire life in the Seiko to GS ecosphere, from intern (Seiko 5) to board room (GS). That's vertical integration!

[ok, maybe to mid-tier manager, not the Board]

[capote]

Originally Posted by Brew

Why? A person can spend his entire life in the Seiko to GS ecosphere, from intern (Seiko 5) to board room (GS). That's vertical integration!

[ok, maybe to mid-tier manager, not the Board]

Credor for the boardroom

[Brew]

Originally Posted by capote

Credor for the boardroom

Perfect, and thanks for the reminder!

[WS9D]

Nope!! I get just as much enjoyment out of my $300 seiko divers that I do from my rolex. In fact, I get so much enjoyment, I'm actually selling off most of my collection. Why have thousands of $$ wrapped up for joy when I look down when hundreds of $$ brings me that same joy? I'm not wearing to impress others, just me. Seiko does that for me with their low tier offerings. Although I did sell off my GS GMT, I am hanging onto my GS quartz and two rolex. Everything else is going. Even my 16710. Yeah, it's cool, but my SRPA21 makes me glow every time i look at it, all for $295 on amazon lol.

I would be quite upset if the seiko turtles in the $300-400 range went away, even the samurai's

[Dan Pierce]

The value Seiko brings to the table for the average Joe is amazing. There’s a place for both GS and the lowliest skx.
dP

[oldman2005]

They can coexist even most of my friends and relatives think a Seiko costs around $100-$200, they couldn't believe my gold Tuna 1000m costs more than $2,000. Now if you think it's bad, tell them about Tudor...which they never heard of.

[august1410]

I have been wearing my SRP777 more than my Rolex 15003. I also picked up an SKX009 and put it on an Uncle Seiko Zulu strap for casual wear.

Just yesterday, I was digging around in a junk box at an antique store and found a slim gent's dress Seiko Quartz for 14 bucks. With a fresh battery and a leather strap I had in my strap box, I had a new watch that works great for less than a fast food lunch for two.

I own a Rolex. I wear a Rolex, but Seiko is the best value for the buck out there at any price point.

[CNDguy]

Sometimes I wish they would but I’m going to go with no, I’d like to see them continue on as is. Ultimately though making pieces that fill the entire market range is what cheapens their perception. No doubt.

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by Ks6pd

Nope!! I get just as much enjoyment out of my $300 seiko divers that I do from my rolex. In fact, I get so much enjoyment, I'm actually selling off most of my collection. Why have thousands of $$ wrapped up for joy when I look down when hundreds of $$ brings me that same joy? I'm not wearing to impress others, just me. Seiko does that for me with their low tier offerings. Although I did sell off my GS GMT, I am hanging onto my GS quartz and two rolex. Everything else is going. Even my 16710. Yeah, it's cool, but my SRPA21 makes me glow every time i look at it, all for $295 on amazon lol.

I would be quite upset if the seiko turtles in the $300-400 range went away, even the samurai's

Very well said. That’s exactly where I stand now.

[Old Expat Beast]

Seiko does a great job of providing good watches to people of limited means all over the world, and has done for half a century. Should they stop that in the hope that watch snobs will feel better about themselves? No.

[Maxy]

I'll simply put in 1 line. If you take watch brands comparison for every range from $50 to $100 to $200 to $500 to $1000 to $2500 or $5000 or $10000 or $30000... Seiko will beat its competition by the features, quality and delivering value. That's not a bad thing for a company as diverse as Seiko.

[asiparks]

Forum dwellers, ( and there are many), who can't fathom the purchase of a lowly Tudor when one can have a "proper" Rolex for only twice as much, are never going to buy a $5K GS or Seiko.
Other people will exclaim "$5000 for a Seiko ?!?!?", then happily continue on with their lives and their Macy's $200 Seiko, because there are just more important things than watches.
Those that appreciate what goes into GS or LX aren't really giving a flying fat one that Seiko makes cheaper watches and will simply buy the watch because they like what it offers at the price.
Cannot think of any reason Seiko would want to change their business model to appease a fistful of watch snobs, hung up on brand names.

[Andad]

Seiko could not survive with only upscale.

[Rogdogg]

I agree with Adam above. It's part of their history and who they are to provide good quality watches to anyone who wants one regardless of how much money they earn.
They have a watch for everyone and anyone and I for one like that.

[Ltledezma]

I agree with everyone who says no. Seiko brand is important to maintain current statues. Perhaps they can branch out into a new line. Seiko following is strong and healthy with many fans.

[daveathall]

Great question, I have given it some thought. I have come to the conclusion that I would keep it the way it is.

The watch on the right cost two and a half times more than the watch in the middle, which, in turn, cost three times more than the watch on the left.

I really enjoy the look and the feeling I get when I wear any of them.

[1William]

I see no issues with keeping it the way that it is. A watch for most people at a price range that goes from very affordable to well, not so much.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by CNDguy

Sometimes I wish they would but I’m going to go with no, I’d like to see them continue on as is. Ultimately though making pieces that fill the entire market range is what cheapens their perception. No doubt.

Please expand upon/explain that statement.

[Lol-x]

The SKX009 is an amazing watch, how anyone could contemplate its discontinuance would be a great tragedy.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Please expand upon/explain that statement.

Rather, cheapens the perception of them. And though I agree that it may, I still wouldn’t eliminate the lower tier watches.

[Jhowton23]

the margins they make selling the cheap stuff is what keeps their higher end watches attainable and a great value. ive got love for all seikos. the cheapest seiko is still better than the most expensive fossil in my mind. theyre the first company i ever recommend to someone who just wants a watch.

on that note- the best watch buying advice i ever got was....buy from a company that only makes watches.

[SN13]

When I mention that a Seiko costs upwards of $10k (Not including the PM versions) most people give me a bewildered look.

Anything more than a Seiko5 enters the realm of WIS people only.

That being said, I'm on the hunt for my first GS....

Tempted by the dials.
Tempted by the Springdrive.
Tempted by the 36kbph

Held back by the idea that it's a tradeoff between a Rolex and a Seiko. Which do I get?... that's for me to struggle with. Whichever I decide I don't want to go without.

[Art 1]

No. I love my SRP777. What an amazing value.

[cajunron]

Seiko is the everyman watch. The little people need decent watches too!

[toxicavenger]

Seiko has always had a wide price range they cover. No reason to change that.

[KeithP]

I think they need to keep the lower end stuff. Seiko is like no other watchmaker. A they do things that are amazing and full of character from $150 to $150k an should never apologize for it.
That said- the Macys quartz fashion watch-esque stuff should go. They should stay with the wonderful mechanical Seiko 5s, SKX divers and go up from there. There are so many affordables that WIS love and that show the brand in its best light. The dept store quartz stuff is not that.

[JBZ]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

Seiko has always had a wide price range they cover. No reason to change that.

This. I can't think of another watch brand that does what Seiko does.

Inexpensive quartz? You're covered. Inexpensive automatic? Ditto.

Mid-tier? Tons to choose from.

High end? Covered there, too.

It's pretty remarkable. Something for everyone in every price range.

On edit: my father has a solar powered Seiko chronograph of the type you'd buy at a mall. Not my cup of tea, but he thinks it's great and wears it all the time.

[JR16]

I love Seiko and have many sub $300 divers , a presage, a few GS. Agree w others that they should keep their bread and butter lower end / inexpensive lines. However , I think Seiko is still somewhat of a confused brand , and in order to grow GS they need to do a much better job at delineating their lines . I think it is foolish for them to be selling $5000 prospex watches that cost more then Some GS watches . They need to eliminate pricing overlaps amongst their lines, IMO, similar to Tudor/ Rolex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro