ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
24 April 2010, 12:21 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 185
|
Strategy at Rolex HQ?
Rolex spent decades building their reputation as a maker of classic, high quality, simple and understated watches in which form followed function. Their efforts are probably what led many of us to like them so much now.
Then during the quartz era Rolex were forced to become more exclusive and raise prices. They then compromised their tough steel watches (although continued to make them) for the sake of earning extra revenue by making gemstone and all gold dress versions of their sports watches. Presumably these were aimed at parts of the world where shows of conspicuous wealth were part of the culture (eg. Middle East) but were actually sold to people of dubious tastes worldwide. In the longer term this has damaged Rolex's brand image and there are many who see them as a symbol of the flashy nouveau riche and people with more money than sophistication. It also made them perceived more as brand for older generations. Now in the 2000's after a period of a few decades of stability during which the reputation was slowly but surely recovering (due to the popularity of the iconic steel sports watches) there has been another change. Production of the remaining classic models are finishing. The replacements are clearly designed to look a lot more showy and opulent, echoing the mistakes of the 70's and 80's but this time with the steel models included as well. Why has the Yachtmaster II (with it's clever movement) been given such a terrible design incorporating a bezel with it's model name in massive writing on the bezel insert? - unsubtle over-branding. Why have the cases of nearly all new models been made so blocky? Why are they using ceramic bezels that look like they are made out of plastic and with oversized fonts for the numbers? And generally including more polish and bling all round and a sudden desire to conform to fashions rather than create their own. There seems to be no plan to leave any classic models in the sports line up. Other than higher quality bracelets there are very few actual practical improvements, nearly all are cosmetic and these give the brand a very different look and feel. So what happened at Rolex HQ? Someone new in the job with a very different idea for the brand and little respect for the heritage? Or do they regard the most important markets to be outside the traditional western hemisphere and are tailoring their models to increase sales in the other parts of the world that have different tastes? What's going to be the outcome and is abandoning the classics that first made them so popular going to be bad for Rolex in the long term? Omega seem to be making some effort to bring back their vintage looks. Stopping the Submariner in it's classic form is like Omega ceasing production of the Speedmaster Moon watch. My favourite quality in Rolex was that you could buy a new "vintage" style icon and I find it hard to believe that sales were slow so I feel they are making a rather serious mistake. What's happened? |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.