Rolex Dealer Leaves

[Luggy]

Originally Posted by FLB03TT

Rolex will be a stronger, not weaker brand when all this is said and done.

only if the ADs they're leaving behind are really, really weak. Because now those ADs have other watches to show and will be pushing other brands. If I went into my local mall and the only major luxury watch shop didn't have Rolexes, I'd probably just purchase another type of watch. I'm not going to be driving all over town just to find a Rolex, and I doubt most people who are in the market for a luxury watch will either.

[gregmoeck]

We've been known to tell certain customers we no longer want to be their provider, they cost us money, they were rude to our staff, or they required a lot of attention (pain in the ass), or required a lot of support.

I would imagine Rolex is just thinning the heard just like most successful businesses do. If the AD is not willing to make the changes or they fit in category A B or C then they are voted off the island, its simple business.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by gregmoeck

We've been known to tell certain customers we no longer want to be their provider, they cost us money, they were rude to our staff, or they required a lot of attention (pain in the ass), or required a lot of support.

I would imagine Rolex is just thinning the heard just like most successful businesses do. If the AD is not willing to make the changes or they fit in category A B or C then they are voted off the island, its simple business.

I do the same in my business. Life is too short.

[Luggy]

To a certain extent that's true. But when we're comparing a mom-and-pop jewelry store in Hoboken or wherever to a multi-billion-dollar multinational corporation, then things get a little skewed.

Let's face it, if we just let enormous corporations do whatever was "logical" to them then we'd have massive monopolies that could, and probably would, control every aspect of our lives. There are laws that protect the little guy from the steamrolling nature of entering into contracts where one side has a tremendous amount of power and other other relatively none.

I'm not saying those laws apply here, I'm just speaking generally about the inequalities between Rolex and Joe Shmoe's Watch Shoppe.

[CashGap]

Originally Posted by Luggy

To a certain extent that's true. But when we're comparing a mom-and-pop jewelry store in Hoboken or wherever to a multi-billion-dollar multinational corporation, then things get a little skewed.

Let's face it, if we just let enormous corporations do whatever was "logical" to them then we'd have massive monopolies that could, and probably would, control every aspect of our lives. There are laws that protect the little guy from the steamrolling nature of entering into contracts where one side has a tremendous amount of power and other other relatively none.

I'm not saying those laws apply here, I'm just speaking generally about the inequalities between Rolex and Joe Shmoe's Watch Shoppe.

Theoretically possible, but my view is that in the U.S. at least we have near totalitarian regulation over private enterprise, always trying to find the point of tax and regulation juuuuuuuust this side of destruction. Keep the host (businesses) alive enough to provide what we demand but not so frisky that they begin to pursue freedom. I find it hard to imagine a situation where businesses had the freedom to even consider predatory tactics, because I've only observed the environment of the past several decades.

The original situation described sounds very similar to the end of any relationship, business or otherwise. Someone decides it is time, the other party almost always disagrees. Their character is shown when they either accept the mutual free association of the relationship, or if they attempt force/cajole/whine to continue the relationship because it still benefits them, and they of course think they know better what is good for the other party as well.

[DG123]

"Joe Shmoe mom & pop" rtetailer often complains about big store competition.
However, many times the small retailer is not doing enough job operator the store, and that is why customers shop elsewhere.
In many merchandise categories, the little guy can beat the big store every time. But, the little independent store needs to be a really good, smart, hard working operation.

Originally Posted by Luggy

To a certain extent that's true. But when we're comparing a mom-and-pop jewelry store in Hoboken or wherever to a multi-billion-dollar multinational corporation, then things get a little skewed.

Let's face it, if we just let enormous corporations do whatever was "logical" to them then we'd have massive monopolies that could, and probably would, control every aspect of our lives. There are laws that protect the little guy from the steamrolling nature of entering into contracts where one side has a tremendous amount of power and other other relatively none.

I'm not saying those laws apply here, I'm just speaking generally about the inequalities between Rolex and Joe Shmoe's Watch Shoppe.

[josh6262]

All kidding aside, I love this thread. This thread is why www.rolexforums.com is such a valuable website.

[Coubs]

Is there any risk to the consumer who buys from a dealer who just lost there authorization from Rolex?

[Scunner]

Originally Posted by Coubs

Is there any risk to the consumer who buys from a dealer who just lost there authorization from Rolex?

Provided the warranty is completed correctly I would be confident of a NO on that one.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Coubs

Is there any risk to the consumer who buys from a dealer who just lost there authorization from Rolex?

None.

[DocD]

I also know Sam Yampell and was shocked to learn that he no longer is an AD for Rolex. To me it's more than simply loyalty and it's also not an emotional or sentimental problem.

Shops like Sam Yampell existed far longer than some of the "big box" stores that sell larger quantities of Rolex. However, that does not negate the importance of stores like Sam's. Not everyone is comfortable walking into a big box store and dealing with a different salesperson every visit.

The beauty of a Sam Yampell is knowing that when you walk into the store, there will be consistency based on tradition and reputation. HIS name is on the door and there isn't a constant turnover of staff/employees. If Rolex is REALLY concerned about it's image and status, why don't they take that into consideration?

There already was a Rolex boutique store in Philadelphia owned by Govberg at Liberty Place, which is only a few miles from Sam's store in Haddonfield, NJ. The boutique store did not make it, and Govberg moved it's Rolex line into it's store with all it's other timepieces.

By the way, Sam used to have a small, non-descript store across the street from his present location. The dictators at Rolex didn't like his physical facility and as a result, Sam moved across the street into a new, updated and beautiful store with very prominent Rolex display. Now apparently several years later they are not happy with his present display and want him to update again at his expense.

The argument that Rolex will make more money or this move will increase sales boggles my mind. Even IF some of these AD's did discount, that had no impact on Rolex's bottom line. The discount cut into the AD's profit.....Rolex still received the same amount of money from the AD for the product. Additionally, logic would dictate that sales would be greater if you were able to purchase a product at a slight discount vs. full retail. And naturally, the greater the exposure/more retailers the greater the number of sales. If I'm up in the air regarding a Rolex vs. Breitling but the closest Rolex AD is 100 miles away, I may default to the Breitling.

Another point I really never understood and still don't understand is why Rolex will not allow an AD to list on the AD website that they are an authorized Rolex dealer or that they carry Rolex. The ONLY way to know who is an AD is by going to the Rolex site.

I was just at a jewelers and was surprised to learn when I entered that they carried Rolex. When I was on their website I knew they were AD's for Breitling, IWC, JLC, Audemars-Piquet (sp), Patek-Phillipe, Tag, etc. I don't believe anyone would argue that AP, JLC or PP aren't prestigious brands who want to maintain their reputations, yet THEY allow the AD to advertise on their website that they carry these brands, yet Rolex will not. In my opinion, that cost them sales and cost the AD sales.

I'm personally fed up with what I consider the "bully" tactics of Rolex. They are an excellent brand and I have one on my wrist at the moment, but they are certainly not the premier watch brand. Their actions have turned me off so much that I walked into that AD and purchased a beautiful new Breitling Chronograph for my son's 21st birthday.