Rolex giving up SS sport watch market to other manufactures such as Omega,...?

[oldman2005]

The other day, I dropped by my favourite AD just to chitchat a bit and collect some Rolex magazines, of course as usual the AD had nothing in SS sport. An asian couple walked in and I overheard them asking for a SS Submariner and I was not surprised that they walked out empty handed. We shopped around and later on dropped by a huge watch retailer in the same mall that carries everything from Patek, JLC, to Omega and other brands. We walked to the Omega display and met the same couple at the Rolex AD, they were in process of purchasing a new Omega Seamaster 300.

The lower priced stainless steel sport watch market competition is fierce with so many brands, do you think that Rolex is giving up this market segment and move to higher priced higher profit margin of DJ/TT/PM and leaving this stainless steel market for others to feed on?

Many even think the new Omega Seamaster is a better watch than the Submariner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vhi5-dZSQ

[THC]

No and No

[Mystro]

Certainly if there isn’t a Rolex in the case and a buyer wants/needs a new watch, they will be buying another brand. It’s just a watch and most would never wait a few months to purchase a SS watch. Omega has to be seeing stronger sales. Being better or not is meaningless if Rolex doesn’t show up to be considered in the purchase process. Rolex loses these sales by their own strategy. Normal buyers won’t be bothered by the buying process for a Rolex. Remember to the sane world...”It’s just a watch”.

[ryvius]

Honestly the scarcity makes Rolex more of a challenge and therefore more desirable.

[Harry-57]

Rolex are selling as many SS sport watches as they want to make. And, until we definitively hear different, which of course we never will, we can safely assume that they are producing as many SS sport models as they ever have. Just look at the ocean of grey offerings, many with the plastic still on.

That they do not appear to be knee jerking to the exponential demand, says more about their confidence and long term plans for brand protection than it does about "giving up".

Seamaster better than Submariner? Subjective. I like Omega. I like their styles. I have a very nice Speedie. But I don't think their quality comes close to Rolex. I suppose it's a matter of opinion.

[tyler1980]

no

[burnthesehills]

If you want a Rolex, you’ll never be happy with simply an Omega. You’ll either wait for the Rolex or end up buying both.

[SLS]

Sounds like the couple settled in my opinion, which is never good when it comes to buying a watch. I learned that settling, regardless of what you purchase, just leaves you longing all that much more. Nothing against Omega, but a SeaMaster is not a Sub and vice versa.

[mistercoach32]

Absolutely not

[SLS]

Originally Posted by burnthesehills

If you want a Rolex, you’ll never be happy with simply an Omega. You’ll either wait for the Rolex or end up buying both.

Ha, you beat me to it!

[RHIII]

Absolutely not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spartacus]

Unable to buy a Sub, I purchased a Pelagos.

So I am an example of a transaction lost, I could have just as easily picked up an Omega.

I must say, if I’m left without the Rolex option, I’ll be looking at brands like Omega as an alternative.

Being laughed away or on some fictional list is not desirable to me.

[VanAdian]

The idea that Rolex is somehow losing out on business because of personal and/or anecdotal inability to find a SS piece is misguided. Rolex couldn’t care less about you not being able to find the watch you want. They are making and selling just as many as they want to. Trying to find some justification for them to stop SS production at this point is absurd.

[Geaux Tigers]

No doubt they are loosing some sales, but they are also selling all they make. Twenty years ago I bought an Ebel rather than a Rolex, but eventually came back to buy the Submariner then BLNR with more to come. As a new collector the scarcity is frustrating, but I won’t pay over MSRP nor be a party to panic buying. Slow and steady always wins in the end for buying and production...

[Late]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Certainly if there isn’t a Rolex in the case and a buyer wants/needs a new watch, they will be buying another brand. It’s just a watch and most would never wait a few months to purchase a SS watch. Omega has to be seeing stronger sales.

That's wishful thinking. While "luxury" watches in the U.S. went up across the board over the last 18 months, Omega sales numbers have been relatively flat.

In the over-$5K range, divide the market into three pieces:

• "Fashion" brands (expensive brands without deep watch roots e.g. Jimmy Choo, Michael Kors) are way down.
• Most of the rest had slight increases as the overall market expanded 15% (evenly split - +14% $5-10K, +16% $10K+)
• Rolex and Patek Philippe have gained a lot; NPD has those two together at 70% of the $10K+ U.S. market. And Grand Seiko has entered the Top-10 in the $5K-$10K range.

Omega and other Swatch brands are doing really well in Asia, but relatively flat in the U.S.

FWIW, Patek Philippe's success is a surprise to me too. I like the Calatrava, but the 5196G variant, close to a Stowa Antea or Nomos Orion in many ways, is about 10 times more expensive, close to $20K, outside of my viewscope.

[t65tampa]

I think the watch market is responding just the way Rolex wants it to. Maybe Omega will pick up some scraps, but the purchaser who is set on a Rolex will not likely be satisfied with something else.

[dtwer]

Rolex moving upmarket = Maybe; only because of demand driving up prices
Rolex giving up SS market = No
Seamaster better than Submariner = ROFLMAO!

[Krash]

Omegas always look like they’re as good or better than Rolex on the internet. In person, it’s completely different. Rolex is king.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[007_Omega]

Rolex is cementing itself in the luxury market. It's not about simply being able to afford the watch anymore but rather going through the hoops to obtain one. The desire and exclusivity bring people to the brand.

Rolex is certainly going upmarket and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Rolex wants no comparison to its old traditional competition like Breitling or Omega. Those brands hand you whatever watch you want, except the occasional Speedy Tuesday/Ultraman which are mostly bought by resellers anyway.

Rolex knows the writing is on the wall for watches being tools. That doesn't mean they are giving up SS sports model but rather SS sports models are their precious jewelry.

Another way to look at it, I think this is a feasible theory, is that Rolex is looking at things from the big picture and they even think they are in a bubble. They do not want to flood the market to meet demand because when the bubble ends those watches will flood the aftermarket and then devalue the brand. Omega has certainly devalued their brand by overproducing watches when most of their catalogue is available for a 40% discount.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Krash

Omegas always look like they’re as good or better than Rolex on the internet. In person, it’s completely different. Rolex is king.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel the opposite, to me Omega looks much nicer in person than in a catalogue.

[Junior_]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Unable to buy a Sub, I purchased a Pelagos.

So I am an example of a transaction lost, I could have just as easily picked up an Omega.

I must say, if I’m left without the Rolex option, I’ll be looking at brands like Omega as an alternative.

Being laughed away or on some fictional list is not desirable to me.

For me personally, it was a Sub or nothing. The Pelagos is a great watch. It just isn’t the Sub.

If I couldn’t have gotten a Sub from an AD, I would have went grey, not settled for a Pelagos.

If you wanted the Pelagos, great. But it’s not the same.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Late

That's wishful thinking. While "luxury" watches in the U.S. went up across the board over the last 18 months, Omega sales numbers have been relatively flat.

In the over-$5K range, divide the market into three pieces:

• "Fashion" brands (expensive brands without deep watch roots e.g. Jimmy Choo, Michael Kors) are way down.
• Most of the rest had slight increases as the overall market expanded 15% (evenly split - +14% $5-10K, +16% $10K+)
• Rolex and Patek Philippe have gained a lot; NPD has those two together at 70% of the $10K+ U.S. market. And Grand Seiko has entered the Top-10 in the $5K-$10K range.

Omega and other Swatch brands are doing really well in Asia, but relatively flat in the U.S.

FWIW, Patek Philippe's success is a surprise to me too. I like the Calatrava, but the 5196G variant, close to a Stowa Antea or Nomos Orion in many ways, is about 10 times more expensive, close to $20K, outside of my viewscope.

Do you have inside information on Omega’s sales figures in the US?

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Krash

Omegas always look like they’re as good or better than Rolex on the internet. In person, it’s completely different. Rolex is king.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on individual tastes. In my experience Omega watches are attractive and very well made. There are many Rolex models I could easily walk away from. The DSSD is one due to that stupid rehaut.

[cajerseyboy]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Unable to buy a Sub, I purchased a Pelagos.

So I am an example of a transaction lost, I could have just as easily picked up an Omega.

I must say, if I’m left without the Rolex option, I’ll be looking at brands like Omega as an alternative.

Being laughed away or on some fictional list is not desirable to me.

Tudor is owned by Rolex so they did not lose out on a sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

Omega is competing more win brands like Tudor. And I think that is what omega is at this point.

[Chaching]

Ha! NO

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Etschell

Omega is competing more win brands like Tudor. And I think that is what omega is at this point.

Nothing against Tudor but you need to take another look at Omega’s current product line. Mostly in house movements including a Chrono movement equal to that in the Daytona.

[emtee]

For enthusiasts like us no. We are clued up and we know what want. However I can totally see the casual buyer with a few grand in the pocket who fancies picking up a sub, being told no and going over the street and buying a Seamaster instead just to scratch the itch.

I mean the amount of times I’ve gone to buy a paticular item of clothing and got something else just because they didn’t have my size and i wanted something there and then

Edit: However I would add I usually end up buying something more expensive than I intended to in that situation just to make myself feel better. Which is slightly different than going from sub to seamaster

[JR16]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Nothing against Tudor but you need to take another look at Omega’s current product line. Mostly in house movements including a Chrono movement equal to that in the Daytona.

Have to agree, would place Omega above Tudor in the pecking order.

To those above who think Rolex “lost out on a sale”, I think this is laughable- Rolex is selling all the divers they are making so they aren’t losing out at all. If they wanted to sell more, they would make more. But they don’t, so they aren’t.

[hbombkid]

Ha no

I love omega started with a planet ocean, biggest gripe I have with Omega is the new prices are way to high for the value.

Best thing I like about them is availability and almost every model could be found new for about 30% off and preowned even better than that. I would never buy one for msrp. I just picked up a 2500 AT for a great price. It goes nice with my sub.

Rolex the marketing is just much stronger. There is no way the quality of a PO 8500 is 4500 less than a sub, (if you are trying to at least compare apples to apples) but the prices say that today and owning the sub I am ok with that