Which subsidiary brand has made the Parent Brand Stronger

[tictoc1]

When Tudor Originated it was using Rolex parts and seen as an entry level watch to Rolex. Im sure some see still see it that way but it now has an Identity on its own

Swatch partnered with Omega to deliver the Moonswatch line, which I think has only strengthened the Omega brand, especially speedmaster

So who do you think has the stronger gateway watch? Tudor Or Swatch (Moonswatch) ?

[moofur]

Tudor. The Moonswatch has greatly cheapened Omega imo. Maybe not if they had stopped with the initial Moonswatches, but with all the subsequent releases including the Snoopy it has completely destroyed their brand equity. It seems like they gave up chasing Rolex and are happy to be like a Bulova or something.

Tudor actually makes watches. The Moonswatch is an overpriced toy.

[Nice marmot]

Silly comparison. Tudor and a plastic moonswatch are in no way comparable. A $250 swatch is not a gateway to a $7000 +Omega Moonwatch. Has anyone really bought a moonswatch and said to themselves “this is nice, but I might as well go ahead and drop another $6800 on the real thing?”

A better comparison would probably be one of the other Swatch group brands like Longines, Hamilton, Tissot etc as a gateway to an Omega just as Tudor may be an eventual gateway to a Rolex.

Furthermore to say that Omega has “completely destroyed their brand equity” is laughable. It has no more destroyed brand equity than Toyota has destroyed Lexus by building the Corolla.

[moofur]

Originally Posted by Nice marmot

Silly comparison. Tudor and a plastic moonswatch are in no way comparable. A $250 swatch is not a gateway to a $7000 +Omega Moonwatch. Has anyone really bought a moonswatch and said to themselves “this is nice, but I might as well go ahead and drop another $6800 on the real thing?”

A better comparison would probably be one of the other Swatch group brands like Longines, Hamilton, Tissot etc as a gateway to an Omega just as Tudor may be an eventual gateway to a Rolex.

Furthermore to say that Omega has “completely destroyed their brand equity” is laughable. It has no more destroyed brand equity than Toyota has destroyed Lexus by building the Corolla.

Two different things. One is a Toyota and one is a Lexus. Two different brands owned by the same parent.

Omega actually lent their name to collaborate and make endless versions of cheap overpriced toys even at retail, let alone secondary prices.

[tictoc1]

Thanks for the replies.

I certainly don't think that a Tudor is equivalent to a swatch, however the moonswatch has reportedly increased the Genuine Omega Speedmaster sales by 50%.

Although the moonswatch was marketed as a fun, and inexpensive, It has brought more attention to the brand and that attention has led to more sales. This according to what Hayek at Swatch group has reported. This is especially relevant because Omega is readily available at Retail more people will seek this out and actually buy it.

I think Tudor has been the opposite. People see a Rolex Daytona , which they cant have, and therefore buy a Tudor Chronograph

So in my oppinion swatch has added Value to Omega while Rolex adds Value to Tudor.

It will be interesting to see if the Blancpain swatch leads to increased sales of the fifty fathoms especially with a 42mm release

I used to think that the swatch marketing with OMEGA was a cheapening move but I don't believe that anymore.

[huncho]

Originally Posted by tictoc1

Thanks for the replies.

I certainly don't think that a Tudor is equivalent to a swatch, however the moonswatch has reportedly increased the Genuine Omega Speedmaster sales by 50%.

Although the moonswatch was marketed as a fun, and inexpensive, It has brought more attention to the brand and that attention has led to more sales. This according to what Hayek at Swatch group has reported. This is especially relevant because Omega is readily available at Retail more people will seek this out and actually buy it.

I think Tudor has been the opposite. People see a Rolex Daytona , which they cant have, and therefore buy a Tudor Chronograph

So in my oppinion swatch has added Value to Omega while Rolex adds Value to Tudor.

It will be interesting to see if the Blancpain swatch leads to increased sales of the fifty fathoms especially with a 42mm release

I used to think that the swatch marketing with OMEGA was a cheapening move but I don't believe that anymore.

i don't think people who want daytonas are buying tudors lol. rolex and tudor make very different watches and they're not cross shopped by most people

[Henrimontgomery]

I truly believe it depends. For me, there is not a single Tudor that I would buy, despite all the AD antics. The only one that might interest me is the blue Pélagos, and even then, I can not unsee Tudor logo as the Theater emoji.

Regarding Omega, I am also not interested in their offerings currently (no straight lug, no lollipop hands). So in my case, whatever these brands do, it won’t meddle my needle.

However what I have seen is people who were wearing no watches or perhaps random mall watches, get into the hobby. I don’t think they could tell you what they like about the watch, they just “like” them.

[lukey77]

Porsche. Done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by moofur

Two different things. One is a Toyota and one is a Lexus. Two different brands owned by the same parent.

Omega actually lent their name to collaborate and make endless versions of cheap overpriced toys even at retail, let alone secondary prices.

Eh, this name difference was for the American market, though they have recently started using the Lexus nameplate in Japan as well.

Their absolute highest-end cars, like the Century which is Rolls-Royce tier, use the Toyota nameplate.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by tictoc1

When Tudor Originated it was using Rolex parts and seen as an entry level watch to Rolex. Im sure some see still see it that way but it now has an Identity on its own

Swatch partnered with Omega to deliver the Moonswatch line, which I think has only strengthened the Omega brand, especially speedmaster

So who do you think has the stronger gateway watch? Tudor Or Swatch (Moonswatch) ?

Come on! You are joking, right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by Nice marmot

Silly comparison. Tudor and a plastic moonswatch are in no way comparable. A $250 swatch is not a gateway to a $7000 +Omega Moonwatch. Has anyone really bought a moonswatch and said to themselves “this is nice, but I might as well go ahead and drop another $6800 on the real thing?”

A better comparison would probably be one of the other Swatch group brands like Longines, Hamilton, Tissot etc as a gateway to an Omega just as Tudor may be an eventual gateway to a Rolex.

Furthermore to say that Omega has “completely destroyed their brand equity” is laughable. It has no more destroyed brand equity than Toyota has destroyed Lexus by building the Corolla.

Exactly everything he said!

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TimeAZ]

Originally Posted by tictoc1

When Tudor Originated it was using Rolex parts and seen as an entry level watch to Rolex. Im sure some see still see it that way but it now has an Identity on its own

Swatch partnered with Omega to deliver the Moonswatch line, which I think has only strengthened the Omega brand, especially speedmaster

So who do you think has the stronger gateway watch? Tudor Or Swatch (Moonswatch) ?

Sorry but you have the wrong idea here...

Omega is the subsidiary brand, NOT Swatch. Swatch owns Omega. Hence, squeeze that moonwatch milk cow, baby! Not much of a partnership I would say. Also: the moonswatch does not strengthen the Speedmaster professional. Far from it. It cheapens it, commoditizes it, and degrades it as a flagship model. The latest Snoopy Moonswatch, white and now black, just highlights there's no limit to their limited editions. It's actually a little comical.

Anyway, between the two major subsidiaries brands (Tudor vs. Omega) I will only buy Tudor. But I don't see either of them boosting the "prestige" of their parent organization.

[Roll-E]

Porsche; Lamborghini

[j.mo]

Originally Posted by huncho

i don't think people who want daytonas are buying tudors lol. rolex and tudor make very different watches and they're not cross shopped by most people

I agree to an extent. I do believe people who are wanting to buy subs and cannot obtain them, would most likely frequent to a tudor to try and “get with the brand” kind of gaslighting themselves as they explain to others.


So I’d say I do agree with the thread, imo the “scarcity” in the Rolex market, I do believe is building Tudor as its own stand alone brand that will lend a hand to it doing well. I’m sure Rolex will play that hand as long as it can

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

I think the OP dug himself into a hole with the title of this thread. Fact is, Omega is technically a subsidiary of Swatch, not the other way around.

Either way, I find the comparison between cheap plastic watches and Tudor to be a bridge too far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subtona]

Not exactly what’s being asked but Swatch gets my vote, they saved the nearly the entire Swiss watch industry during the quartz crisis.

[ErichKeane]

The Moonswatch actually got me into watches, ended up with me buying 2 Moon Watches and 2 Rolexes.

About 12 years ago a 'jerk' of an AD shoe'd a curious one-day watch enthusiast away, and I shied away from watch stores.. About a year ago I was walking through the Istanbul airport and saw the swatch store (a brand I had a positive association with when I was a child!) and walked through.

I saw a Moonswatch, though it wasn't for sale. I thought it looked pretty amazing, and spent some time researching it. I ended up down the rat-hole and realized that despite really liking the Moonswatch, I LOVED the Moon Watch. A few months later, I bought a Hesalite model.

Roughly 9 months later, I own 5 Omega watches (plus 1 other I owned and passed on), including 2 Speedmaster Moon Watches, and 2 additional Omega Chronos. Additionally, I own 2 Rolexes and an ADDITIONAL swatch group watch in a Longines.

So the existence of the Moonswatch in a junk-watch-sales shop undid the actions of a dismissive AD.

All 'subsidiary' vs 'primary' watch brand aside: The Moonswatch at least brought ME back into the luxury watch fold, and I can imagine that a bunch of others who ended up with one are going to dream about owning a Moon Watch some day.

The Blancpain Swatch I don't think will have the same effect, but perhaps it'll help some see the 'tic-toc-ier side :)

[ArtNouveau]

Don’t agree with the OP’s theory but….
I do think the Moonswatch was and continues to be a home run for the Swatch brand and corporation. They’re fun and relatively inexpensive so they can draw in an impulse buyer who them seeks out higher value brands. And a Moonwatch would be an obvious choice.
I have a Moonswatch and a Blancpain from Swatch. Don’t wear them much but they’re cool and cheap to own.

[the dark knight]

https://revolutionwatch.com/morgan-s...econsult-2024/

I think it's easily Swatch/Omega, although not a subsidiary as others have pointed out. But Swatch (the plastic watch co., not the conglomerate namesake) had massive sales gain, and also somewhat hidden is the article is that Omega gained 4% in sales as well.

Something that I noticed with interest in my personal life is the following. Despite the Speedy's popularity with the watch crowd, in roughly 25 years of collecting and paying attention to such things, I may have seen 1-2 in the wild before this year. I've seen 2 so far just in 2024. I've seen at least as many MoonSwatches as well.

My opinion is people have a misguided view of Omega if they think the MoonSwatch cheapens the brand. I don't think Omega is really a luxury/status brand in a similar vein as Rolex for most people. Mainly because if that's what you are into, you just get a Rolex. Even in today's environment it only take a bit of legwork/effort to purchase a $8000 Datejust at an AD. If anything those who are looking purely for some kind of status symbol would probably shy away from Omega as it would just give off "I couldn't afford a Rolex" vibes.

[rootbeer7]

OP, you’re being given a hard time here! I see what you mean. Remove price, material and talk only of brand and it has been widely reported that interest in Omega has risen. In London, many of my friends and those in the trade will only wear Moonswatch thingies openly now (but that’s a different story).
For me, I think they’re awful, but opinion is different to fact.

[1William]

Cross branding and marketing of the various products produced by the Swatch Group and Rolex is a core of any strategy for these and other brands. You can set aside conversations about quality, affordability and even appearance as long as we are talking about these watches and buying at any level. Not a fan of the Moonswatch but that does not matter as others are and are buying the watches. I am a huge Tudor fan and if they had been on the scene 30 years ago the way they are now, I might not have gone down the Rolex road in any significant way. The Omega Speedmaster Professional is the chronograph that I enjoy better than any Daytona, in any metal, that I have ever owned. Dollar for dollar, the best for me. So it comes down to buying what you like and can afford and what makes you happy. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Dan Pierce]

If I like a watch, I buy the watch. All the rest is just noise.
dP

[Slimpee]

Watches: The shield that protects the Crown

Cars: Jeep for Chrysler