Swatch with problems in Oz.

[offshore]

It would appear that Swatch Group have a problem brewing here in Australia.

Or read it here-

http://www.theage.com.au/national/swatch-is-ripping-you-off-exboss-20091107-i2w0.html

A quick precise of this article, is that they sacked their GM here last year for not following company guidelines, and forcing dealers to stick to RR. ( Which is illegal in Oz)

He is now suing for loss and damages, related to his dismissal.

So all the sordid details will be revealed next month....whats the betting that an out of court settlement is not arrived at?

But I'll bet the Trade Practices people here have their ears pricked up.

And the ex GM will continue with these selective "releases", to keep everyone on their toes until he sees some $!

Offshore

[KB]

Alan Fels loved this stuff.

Ken

[offshore]

Ken,

If Alan Fels was still in charge, Swatch would already be dangling from the gallows!

( For non Oz, Alan Fels is the recently retired head of our Trade Practices Dept, who loved the limelight, AND taking multi nationals to task)

Offshore

[moggy]

I hope it goes to court and the arrogant sods get hammered!

Bob.

[southcoast68]

I hope it goes to court and the arrogant sods get hammered!

Bob.

Agreed, I also would consider the Swatch Group the arrogant sods based on what this article states. I would understand that any producer of high end goods would be upset or reluctant to let retailers from discounting their products, thereby hurting their exclusive status, however, if they control pricing in such a way as to go against the law, they need to be taken to task over it. Sure, Omega does not want to be seen in the discount section along with the Seikos' and Citizens', but the world economy is soft right now, so retailers should be able to do whats necessary to stay afloat. Besides, most high end watches, even if discounted by 50%, would still likely turn a profit of some kind for the manufacturer. Their real damage here is the reputation of their name, not the money.

Just yesterday, I was at a Rolex AD here in Florida who is shutting their doors. Everything must go signs in the windows, the whole bit, stating everything in the store is 30 to 50% off, if I remember correctly. The discounts were smaller on the remaining stock of Rolex they had, and it was stated that what they had in the displays is it, once it is all gone, they are gone. So I wonder what happens in a case like this. If there are no takers for the remaining stock, does it go back to Rolex to be re-distributed? If they do indeed own the remaining stock, are they not entitled to sell it all off for whatever they can (reasonably speaking, I doubt a new Milgauss would sell for a grand or less, even in an going out of business sale)? Just seeing the store with "going out of business" signs printed in yellow and red in the windows seems to take from the exclusivity a bit. I am surprised that such signage is not verboten concerning the sale of Rolex products, but what are they gonna do? The AD is already on the way out, its not like threatening to pull their AD status means much now. I have to go back down that way in a couple weeks, maybe I'll stop in to see what I can get a nice Air-King for .

Back OT, Offshore and Ken know more about this story since it is local to them, but seems to me that the former GM was trying to do the right thing. If Swatch thinks that the laws in OZ are stupid, then let them pull out altogether. They are wealthy, it should not matter to them all that much.

Cheers