2000-2010: 10 YEARS OF INCREASES, FOLLOWING THE ESCALATION OF PRICES THE RANSOM OF THE CLIENT OR THE PRICE OF SUCCESS?

[Prsist]

2000-2010: 10 YEARS OF INCREASES, FOLLOWING THE ESCALATION OF PRICES

THE RANSOM OF THE CLIENT OR THE PRICE OF SUCCESS?

By David Chokron

In 10 years, the watch has changed considerably. But many models have remained unchanged or have changed only marginally. We found the rate cards for 2000 and compared to those of 2010. What is the magnitude of the increase? That was reasonable? Who abuses? And especially: what is the reason for this steady increase?

Declines and plaintive say that the good times, it was before. That the rates were so reasonable. And this model also took 500 euros last week as the crisis is not over yet. What brands abuse. For the amateur wants to pay only the substance. He wants to watch and nothing else. The box is optional, the public does not influence. He wants the size and design at the right price. He is wary of marketing speak as he sees a snake charmer, an air hypnotic wants to divert the real truth. In this case, the prices of the watches are constantly increasing.

Facts

Over the whole sample ( downloadable here ), we see an average increase of 68% between 2000 and 2010. That is to say an average of 5.3% per year for 10 years. More troubling, the rise is at least about 35%, or 3.6% per year. And this in a systematic manner, without any technical justification or substantive changes.

Names!

The brands include reasonable Breguet, IWC, Vacheron Constantin.

Those in the middle are Rolex, Breitling, Jaeger, Audemars Piguet, Omega and Panerai.

Those that exceed the average are Girard-Perregaux, Lange, Patek Philippe, Tag Heuer and Zenith (the most recent collection, not even the excesses of 2003-2008).

Is it gold?

When asked to mark the reason for the increase in charges, it usually responds by costs. And in particular, the rising gold price. Indeed, between January 2000 and January 2010, an ounce of gold (in euro, to cushion the fall of the dollar) has increased by 159% or 220% compared to October 2010. Large groups buy hedging instruments to cushion the changes in tariffs. But these instruments do not fully and finally remove price fluctuations. Now we find that the gold models have not increased more than the steel models. It is rather the opposite.

Is it steel?

For example, a Rolex Air King has increased by 61% when a Day-Date white gold merely 38%.Strange. The steel would have risen more than gold? Industry statistics indicate that the French metallurgical alloys stainless steel has increased by 66% between October 2010 and January 2000. The account is not because the materials are only part of manufacturing costs, after machining, assembly, operating costs.

Is this the price of the stick?

Perhaps then it is life that has become more expensive? About a current in the cafes of the euro area, often based on a detailed analysis of the price of the baguette. The index of consumer prices by INSEE, which includes inflation and price changes of common products in France rose by 18.7% between 2000 and 2010. The equivalent of that statistic in Switzerland, was arrested in 2009, is +8.3%. Remember that these figures include salary increases to national levels. Our increase is not there either, although the recruitment of the watch industry was between 2004 and 2008 adds.

Thieves?!

So what should be the mark! They gorge, gorge themselves, abuse and we mow the wool on his back to us poor fans to watch the passion so pure! But again, the available statistics are disappointing. The business case for groups that publish their results show that the watch is not the land of plenty that we think. The gross margin (operating income divided by sales) of the Swatch Group increased from 16.3 to 16.7% between 2000 and 2009. That Richemont is stable at 18%. That the cluster jewelry watches LVMH rose from 10 to 8%. They do not put them in the pockets.

2010 takes the path of a very successful year, it is expected to boost rates of return between 1 and 3 points, an improvement that benefits mainly the Swatch Group.

Is a trick

But still, something does not stick. Production volumes have also been an important development. Export statistics provided by the FH show the trend. In 2001, exports accounted for 5.35 billion shows mechanical Frs. In 2008, the highest volume was 11.27 billion, an increase of 110%. 2010 should approach the milestone of 10 billion francs. So it's almost a doubling.

Economic nonsense

Yet with production volumes, the purchase prices of raw materials down. And learning curves show that the unit cost of products while they remain unchanged, is also lower. And these principles are well illustrated by an astonishing figure. In 2000, a Porsche Carrera cost € 72,000 in Germany. Today, 85,500, an increase of 18%. Or a Porsche, a luxury product and stable identity, evolves technologically very regularly. It includes a big chunk of steel and aluminum. And substantial development costs. 18% against our average of 67%! And this increase is explained completely by the materials, inflation, profits returned to shareholders, wages and fiscal conditions.

Where does all this money? Well that's the price of success.

All the increases we have detailed intervene. But it is one that is masked by the numbers. Is the depreciation of investments. And in particular the new. For parallel stable products, funds available, and source of the doubling of production volumes, brands were innovative as ever between 2000 and 2010. The ranges have never been so numerous. The number of exclusive movements, new manufacturing, is close to that of the 50's where hundreds of cohabiting brands, many of whom made their own templates. The fleet renewal machinery, investment in new technologies, vertical integration, the acquisition of suppliers, new and expanded facility certified organic non-GMO, all this costs more than the single line called "depreciation". Is the energy of the company. It is his future.

The extreme example

Moreover, the price of new features is also amortized over the conventional distributed over the entire range. Evidence of this movement is embodied in the case A. Lange & Söhne. Saxonia, Langematik, Lange 1 (all versions big date) and Datograph experienced an average increase of 133% is huge, but it is due. In 2000, these models accounted for half of the supply of the brand, still relatively young. Since then she has released nearly 30 new templates, more and more complicated. Her workshops have tripled in size and its international reach nearby.

Noise

In parallel, it became more difficult to exist in a market that has never offered so much variety.The brands have become particularly numerous. Their lines have deepened, with the same box hosting several complications and alternative embodiments (materials, colors, bracelets). And the noise is deafening. The professionalization of the watch requires that the positions of each are clearly expressed hope that they are a little bit received. We must therefore undertake publicity campaigns to differentiate themselves from the crowd. Through TV ads, billboards, banners on the web, but also more sophisticated operations. Sports sponsorship, sponsorship of events (preferably sports or charitable) activities around the brand at public fairs, developing internet tools increasingly sophisticated international presence essential. In short, marketing costs were mechanically followed the volumes.

So what?

The conclusion one can draw is that you stop screaming at flight. Some brands go too far, others remain reasonable. But almost all have grown up in their clothes in 2000, not only in size. In maturity, wealth and supply for many, innovation. They invested in the future and their progress as well as the trade became more sophisticated. Our second conclusion is that it is better to buy new. It is actually much better priced than a reference earlier. Is cons-intuitive, but it makes sense: part of its costs are distributed on these older models. Forward, always forward!

Methodology

Our study sample and not intended as, nor claim, to be representative in a statistical sense. However, they cover a lot of the brands of luxury watches and their iconic models. So it's a panoramic view and the relevant market. It excludes lines or brands whose positioning has changed so much that we could not include them. Typically, Blancpain and Hublot are absent.

Each time, we compared models with the same or very similar. For example, a chronograph Pasha de Cartier rose from 38 to 42 mm. This expansion changes he radically the economic balance of its production? We think not. What about cosmetic changes? In 2000, a Patek Philippe Calatrava basic two-door gold hands Reference 3919. In 2010, it is virtually unchanged but is called 5119.

Conversely, a stopwatch FP resonance. Journe has gone from a movement to a brass gold movement. It is therefore more comparable and was excluded from our study. Remains the thorniest issue, the incremental evolution. The perfect example is that of Rolex. The movements have been updated, the updated design. But they have been transfigured? No. They changed course, and references remain the pillar of watchmaking.

We talk on the forum

http://www.horlogerie-suisse.com/articles/DavidChokron/prix/10_ans_d_augmentations-Les_dessous_de_l_escalade_des_prix-0947110111.html

[Dave123]

Gee at first i thought this was another thread about Josh.

[Lobster]

I enjoyed this article, a good observation of the markets and the idiosyncracies in the watch world.

[lhooq]

Certainly the information within this article is of interest to me. But more clarity is a necessity. So that is what would please me.

The translation? A poor execution, challenging the French language source awkwardly. A pity, surely!

[automatico]

Imho...

The buyer sets the price, not the seller.

Some buyers are willing to pay higher prices for various reasons.

Meanwhile, other buyers laugh at the increases and buy something else with their $$.

It takes a year to make a rolex.

There's a rolex buyer born every minute.

http://www.minus4plus6.com/PriceEvolution.htm

[praetor]

can I get an executive summary of this article?

the translation is confusing to me too...