TeeJay Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Rolex wouldn´t be the same if there weren´t also the celebrities (Ian Flemming, Paul Newman, Steve Mcqueen ...). They have created a unique appearance around wearing a Rolex as result we all want to be part of that history. I agree and disagree... I agree that Rolex might not have the recognition/presence today were it not for the above mentioned, however, I think one must bear in mind, that the Newman Daytona was an unpopular budget model... It wasn't purchased as a premium piece... An important part of maintaining a cult Brand is the loyalty to the customer. That's not something I see in their practices... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think one must bear in mind, that the Newman Daytona was an unpopular budget model... It wasn't purchased as a premium piece... Actually, that is not quite accurate. True, the 62xx Daytona, being a manual-wind chronograph, was often a tough sell at the time (& often sold at a discount), but neither was it ever considered a budget model. Certainly, it was not priced anywhere near Timexes, Benrus or even early Seikos (most of which were priced between $19-$50). In 1965, a $200 watch was an expensive luxury item, even if it was also a tool watch that someone involved in a relevant trade or sport could rationalize paying its hefty price for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Actually, that is not quite accurate. True, the 62xx Daytona, being a manual-wind chronograph, was often a tough sell at the time (& often sold at a discount), but neither was it ever considered a budget model. Certainly, it was not priced anywhere near Timexes, Benrus or even early Seikos (most of which were priced between $19-$50). In 1965, a $200 watch was an expensive luxury item, even if it was also a tool watch that someone involved in a relevant trade or sport could rationalize paying its hefty price for. That's a fair point, but would it also be fair to say that while it was an expensive item, it was not attributed (as an item or in terms of brand recognition) quite the same status as today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 That's a fair point, but would it also be fair to say that while it was an expensive item, it was not attributed (as an item or in terms of brand recognition) quite the same status as today? Yes, I would definitely agree with that. At the time they were for sale, they were considered good, quality watches; mostly for professionals (in the case of Rolex tool watches). They were not budget or commodity items by any means. But neither were they treated like the icons they are today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Actually, that is not quite accurate. True, the 62xx Daytona, being a manual-wind chronograph, was often a tough sell at the time (& often sold at a discount), but neither was it ever considered a budget model. Certainly, it was not priced anywhere near Timexes, Benrus or even early Seikos (most of which were priced between $19-$50). In 1965, a $200 watch was an expensive luxury item, even if it was also a tool watch that someone involved in a relevant trade or sport could rationalize paying its hefty price for. In 1965, I graduated from college and my first job paid a grand 400.00 USD /month gross.I believe I brought home about 325-330. So buying a 200.00 USD watch represented a pretty good chunk of not very readily available change. And considering that there were lots and lots of folks out in the world who were making quite a bit less per month, buying a Rolex wasn't something that you did on the spur of the moment. I bet few people walked in to a jewelry store on a whim and walked out with a new Sub or Daytona. As Freddy said, while the Daytonas were not budget model. I believe that one of the reasons it was not as popular was at the time it was a "Retro" watch. Practically everyone was producing auto wind/ date dialed watches, the Daytona was a throwback. It was a manual wind non date watch. This was a period of time when America was beginning to go upscale in a big way,Ii believe that lots of buyers felt that the Daytona wasn't quite modern enough for them. I bought one in about 1978, just couldn't get used to the manual wind, non date, and traded it for a submariner or SeaDweller (I can't remember which) after owning it for only a few weeks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yes, I would definitely agree with that. At the time they were for sale, they were considered good, quality watches; mostly for professionals (in the case of Rolex tool watches). They were not budget or commodity items by any means. But neither were they treated like the icons they are today. At the end of the day, that's essentially all I was meaning, that Rolex's company profile has considerably changed in that time, and their current aims, goals and target market is quite different to what it used to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I am not sure that any of Rolex's aims/goals have changed, but I think it is safe to say that they have refocused their marketing towards the east with less reliance on sales from the US & EU, which, traditionally, have been their target markets. And Rolex is not alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 I am not sure that any of Rolex's aims/goals have changed, but I think it is safe to say that they have refocused their marketing towards the east with less reliance on sales from the US & EU, which, traditionally, have been their target markets. And Rolex is not alone. When the head of the company denies that he's in the watch business, I think it's safe to say that Rolex's aims and goals have changed from what they were 60-70 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 When the head of the company denies that he's in the watch business, I think it's safe to say that Rolex's aims and goals have changed from what they were 60-70 years ago Who said what & what is the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Who said what & what is the source? I'm sure I read it on here a few months back, that someone approached the current head of Rolex at Wimbledon, asked how the watch industry was going, and the guy replied that he wasn't in the watch industry... Sorry I can't be more specific, it was just an off-hand comment I saw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 That does not sound like something anyone at Rolex would say (or think), especially upper management. No offense, but I have been hearing things like this for decades, but never from an official (or verifiably knowledgeable) source. What they might have said is something along the lines of Rolex being in the jewelry business, which they are, but never to the exclusion (or ahead) of watches, which is where the vast majority of their (not insignificant) R&D costs have always gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 That does not sound like something anyone at Rolex would say (or think), especially upper management. No offense, but I have been hearing things like this for decades, but never from an official (or verifiably knowledgeable) source. What they might have said is something along the lines of Rolex being in the jewelry business, which they are, but never to the exclusion (or ahead) of watches, which is where the vast majority of their (not insignificant) R&D costs have always gone. I'll see if I can dig up the comment to re-post...I agree, it's not the sort of thing one would expect from the head of a company, but equally, it is the kind of comment I can see someone making off the cuff, especially if it was to someone they might not really have liked, or who they didn't want to get drawn into conversation with... Either way, comment or no, the perception of Rolex, and Rolex's own target market has shifted in the last 70 years, and there have been numerous instances I've read about how someone will keep their watch 'for special occasions', rather than just wearing it daily and subjecting it to wear and tear. I caught a re-run of a Top Gear episode yesterday, and it briefly showed Sir Ranulph Feinnes trying to educate the Three Stooges on arctic survival. He appeared to be wearing an original model Explorer (1610? ) on an abused grey NATO strap, which had clearly never received any 'special treatment' during his ownership of it, and it just made me smile to think that the watch was being worn and used as intended, rather than being babied and safequeened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I know the episode you are referring to & I agree that Rolex's marketing has changed. But this is neither the 1st time, nor will it be the last time that a change in marketing strategy has put off Rolex's older customers (like me). The reason Rolex has been the most successful luxury watch company for most of the past 100+ years is because they are market leaders, who carve their own path instead of following the winds of contemporary fashion. Sometimes their path intersects with current fashion & sometimes not. Whether or not you like their latest marketing/design strategy, you have to give them credit for the fact that, with hindsight, it is usually a winning strategy, profit-wise. And profits, whether politically popular or not, are what for-profit companies are all about. But, like you (& Feinnes), I wish Rolex could find a way to include a handful of traditional tool watches in their current/future product line-ups. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I know the episode you are referring to & I agree that Rolex's marketing has changed. But this is neither the 1st time, nor will it be the last time that a change in marketing strategy has put off Rolex's older customers (like me). The reason Rolex has been the most successful luxury watch company for most of the past 100+ years is because they are market leaders, who carve their own path instead of following the winds of contemporary fashion. Sometimes their path intersects with current fashion & sometimes not. Whether or not you like their latest marketing/design strategy, you have to give them credit for the fact that, with hindsight, it is usually a winning strategy, profit-wise. And profits, whether politically popular or not, are what for-profit companies are all about. But, like you (& Feinnes), I wish Rolex could find a way to include a handful of traditional tool watches in their current/future product line-ups. That really is a fine piece I think it's the anti-consumerist in me which finds the unnecessary profiteering so distasteful on the corporate aspect, and the safequeening as completely against everything a watch should be used for. Sure, I can understand collecting, and even understand wanting to keep one's collectibles in a nice condition, but at the end of the day, watches belong on wrists, not in safes And in turn, that's what makes me think that folks are forgetting that back in the day, Rolexes were accessible (if expensive) professional pieces, rather than the [relatively] inaccessible luxury items they're considered to be today I found the post I mentioned... It may not be verifiable, but it has a certain ring of truth about it which I find very believable... Couldn't agree more with automatico's very funny post. Now, I don't know if this is true but a friend of mine said he read this somewhere and it kind of sums it up. Apparently some years ago the ceo of Rolex was at Wimbledon tennis championships here in London and he was talking to Steve Jobs. Steve asked him how the watch business was and ceo replied "I don't know, I'm not in the watch business" Draw from that comment whatever you like but in my opinion when the ceo of a company as so lost sight of what his business should be about then it is ultimately sunk. I suppose they now look upon themselves as a "brand" rather than a watchmaker. A similar thing happend to the theatre here. Producers stopped referring to plays as plays and started calling them "product". These people are the sputum of satan and should be ridiculed and lambasted for the destroyers of all things good that they are. Was that a little strong? Oh pardon me I'm so sorry..... If you want a more complete analysis of marketing and advertising than do check out the routine by the great man who I have the honour to use as my avatar. I'm sure you'll find it on you tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 And in turn, that's what makes me think that folks are forgetting that back in the day, Rolexes were accessible (if expensive) professional pieces, rather than the [relatively] inaccessible luxury items they're considered to be today Well, close. Since the early 50s & until the current millennium, Rolex produced/sold a range of professional & luxury watches. Today, the range is biased towards the luxury side, with their tool watches wrapped in bling. I found the post I mentioned... It may not be verifiable, but it has a certain ring of truth about it which I find very believable... Unfortunately, you are quoting someone who is quoting someone, who 'said he read this somewhere'. With all due respect, I would ignore this & similar references as being unreliable, at best. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielv2000 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Unfortunately, you are quoting someone who is quoting someone, who 'said he read this somewhere'. With all due respect, I would ignore this & similar references as being unreliable, at best. Off, topic, but that unfortunately, is what "true" post-Internet, twitter-junkie journalism has become. Back on topic, I find it amazing that a modern Sub looks so close to a Sub made over 50 years ago! I know many will disagree. Think about that, how many brands stay that true to their origin. It's like seeing a Porsche 911 today. You can't deny it's heritage. That's why so many people fall in love with "retro" re-releases. When the VW beetle was released in its modern form, people went nuts. Same with the latest batch of Tudors. Rolex has stuck pretty much to a certain design. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww12345 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 No, Freddy. That quote is definitely true! I heard it from this guy, who overheard it on the subway from a group of friends whose brother read it on Wikipedia! Not to give the above poster a hard time, because I am 99% certain I "heard" it over on VRF, but I know what daniel is saying about journalism in the internet age... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Good discussion. Something else just came to mind. (As stated, I am not a fan of 'current' Rolex corp. However, I am going to take their side, and play a bit of devils advocate.) First, a personal experience, and perhaps some wisdom that only comes as one gets older and priorities change. Back in the 90's, I was a pretty serious SCCA Auto Racer. I progressed from Stock Classes and Improved Touring to Open Wheel Formula's, with a smattering of exotics thrown in (Lotus, Porsche, Viper). Back then, I could not for the life me wrap my head around the fact that the Auto Makers were making progressively heavier vehicles, with disappearing (non)-options. As a racer, I wanted the essence of a vehicle-- No extra doors, no Air Condition, no Power Windows, Cloth (lighter) instead of Leather (heavier) seats, etc... Fast forward. Now those weight adding creature comforts make total sense to me, and the auto makers were simply responding to the market. We were the minority. Enter technology as well. The few extra grams of the power window assembly was more than compensated for my better engine management and horsepower. Finally, when purchasing a vehicle, do I really want to go down a list of options and seeing the $$ added to the sticker -vs- the all-inclusive price these days for a solid feature set. No. So where am I going with this. Somewhere within the hallowed halls @ Rolex, they know that guys on Oil Rigs are NOT using their dive watches. There are no more Cold War scientists in need of a Milgauss. How many spelunkers actually use an Explorer II instead of a Garmin/Suntuu wrist computer. That said, modern Rolex's are essentially on par with our comfy BMW's, Mercedes, etc, and the average/current (White Collar) consumer of their products. Rolex knows their market, and it is not (most) of us. I am cool with that... Final thought. The "I'm not in the watch industry comment", real or not, is really just a way of saying "Rolex is a Luxury Good's" maker. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janeto72 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 True.......Rolex is not in the watch business...but in the luxury goods business.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 Well, close. Since the early 50s & until the current millennium, Rolex produced/sold a range of professional & luxury watches. Today, the range is biased towards the luxury side, with their tool watches wrapped in bling. Essentially abandoning their tool-watch past Unfortunately, you are quoting someone who is quoting someone, who 'said he read this somewhere'. With all due respect, I would ignore this & similar references as being unreliable, at best. Not a problem Of course, it is not a truly verifiable comment, but as I mentioned before, it's the kind of thing I can quite believe someone saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now