163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
Differentiation is already achieved through IWC's brand story and heritage. It is already differentiated through its progressive marketing strategies as being a pioneer in the web space and social media.
To feel exclusive and be part of a smaller club or to be more unique than others is in essence a self-centred motive and that's why luxury brands are sticky, they leverage on our need for exclusivity.
3,778 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Leon K Wrote:Until the day they actually have a neutral show or magazine that actually puts all these movements (mass produced vs in house) to the test ie accuracy, durability, everyday wear, servicing speed and ease, spare parts availability, I will never be convinced that in-house is better than its mass produced and more experienced counterparts that have been in the market for much longer.
The point here is, if outsourcing makes the better watch given the brief/requirements, why switch to in-sourcing? ...
There is another point, that has nothing to do with the technical performance of the movement. As pointed out by others, with luxury goods exclusivity comes into play. The idea that by making something yourself you can put in that little extra, the special care for your own product, the extra finishing, that extra feature that may be futile but shows your endeavour, some kind of heroism if you like, makes all the difference. That costs extra, your own R&D, the smaller volumes. But because of it being luxury goods you can also ask an extra premium that more than offsets these costs. The emotion comes in, people are more than willing to pay for it, pay for the brands name, the reputation. There lies the business case, a very profitable one for everyone concerned. For the individual buyer the question is: do I want to pay for it? Most of us here do so once in a while, the success of IWC and other top brands show this is a great business, if you are prepared to work really hard for it.
Kind regards, Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
Fair point Sunflower, but in the scenario of having to pay higher prices for a greater differentiated product albeit lesser or the same quality as an outsourced product, I would rather go with the latter.
I would also talk about product categories in this instance. If its a 250K valued watch then yes I will most certainly expect exclusivity, but if its just a time and date only piece, then I certainly believe more in the democratisation of such products such that they are within reach of the new and younger adopters.
Take the latest Inges for example, I wholeheartedly agree with hodinkee that the 40mm is the best of them all.
I think you missed my point, Leon. It isn't about exclusivity for me. I don't care if IWC make a million 5001s, for example. I want my watches to be as much of the brand as possible. For me, that means in-house movements. Others will disagree, which is as it should be, but I'm not going to ascribe motives to them. Each of us has our own reasons for feeling as we do about this topic.
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
Hi David, I don't mean to argue or judge anyone for that matter. I am snobbish to a certain extent myself, I shouldn't be, but I am.
I understand that you prefer buying into a brand that makes its own movements, and the last thing you want is to buy a higher priced IWC and then meet another person who has a Sinn or Longines running on the same movement, so by buying only in house movements from IWC, you will have unique ownership of the brand that one can't find with other brands. Am I correct? If that's the case, then isn't that the need for exclusivity and thus a self centred motive?
Hi Leon, First, let me state that I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of snobbery. Most of us have that to one degree or other.
I think we are saying largely the same thing but that a couple of words are getting in the way. To me, "exclusivity" means having something that very few others have. That's not it for me which is why I used the example of a million 5001s.
There is a great appeal in a company creating a very complex product from start to finish, from conception through design and manufacturing. In watchmaking, the term "manufacture" gets thrown around a lot. I admire the true manufactures that make every component in their watches. There are very few of these, of course. I want to wear watches that come as close as possible to that within my means. For me it's not about exclusivity but about the process. When I buy a Grand Complication, that will be about exclusivity. :)
Interesting discussion -- I hope I haven't come across as argumentative.
3,778 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Leon K Wrote:Fair point Sunflower, but in the scenario of having to pay higher prices for a greater differentiated product albeit lesser or the same quality as an outsourced product, I would rather go with the latter.
I would also talk about product categories in this instance. If its a 250K valued watch then yes I will most certainly expect exclusivity, but if its just a time and date only piece, then I certainly believe more in the democratisation of such products such that they are within reach of the new and younger adopters.
Take the latest Inges for example, I wholeheartedly agree with hodinkee that the 40mm is the best of them all.
I'm just not sure what business model IWC wants to pursue. It almost certainly is not high volume sale. As for the 40 mm Inge, it is liked here, but let's wait and see if it sells well. The 3227 only became more or less famous after it was discontinued, the 3228 (also 40 mm and quite a look-alike to that new one) was discontinued very quickly.
To speak for myself, I am very interested in time-only watches of other brands that have an in-house movement. They have essence and soul, and cost around EUR 10.000 to 15.000, even in precious metal. For me it is nice to be exclusive at that price level too. I wouldn't be surprised if in ten years time the Portuguese Automatic or its successor, or the Portuguese Handwound, would be the step-in model for IWC.
Kind regards, Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
Sunflower Wrote:I'm just not sure what business model IWC wants to pursue. It almost certainly is not high volume sale. As for the 40 mm Inge, it is liked here, but let's wait and see if it sells well. The 3227 only became more or less famous after it was discontinued, the 3228 (also 40 mm and quite a look-alike to that new one) was discontinued very quickly.
Not sure I concur. The business model depends on one's definition of "high volumne", and IWC's production is surprisingly large and growing.
On the 40mm Inge, beyond here (a very small corner of the real world) there is the indicator of dealer purchases at SIHH. They were extraordinarily high for that model, especially in Asia.
On the 3227, it actually was quite popular and sold quite well when it was introduced in 2005 and for a few years thereafter. It really wasn't a case of just being "famous" after discontinuance. The 3228 was a special instance involving a limited production; another watch was planned and didn't work out and there were a finite number of cases available.
Years ago, when I moderated another watch forum I sometimes jokingly accused the participants of a "TZ view of the world". I hope that doesn't apply here, although I guess we all see the world only from our perspective. We all should realize that the market may be different than we perceive, and our values --for better or worse-- may not reflect the market.
Leon K Wrote:Differentiation is already achieved through IWC's brand story and heritage. It is already differentiated through its progressive marketing strategies as being a pioneer in the web space and social media.
To feel exclusive and be part of a smaller club or to be more unique than others is in essence a self-centred motive and that's why luxury brands are sticky, they leverage on our need for exclusivity.
Leon, I concur with your second paragraph but --following up on my preceding post here-- not necessarily the first. Differentiation may be sufficient for you based on your values and perception, For other consumers, they may buy something different than brand story or heritage. They may value differentiation only in other ways, be that in-house movements, distinctive designs or materials, limited editions, etc. It's a big world out there, and some values (like history, which means something to me) don't necessarily market as well in this era.
3,778 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
pniev Wrote in reply to:
Michael Friedberg Wrote:Far be it from me to tell anyone how to run their business, but to me the trick would be to replace the entry level segment with a new in-house movement that could be slightly more, but not say almost double in price. That may not be possible, however, without compromising quality.
Coming back to an old discussion: What about a shared production facility for base movements within Richemont with variations per company? I'm still curious if that will ever happen. (Or did I miss a development in recent years?)
I remember reading a few years ago that Roger Dubuis had built some state-of-the-art facilities that they couldn't fully use themselves. These facilities then would be used by other companies too. What happened here?
Kind regards, Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
To feel exclusive and be part of a smaller club or to be more unique than others is in essence a self-centred motive and that's why luxury brands are sticky, they leverage on our need for exclusivity.
There is another point, that has nothing to do with the technical performance of the movement. As pointed out by others, with luxury goods exclusivity comes into play. The idea that by making something yourself you can put in that little extra, the special care for your own product, the extra finishing, that extra feature that may be futile but shows your endeavour, some kind of heroism if you like, makes all the difference. That costs extra, your own R&D, the smaller volumes. But because of it being luxury goods you can also ask an extra premium that more than offsets these costs. The emotion comes in, people are more than willing to pay for it, pay for the brands name, the reputation. There lies the business case, a very profitable one for everyone concerned. For the individual buyer the question is: do I want to pay for it? Most of us here do so once in a while, the success of IWC and other top brands show this is a great business, if you are prepared to work really hard for it.
Kind regards,
Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
I would also talk about product categories in this instance. If its a 250K valued watch then yes I will most certainly expect exclusivity, but if its just a time and date only piece, then I certainly believe more in the democratisation of such products such that they are within reach of the new and younger adopters.
Take the latest Inges for example, I wholeheartedly agree with hodinkee that the 40mm is the best of them all.
Best regards,
David
Last edited: 13 June, 2013 - 05:31
I don't mean to argue or judge anyone for that matter. I am snobbish to a certain extent myself, I shouldn't be, but I am.
I understand that you prefer buying into a brand that makes its own movements, and the last thing you want is to buy a higher priced IWC and then meet another person who has a Sinn or Longines running on the same movement, so by buying only in house movements from IWC, you will have unique ownership of the brand that one can't find with other brands. Am I correct? If that's the case, then isn't that the need for exclusivity and thus a self centred motive?
First, let me state that I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of snobbery. Most of us have that to one degree or other.
I think we are saying largely the same thing but that a couple of words are getting in the way. To me, "exclusivity" means having something that very few others have. That's not it for me which is why I used the example of a million 5001s.
There is a great appeal in a company creating a very complex product from start to finish, from conception through design and manufacturing. In watchmaking, the term "manufacture" gets thrown around a lot. I admire the true manufactures that make every component in their watches. There are very few of these, of course. I want to wear watches that come as close as possible to that within my means. For me it's not about exclusivity but about the process. When I buy a Grand Complication, that will be about exclusivity. :)
Interesting discussion -- I hope I haven't come across as argumentative.
Best regards,
David
Last edited: 13 June, 2013 - 05:31
I'm just not sure what business model IWC wants to pursue. It almost certainly is not high volume sale. As for the 40 mm Inge, it is liked here, but let's wait and see if it sells well. The 3227 only became more or less famous after it was discontinued, the 3228 (also 40 mm and quite a look-alike to that new one) was discontinued very quickly.
To speak for myself, I am very interested in time-only watches of other brands that have an in-house movement. They have essence and soul, and cost around EUR 10.000 to 15.000, even in precious metal. For me it is nice to be exclusive at that price level too. I wouldn't be surprised if in ten years time the Portuguese Automatic or its successor, or the Portuguese Handwound, would be the step-in model for IWC.
Kind regards,
Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
Not sure I concur. The business model depends on one's definition of "high volumne", and IWC's production is surprisingly large and growing.
On the 40mm Inge, beyond here (a very small corner of the real world) there is the indicator of dealer purchases at SIHH. They were extraordinarily high for that model, especially in Asia.
On the 3227, it actually was quite popular and sold quite well when it was introduced in 2005 and for a few years thereafter. It really wasn't a case of just being "famous" after discontinuance. The 3228 was a special instance involving a limited production; another watch was planned and didn't work out and there were a finite number of cases available.
Years ago, when I moderated another watch forum I sometimes jokingly accused the participants of a "TZ view of the world". I hope that doesn't apply here, although I guess we all see the world only from our perspective. We all should realize that the market may be different than we perceive, and our values --for better or worse-- may not reflect the market.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 2 February, 2013 - 13:49
Leon, I concur with your second paragraph but --following up on my preceding post here-- not necessarily the first. Differentiation may be sufficient for you based on your values and perception, For other consumers, they may buy something different than brand story or heritage. They may value differentiation only in other ways, be that in-house movements, distinctive designs or materials, limited editions, etc. It's a big world out there, and some values (like history, which means something to me) don't necessarily market as well in this era.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
I remember reading a few years ago that Roger Dubuis had built some state-of-the-art facilities that they couldn't fully use themselves. These facilities then would be used by other companies too. What happened here?
Kind regards,
Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)