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? ...
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)
Last edited: 22 December, 2013 - 19:48
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.
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.
Last edited: 25 December, 2013 - 16:02
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.
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?)
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.