Quote:
Originally Posted by L_S_SHOE
In theory, everything you said makes perfect sense. But I agree with others; the pendulum has swung too far. If Patek and Rolex and others don’t want to sell their products to just anyone who can afford them, then they should stop pretending that they do. They should stop advertising, they should make visits to the AD by appointment only, and they should make the right to purchase by invitation only (which they kind of already do but they do it in a haphazard closeted way). They should publicly state these rules so they’re crystal clear. I say then, that they should embrace the exclusivity of their product and stop selling to the masses. Let the masses buy Tudor instead.
(I’m saying all this tongue-in-cheek; I don’t don’t want them to stop selling to the masses. I just want to be able to walk into my AD and walk out with the watch I want and I find all the BS to be more trouble than it’s worth.)
There’s nothing honest about this business.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
You have my vote.
To be completely fair, bundling Patek and Rolex in the same argument is a bit unfair to Patek. Patek is traditionally not one of the biggest spenders in marketing and advertising dollars spent in the watch industry. Furthermore, I don't believe that Patek engages in product placements or celebrity and/or athlete endorsements. Patek relies on its pedigree and exclusivity to drive demand.
Advertising isn't designed to sell, advertising is designed to create a perpetual emotional desire to buy. That's a very subtle, but important, distinction. Selling is a one time ephemeral, transactional activity but advertising alters public consciousness to create a value hierarchy and an artificial and enduring need associated with that hierarchy. These are two distinct activities.
The problem is that the total aggregate emotional desire to buy far exceeds the amount of product manufactured at a level of the hierarchy associated with high earners. At this level of the consumption hierarchy consumers are very conscious and sensitive of their position in the hierarchy.
So, what is a company to do when evaluating the ramifications to all possible solutions. I'm sure no private boutique or independent AD wants to sit there with empty showcases when they have monthly expenses that are indifferent to the current levels of inventory. It costs as much for a store to have empty shelves as it does to have a backroom filled with stock. I could be wrong but I firmly believe that the Pareto principle (Pareto states 80/20 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more like 5% to 10% of a retailer's customers drive 90% ot 95% of a retailer's revenue) drives the sales policy that retailers employ. It simply makes more sense to take care of your repeat, high dollar, high volume customers first. They're the one's who are in it for more than a watch, they're the ones who accessorize and shell out for costly service. IMO, the one-time or first-time watch buyer should expect to be prioritized behind the frequent buyer as unsatisfying as that may seem.
I really do like the scenario you've painted - there are watches I want right now but I accept that I must wait until my number is called; knowing full well that my number may never be called. Whether I get the call or not, I simply refuse to believe that there is malicious intent at play. No one intentionally wants to deprive me of any watch I want so that they can sell it to someone higher in the food chain. This is simply how the market works and it is indifferent to whether I like it or not. But let's face it, if we could all just walk in and buy what we want, it's entirely possible that we wouldn't want it as much as we do.