How are AD's making any money if there are no watches to sell?

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Is the SS Daytona supply limited because Rolex is restricting its distribution or is it because they can't make enough to meet demand?

It's been "difficult" to get through an AD for many years now....including the previous metal bezel...

So Rolex has just NEVER been able to make enough SS Daytona to meet demand?

There always seemed to be plenty of PM Daytonas around...I wonder why?

There's a difference between the artificial/intentonal restriction of supply (as you are suggesting) and simply deciding on a production volume and sticking to it (for whatever reason)

Daytona supply historically has had very little impact on the desirability or otherwise of other Rolex references.

And you'll most likely find there are more PM Daytonas around because they sell less than are manufactured.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Devildog

There's a difference between the artificial/intentonal restriction of supply (as you are suggesting) and simply deciding on a production volume and sticking to it (for whatever reason)

Daytona supply historically has had very little impact on the desirability or otherwise of other Rolex references.

And you'll most likely find there are more PM Daytonas around because they sell less than are manufactured.

Historically it was generally accepted within the Rolex community (going back to TZ 15yrs ago..etc) that Rolex intentionally limited the distribution of the SS Daytona because they wanted to sell more PM versions of the reference among other reasons. Why sell a $6600.00 Daytona instead of a $XX,XXX Daytona?

So, the precedent for Rolex limiting distribution of that reference had been set and accepted for years and years...Even with the DSJC it was accepted that they were distributing less than the normal DSSD..

But now that is NOT the case at all. None of that happened and it is completely inconceivable that Rolex would limit distribution of reference(s)?

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Here's the thing. At least I was able to provide something.

Yes, it was UK based. But it backs up everything I've been told by a) the owner of an AD chain and b) Rolex reps themselves.

Global sales are on the increase. That much is fact also.

Its not hard to understand that dividing 1,000 particular steel sports models between more distributors is going to result in less at certain distributors than previously.

There is zero evidence that Rolex is withholding supply and or limiting distribution.

The only thing you've presented is speculation.

And you're suggesting my stance is myopic?

Perhaps that tinfoil hat of yours has been a little on the tight side

They have done it before, but as I mentioned in the post above, apparently that is no longer canon...

[seabreeze60]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

They have done it before, but as I mentioned in the post above, apparently that is no longer canon...

Fleetlord makes a good point. Here’s my example. When I was at Toyota USA in the production planning department all the dealers wanted Corollas. They were cheap and demand skyrocketed. Toyota Japan wanted to limit production of Corolla for more expensive models. Dealers, who are independent, were forced to take what Toyota shipped. Consumers were put on waiting lists. Dealers had to push the higher end products which Toyota made more margin.

If I understand Fleetlord, that is what Rolex is doing.

[037]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Historically it was generally accepted within the Rolex community (going back to TZ 15yrs ago..etc) that Rolex intentionally limited the distribution of the SS Daytona because they wanted to sell more PM versions of the reference among other reasons. Why sell a $6600.00 Daytona instead of a $XX,XXX Daytona?

So, the precedent for Rolex limiting distribution of that reference had been set and accepted for years and years...Even with the DSJC it was accepted that they were distributing less than the normal DSSD..

But now that is NOT the case at all. None of that happened and it is completely inconceivable that Rolex would limit distribution of reference(s)?

The only known known about the stainless Daytona is that ADs only receive X number per year per location and sell them to customers of their choosing. If forum members want to speculate anything else, that only sets a precedent for speculation and doesn't make a fact out of said speculation. It's still speculation no matter how many times it gets repeated.

The stainless Daytona was also easy to get when the economy tanked. I passed it up twice myself. Many bought them below MSRP. The difference now is the economy is up and more people have money for a stainless Daytona or PM reference like the Sky-D, DD40, etc.

It's not inconceivable that Rolex would limit distribution of specific references. However, your claims have been consistent in speculating that ALL stainless watches have been limited. But, we see no hard evidence of that. What we do see is watches going straight from the safe into buyers' hands while bypassing the display case.

Much of what you've said otherwise has been logical and provable. But, the "limited distribution" claim is speculation without evidence.

No one is saying it isn't possible but the anecdotal evidence thus far points in the complete opposite direction.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Historically it was generally accepted within the Rolex community (going back to TZ 15yrs ago..etc) that Rolex intentionally limited the distribution of the SS Daytona because they wanted to sell more PM versions of the reference among other reasons. Why sell a $6600.00 Daytona instead of a $XX,XXX Daytona?

So, the precedent for Rolex limiting distribution of that reference had been set and accepted for years and years...Even with the DSJC it was accepted that they were distributing less than the normal DSSD..

But now that is NOT the case at all. None of that happened and it is completely inconceivable that Rolex would limit distribution of reference(s)?

Again, however, general acceptance.

There’s no doubt Rolex made less steel Daytona’s than they could sell (eventually, even the Zenith Daytonas were slow sellers to begin with)

But the reasons for doing it always have been pure speculation. Especially the “so they could sell more PM Daytonas” assumption.

And of that was true, you’re telling me they’ve just decided to apply that thought process to every single sports reference?

Give me some facts and less speculation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[037]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

If I understand Fleetlord, that is what Rolex is doing.

That might be what Rolex is doing with some models. Saying it like it's a known fact across the board with all stainless references is disingenuous. It's speculation and not a fact.

The original question in this thread is how are ADs making any money without watches to sell, yet the evidence shown thus far is that more watches are selling -- stainless included. Perception is what has changed, not inventory flow. Most ADs are doing just fine.

[Fort Rolex]

Originally Posted by willbangor

Sold them all to greys so they've made their money and got rid of a load of date just crap to boot.

This exactly

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

Fleetlord makes a good point. Here’s my example. When I was at Toyota USA in the production planning department all the dealers wanted Corollas. They were cheap and demand skyrocketed. Toyota Japan wanted to limit production of Corolla for more expensive models. Dealers, who are independent, were forced to take what Toyota shipped. Consumers were put on waiting lists. Dealers had to push the higher end products which Toyota made more margin.

If I understand Fleetlord, that is what Rolex is doing.

It's a bingo

I too have been involved with this marketing strategy at a company I used to work for.

Limit distribution of the less expensive product, merchandise it out of sight / out of mind = increased sales of higher margin product. Worked like a dream.

There is a bit more to it with Rolex considering the luxury market buyer wants, controlling grey market pricing..etc, but the gist is the same...

[seabreeze60]

Originally Posted by 037

That might be what Rolex is doing with some models. Saying it like it's a known fact across the board with all stainless references is disingenuous. It's speculation and not a fact.

The original question in this thread is how are ADs making any money without watches to sell, yet the evidence shown thus far is that more watches are selling -- stainless included. Perception is what has changed, not inventory flow. Most ADs are doing just fine.

I was quoting Toyota, not Rolex. Toyota is fact. In Graduate Business School you learn by case analysis. History repeats. I stand corrected if I implied all Rolex SS!

As to your second point. ADs are making money in my opinion, not fact. However their showrooms look horrendous being 50% empty. Bad merchandising. They need to clean up their act.

Rolex has Regional Managers in charge in their dealer network. Fact. If I was in charge I would give them marching orders to get the dealers back looking like class acts.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Here's the thing. At least I was able to provide something.

Yes, it was UK based. But it backs up everything I've been told by a) the owner of an AD chain and b) Rolex reps themselves.

Global sales are on the increase. That much is fact also.

Its not hard to understand that dividing 1,000 particular steel sports models between more distributors is going to result in less at certain distributors than previously.

There is zero evidence that Rolex is withholding supply and or limiting distribution.

The only thing you've presented is speculation.

And you're suggesting my stance is myopic?

Perhaps that tinfoil hat of yours has been a little on the tight side

+1 to this.

If I were a betting man, I would use all the information I can gather (audited UK sales figures, empty shelves across the globe including my AD, and conversation with my AD) to bet on a surge in global demand, instead of Rolex artificially limiting the distribution of sports pieces.

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

The other guys limit distribution it so why wouldn't ROLEX?

The luxury market is clear as can be on this.

Limiting distribution drives sales. Patek, AP, ROLEX...all off the charts in popularity.

Brands that overproduce and over distribute are in the gutter. Buybacks...brand erosion. Nasty stuff...

Luxury car makers BMW, Mercedes, Audi and luxury smart phone manufacturers Apple and Samsung do not limit distribution of their products, but their sales soar or remain high over the years nonetheless. These companies are only limited by their production capacities.

Fundamentally, people buy these luxury products not because they are limited or hard-to-get, but because they are good (good is defined differently for each product of course). This applies similarly to Rolex. Rolex manufactures good quality watches and people want them, simple as that.

There are also a myriad of other factors why sales increase for a luxury brand. Chiefly, I could think of economic boom over the past few years as I relate that to better job security and a higher disposable income available for luxury products. Quality, reliability, pricing and marketing also come to mind.

With that, I disagree to your statement that luxury products have to be artificially limited to drive sales. It does not have to be this way.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

Luxury car makers BMW, Mercedes, Audi and luxury smart phone manufacturers Apple and Samsung do not limit distribution of their products, but their sales soar or remain high over the years nonetheless. These companies are only limited by their production capacities.

Fundamentally, people buy these luxury products not because they are limited or hard-to-get, but because they are good (good is defined differently for each product of course). This applies similarly to Rolex. Rolex manufactures good quality watches and people want them, simple as that.

There are also a myriad of other factors why sales increase for a luxury brand. Chiefly, I could think of economic boom over the past few years as I relate that to better job security and a higher disposable income available for luxury products. Quality, reliability, pricing and marketing also come to mind.

With that, I disagree to your statement that luxury products have to be artificially limited to drive sales. It does not have to be this way.

First of all Apple and Samsung are not remotely close to luxury goods. They are reliable, quality consumer goods, but they are not luxury...

Second of all, you and everybody else that brings up the economic BOOM is right. There is an economic boom that allows more people access to luxury goods. That's why EXCLUSIVITY is needed, because ubiquity is NOT luxury. In the modern luxury segment, Ubiquity is BORING and UNDESIRABLE. It might have been ok 25years ago, but with social media and whatever else the beautiful people are using to broadcast their luxurious tastes to the commoners, Ubiquity is the enemy of the cool.

I'm not just making all this stuff up to drive some members of this forum bonkers..

https://www.underscore.co.uk/insight...f-exclusivity/

"What these latest trends demonstrate is that while luxury and exclusivity are indelibly linked as concepts in the minds of consumers, major luxury brands need to ensure they continue to offer genuine exclusivity to maintain their luxury positions".

Why is this such a struggle?

Luxury goods don't gain market position in the segment by increasing availability.

Rolex is a luxury good. They don't REALLY want to be what many of us on here wish they still were...simply a reliable wrist watch to go diving and mountain climbing with...That nostalgic notion might be what 3/4 of this forum is clinging to and some of their advertising continues to narrate.... but guess who truly isn't interested in that? Rolex themselves...and their opinion counts much more...

Not keeping up with marketing trends in the segment is a big mistake..

Richemont LOST ground because they had too many watches on the market and had to buy them back because they would have ruined the integrity of the brand(s)...

Panerai was a market leader when they practiced limited distribution, now?

They have XXXXX models and make more of them...other than hardocore 'ristis, who is lusting after Panerai and squabbling over the brand on the internet?

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

First of all Apple and Samsung are not remotely close to luxury goods. They are reliable, quality consumer goods, but they are not luxury...

Luxury goods don't gain market position in the segment by increasing availability. They just don't.

With your reply, you agreed that BMW, Mercedes and Audi are luxury brands.

And these 3 companies do not restrict availability in any ways. You can go to their dealerships and order 1,000 760i, 1,000 S500 and 1,000 A8 any time.

How does that affect their sales and market position in the car industry? They are selling their cars like hot cakes.

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Rolex is a luxury good. They don't REALLY want to be what many of us on here wish they still were...simply a reliable wrist watch to go diving and mountain climbing with...That nostalgic notion might be what 3/4 of this forum is clinging to and some of their advertising continues to narrate.... but guess who truly isn't interested in that? Rolex themselves...and their opinion counts much more...

Where did you get that? Mind quoting source? As another member has previously said - more facts and less speculation please.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

With your reply, you agreed that BMW, Mercedes and Audi are luxury brands.

And these 3 companies do not restrict availability in any ways. You can go to their dealerships and order 1,000 760i, 1,000 S500 and 1,000 A8 any time.

How does that affect their sales and market position in the car industry? They are selling their cars like hot cakes.



Where did you get that? Mind quoting source? As another member has previously said - more facts and less speculation please.

Oh, oops....I overlooked those brands. Not really luxury either. Mercedes makes delivery trucks and "smart" cars that are just basic transportation... EWW.

They sell a lot of cars because of inexpensive lease deals that have democratized the "luxury" car. If you went with Ferrari, I would have agreed with you.

So you don't think ROLEX is a luxury brand and doesn't see themselves as a luxury brand?

I think the current behavior of Rolex closing AD doors (in an up market!) across the world perhaps in an effort to further control and limit distribution, means something... Numerous reports of that. You would think they would be opening AD doors all over the place....why aren't they?

If you are looking for a leaked internal document from Rolex stating their marketing strategy to change your mind, good luck. Nobody will have that.

If you want to think that all this is just happening organically, fine by me...

I guess we are just bickering at this point...

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Oh, oops....I overlooked those brands. Not really luxury either. Mercedes makes delivery trucks and "smart" cars that are just basic transportation... EWW.

They sell a lot of cars because of inexpensive lease deals that have democratized the "luxury" car. If you went with Ferrari, I would have agreed with you.

So you don't think ROLEX is a luxury brand and doesn't see themselves as a luxury brand?

I think the current behavior of Rolex closing AD doors (in an up market!) across the world perhaps in an effort to further control and limit distribution, means something... Numerous reports of that. You would think they would be opening AD doors all over the place....why aren't they?

Are you suggesting Rolex is the Ferrari of watches?

Many ADs, and even greys, are offering credit/financing/installments on Rolex too

I do not have anything else to add.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

Are you suggesting Rolex is the Ferrari of watches?

Many ADs, and even greys, are offering credit/financing/installments on Rolex too

I do not have anything else to add.

I think Rolex sees their brand as stronger than Ferrari....why wouldn't they?

They aren't the only ones who feel that way:

https://www.rankingthebrands.com/The...=248&year=1206

Rolex isn't subsidizing the financing of their watches in any way whatsoever. The authorized dealers themselves pay the buy down rates from the consumer finance companies that they use. I guess you didn't understand that is how it works? (insert a funny or goofy emoji here)..

I believe that BMW, Mercedes and Audi all have corporate subsidized financing and lease deals to allow for easier entry into their respective brands. Luxury for the masses! Is that truly luxury?

I'm sure there is something else you would like to add, so by all means..

[Andad]

Closed.

[michael.michael]

Originally Posted by vtsnowplow

How are AD's making any money if there are no watches to sell?

No Rolex SS, No Tudor, No Patek SS, AP models are tough to find.

These AD's must really be seeing a downturn in business if there is no inventory to be had.

No watches to sell means they are selling like crazy. In my ad, there is no ss model sitting around for more than 2 days. Most of the time, the watches are already sold even before they showed up.