Millennials asking questions

[gliderpilot]

Originally Posted by JBoone

I think you answered your own question here. Simple , classy, and elegant is timeless not obsolete.

I feel that good design stands the test of time. If somebody thinks of them as obsolete there is probably no hope for them.

I tend to agree, as a GMT wearer old enough to know how to use a slide rule I find Rolex traditional designs attractive and well manufactured.

Which is why it surprises me that young people can see them as obsolete when it comes to being a tool watch, and not up to PP or AP standards when it comes to being a luxury/art item.

But from the answers I received (THANK YOU ALL for your time, btw.), I realized that the young people I usually socialize with do not represent the typical sample of population, being mostly engineers, scientists, physicists, AI developers, etc.

So my curiosity has been satisfied, I have just been talking to the "wrong" millennials!

Also, I really want to point out that I have nothing but respect for young people today. I don't think it is easy to be growing up surrounded by all the information noise and pressure, and agree that having an inspiring social media profile says much more "I have made it" than a Rolex on the wrist ;-)

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by gliderpilot

Which is why it surprises me that young people can see them as obsolete when it comes to being a tool watch, and not up to PP or AP standards when it comes to being a luxury/art item.

This flips the discussion a bit, at least from the standpoint of the WSJ article mentioned earlier. That was written from the standpoint of how to attract the younger generation to luxury timepieces at all. Your comment suggests that the people you're speaking to are already on board with timepieces by elite brands; they just don't like Rolex.

[gliderpilot]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

This flips the discussion a bit, at least from the standpoint of the WSJ article mentioned earlier. That was written from the standpoint of how to attract the younger generation to luxury timepieces at all. Your comment suggests that the people you're speaking to are already on board with timepieces by elite brands; they just don't like Rolex.

Yes, I shared the opinions of young people that actually understand that a fine mechanical timepiece is an object of passion, not of those who don't care about mechanical watches at all (the majority).

It surprised me to hear that they consider Rolex being in an odd spot in the middle (not a tool and not luxury enough). But I am biased, because I think Rolex actually hits the sweet spot with robust movements and manufacturing quality.

Curious how this plays out. The battery life of smart watches will improve and new features will be added (spectrometry for food/fluid analysis comes to mind) much faster than anything that can realistically happen in the mechanical watch industry.

Wandering what our marketing genius Rolex comes up with to sway enough young people away from the hi-tech ;-)

[Chrislec]

Originally Posted by 5253Reynolds

Get off my lawn, this stupid debate is timeless and applicable to any good/topic.

So true! We could do the exact same series of questions for Omega. Nowadays who would be stupid enough to wear a mechanical manual winding Speedmaster in space??...well some current astronauts actually still do!

In the end, it's all about perception, self satisfaction and pride (+status for Rolex)

[Why1504]

My son in law (35) and my son (30) both moved from wearing their Apple Watch to wearing Breitlings. They were tired of being “so connected all of the time”. Both are from the Entourage generation.

As the economy continues to improve and we get another series that glorifies wealth with millennials the mechanical watch will compete with the smart watches again.

[peacocknation]

I dunno....I’m a millennial and I bought a Rolex and have a second one waiting for me and the 3rd for the millennial fiancé has a deposit down on it. I’m also an engineer (just to add color for my thoughts).

I find the Rolex I wear to largely be symbolic of my achievement. If I wanted something to tell time, I probably wouldn’t buy anything and would just use my cell phone. A watch like this though reminds me of what I acheived and what I’m about - it’s a luxury good and I see it that way. As an engineer I’ve taken to the fact just how precise and well made these watches are. I mean it’s pretty frigging cool.

I think you’ll find more millennial move to luxury watches, jewelry, etc. as their earnings increase. Sure we are the “experience” generation (as I write this from overseas) but at the end of the day this is an expensive item and serves as a status symbol to most. When they have the income, they’ll likely add a fancy or expensive watch to their arm.

[MP5]

Has any generation ever used there generation classification as a identifier? EVER!? Is it officially a pronoun now?

[mobster600]

I do agree with a few points from the OP, not going to explain each one but they are valid questions to raise. let’s see Basel 2018 brings some new and innovative creations!

[GeezyAF]

Originally Posted by bbressler

The term “millennial” is a bit loaded to begin with. I think people who use it pejoratively think of “millennials” as kids, but the folks born in the late 70’s / early 80’s are pushing 40

This.

I'm 25, but here I am with a new Rolex. I still definitely value possessions to mark achievements.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by gliderpilot

Rapidly improving wearable technology competing for wrist real estate (as discussed in "Is Time Running Out for the Swiss Watch Industry" published by WSJ).

But this subject has been beaten to death already ;-)

I was just curious if others had the same experience with millennials, but it seems that the general consensus is that no, and that Rolex is safe, which is awesome :-)

I actually don't have much exposure to millennials. I tend to hang around with people older than me, even though that might seem impossible.

[sparksgmt]

It's hard to apply logic to luxury watches. It doesn't make sense, but that's the point sometimes.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[gliderpilot]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I actually don't have much exposure to millennials. I tend to hang around with people older than me, even though that might seem impossible.

Words of a true old-school honest gentleman... Much respect...

[Ssunnylee24]

Dont feed trolls

[handsfull]

A good response is “if I have to explain it...you wouldn’t understand”

[hambone1983]

Originally Posted by gliderpilot

While talking watches with different demographics, I can’t help but notice the following opinions over and over again, especially from young educated individuals that are less susceptible to any hype:

1) Why does Rolex produce diving watches that can go to depths humans can’t, when all it does is negatively affect everyday wearability

2) Why would you drill an extra hole in the case (HEW), when the few people that actually need one are unlikely to dive with a $10k+ watch

3) Why would you make brightly bi-coloured bezels, when Rolex needs to project elegance and class

4) Why would you continue to produce so called sports and tool watches, when people doing sports wear Apple, Fitbit, Suunto, etc. and don’t want to worry about their watch while doing so (… substitute your own “is it safe” activity…). In addition, a smart watch provides significantly more functionality.

5) Why does Rolex stick to obsolete looking cases, instead of designing with simple, modern, and elegant curves that project class, exclusivity, and art

6) Why doesn’t Rolex provide display casebacks so that people can actually admire and appreciate the artistic value of their mechanical timepiece

I guess the answer to all of the above is history and tradition. I know only a handful of millennials that care enough about these to give Rolex a serious consideration, though.

Curious how rolex is going to address this problem long term, other than boosting exclusivity through unavailability

What would you do if you were Rolex CEO?

The word on the street is that we should prepare to be shocked by Rolex at Basel this year. I sincerely hope so! Let's see something refreshingly new :-)

1. Humans are evolving. A company that takes this into account is winning the next millennium NOW.

2. I think its to increase the value of the loot that can be found at wreck sites in the Spanish main.

3. Silly...if they didn't, what would Invicta base their designs on?

4. Smartwatches are made for dumb people. We don't need a gizmo to tell us what our heart rate is, how many steps we've taken or what the projected square inches of toilet paper we'll consume concluding our next BM.

5. Specifically to offend you.

6. The official Rolex position is that the dial can be removed by the AD for those who really want to see the movement in action.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by gliderpilot

While talking watches with different demographics, I can’t help but notice the following opinions over and over again, especially from young educated individuals that are less susceptible to any hype:

1) Why does Rolex produce diving watches that can go to depths humans can’t, when all it does is negatively affect everyday wearability

2) Why would you drill an extra hole in the case (HEW), when the few people that actually need one are unlikely to dive with a $10k+ watch

3) Why would you make brightly bi-coloured bezels, when Rolex needs to project elegance and class

4) Why would you continue to produce so called sports and tool watches, when people doing sports wear Apple, Fitbit, Suunto, etc. and don’t want to worry about their watch while doing so (… substitute your own “is it safe” activity…). In addition, a smart watch provides significantly more functionality.

5) Why does Rolex stick to obsolete looking cases, instead of designing with simple, modern, and elegant curves that project class, exclusivity, and art

6) Why doesn’t Rolex provide display casebacks so that people can actually admire and appreciate the artistic value of their mechanical timepiece

I guess the answer to all of the above is history and tradition. I know only a handful of millennials that care enough about these to give Rolex a serious consideration, though.

Curious how rolex is going to address this problem long term, other than boosting exclusivity through unavailability

What would you do if you were Rolex CEO?

The word on the street is that we should prepare to be shocked by Rolex at Basel this year. I sincerely hope so! Let's see something refreshingly new :-)

You're just postulating here, right? This didn't happen, did it?

Can't imagine you got to question 2 without leaving the room or hitting someone.

[gliderpilot]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

You're just postulating here, right? This didn't happen, did it?

Can't imagine you got to question 2 without leaving the room or hitting someone.

I am actually a patient person, so no, no-one got hurt in the process of expressing their opinions

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by gliderpilot

I am actually a patient person, so no, no-one got hurt in the process of expressing their opinions

I'd have hit them with avocados.

[gliderpilot]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

I'd have hit them with avocados.

Interesting fruit choice, all I could come up was a blank stare (and a controversial TRF post to clarify my thoughts).

Judging from some of the responses, your solution would have been more straight forward

[Verdi]

Millennials usually find the answers themselves on line.

Millennials (probably) see more fun in an apple watch. (not a watch).


PS: OP, start with getting to know watches in general and later on get to Rolex.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by gliderpilot

While talking watches with different demographics, I can’t help but notice the following opinions over and over again, especially from young educated individuals that are less susceptible to any hype:

1) Why does Rolex produce diving watches that can go to depths humans can’t, when all it does is negatively affect everyday wearability

2) Why would you drill an extra hole in the case (HEW), when the few people that actually need one are unlikely to dive with a $10k+ watch

3) Why would you make brightly bi-coloured bezels, when Rolex needs to project elegance and class

4) Why would you continue to produce so called sports and tool watches, when people doing sports wear Apple, Fitbit, Suunto, etc. and don’t want to worry about their watch while doing so (… substitute your own “is it safe” activity…). In addition, a smart watch provides significantly more functionality.

5) Why does Rolex stick to obsolete looking cases, instead of designing with simple, modern, and elegant curves that project class, exclusivity, and art

6) Why doesn’t Rolex provide display casebacks so that people can actually admire and appreciate the artistic value of their mechanical timepiece

I guess the answer to all of the above is history and tradition. I know only a handful of millennials that care enough about these to give Rolex a serious consideration, though.

Curious how rolex is going to address this problem long term, other than boosting exclusivity through unavailability

What would you do if you were Rolex CEO?

The word on the street is that we should prepare to be shocked by Rolex at Basel this year. I sincerely hope so! Let's see something refreshingly new :-)

You are young and smart.

What is a hew?

Should I listen to someone who can only go where the wind blows them?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by ras47

1. Over-engineering is good. When you dive into the water from even a 3 foot diving board, the water pressure on impact with the water's surface jumps to the same pressure you'd experience at 200m. It only lasts for a second, but that's enough for water to get inside. Most folks wear their diving watches as everyday timepieces so you never know when a situation arises that will find you in the water. Siht happens.

2. Serious divers do indeed use expensive watches for diving. They don't call them "tool watches" for nothing.

3. Why not make both colored bezels and traditional bezels? Serve more of the market. And as some have said already, the colored bezels are useful on the GMTs.

4. Rolex's sales numbers and demand for many models suggests the time of the mechanical watch is not yet over. I have an Apple Watch, and while I thought it was all "Wowee!" at first, I've come to feel that it sucks. I use a Fitbit for fitness tracking. It wasn't until the latest version of the Apple Watch that it did everything without having your iPhone with it. And daily charging?? Yeah, no thanks.

5. Obsolete cases, or classic/traditional cases? Potato/potaaato. Again, demand for Rolex watches tells us there is still a desire for this type of watch.

6. Display casebacks suck. Not as strong as all-metal, and you can only see the display when you're not wearing the watch. Take the watch off, look at the display back while turning the watch, say "huh", and then put the watch on. Also, many of these display casebacks add a couple millimeters to the thickness of the watch. Makes a big difference in overall wearability. I have one on my co-axial Speedmaster and I hate it. It's the only thing I hate about my Speedy, and I'm constantly looking for an all-metal replacement back.

I only had to read your first point to realise there is way too much misinformation on this thread.

200 meters effective depth from a 3 metre dive.
Gee, when I dive from the 10 meter platform I am glad that my ears can resist a 700 meter depth rating.

[longimanus88]

Originally Posted by ras47

1. Over-engineering is good. When you dive into the water from even a 3 foot diving board, the water pressure on impact with the water's surface jumps to the same pressure you'd experience at 200m. It only lasts for a second, but that's enough for water to get inside. Most folks wear their diving watches as everyday timepieces so you never know when a situation arises that will find you in the water. Siht happens.

2. Serious divers do indeed use expensive watches for diving. They don't call them "tool watches" for nothing.

Without jumping into the debate about millennial, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with these assumptions.

First, the concept of "dynamic" pressure has been extensively debated on French forums, and the consensus is now that it's more a myth than anything else. Without going into details, just look at camera underwater housings or to diving lamps...none of these has the same depth rating (most camera housings are max 50m for example), even though they still get the shock when you jump...I don't know if I can post links to another forum, but I will if it's allowed and if you're interested (and can read French).

Secondly, I started diving 20 years ago. I learned it the old way (also cos I liked it), i.e. with a timer, a mechanical gauge and US Navy decompression table. That being said, nobody uses its watch for diving purpose only today. It's an accessory. And it's someone who loves watches and mechanical stuffs who says it. We all have diving computers (computer with "s", cos "serious" divers have two of them, we use the second computer as a backup system).
That being said, I always carry my decompression tables, an electronic backup gauge (which is both a chrono and a gauge) and my G-shock (which I don't wear on my wrist but just attach to my jacket...I wouldn't do that with a Rolex, would prefer to put it on my wrist).
I have had the privilege to dive in lots of different places abroad, and it's true that people abroad tend to wear a watch more often, simply because water temperature allows it. I can tell you one thing: when you dive in Europe in cold water in winter, the bracelet extension might not be long enough to put the watch over your big diving suit...I would love to dive in exotic water where I would wear my watch for sure, but this is not easily done in dark/cold Belgian/British/German lakes.
Another point is that "serious" divers don't all have 10k to put in a watch. So if they have a watch, it wouldn't necessarily be an "expensive" one like you said. Diving gathers people from very different horizons, and if they had to wear a watch, they wouldn't wear a Rolex, but more a Citizen or a Seiko. That being said, I know quite a few divers who wear their Rolex...at the bar after the dive!

Cheers

[longimanus88]

Originally Posted by directioneng

i only had to read your first point to realise there is way too much misinformation on this thread.

200 meters effective depth from a 3 metre dive.
Gee, when i dive from the 10 meter platform i am glad that my ears can resist a 700 meter depth rating.

+ 1

[returntorolex]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

No one is being forced to buy a Rolex. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Simple.

Makes sense to me.....

[Raza_actual]

Hmm. I'm a millennial (early transitional millennial, but still), and I know lots of millennials, and the only questions I ever get about Rolex or watches are as follows:

(1) They cost how much!? (this happens with any watch over $500)
(2) Why would you wear a watch when your phone shows the time?
(3) Can you give me advice on what watch to buy? I have $X budget.

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I actually have asked some of these questions myself, and I'm an old fart. Regarding questions 1 and 2, I fully agree. The outer limits of saturation diving are 2,000 feet, so the 4k-foot WR of the regular Sea-Dweller already covers what anyone could possibly need; the 12k+ WR of the DSSD is overkill by any objective measure. And only saturation divers need the HEV. In all my years on watch forums, I only ever saw one such diver post, and he claimed he doesn't even wear a watch on the job.

As for Q4, I never wear my Rolex during sporting activities; for those, I wear a G-Shock or an Ironman. But I do wear a sports model Rolex for daily use (a SubC Date) because it is the perfect blend of form and function for my needs, notwithstanding the fact I will never put its WR to use.

As for the rest, the young 'uns just don't get it.

Q3: function.

Q5: crazy talk.

Q6: display backs are overrated.

I used to really like display backs, but now I don't care for them. I have one watch with a display back and I barely ever wear it. I think metal backs are more comfortable to wear. Now, if we're talking about a dress watch with a finely finished movement, I could see the argument. But for a sports watch, why bother? It results in a thicker case that is potentially more compromised.

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by Coop13

I was born in 1984 making me technically a millennial, though I'm proud to say that because of my upbringing people don't consider me "millennial minded". Not everyone is going to like Rolex which is fine with me.
I tend to like things that will last, the digital age we live in is convenient but it certainly has drawbacks, and I don't wear a smart watch or a pedometer... NO THANKS!

I value the mechanical options, apparently my brother does too (laying ins his GTO in the background).

Be proud of being a millennial. I am basically the same age as you--in my career I worked 50 to 80 hour weeks for a large corporation that didn't appreciate or care about me and I was surrounded by millennials who put in similar time. I then quit that job and went to law school, where I worked even harder, longer hours, and was surrounded by millennials who did the same. I've got gray hairs on my head and in my beard from the stress of the late nights. I'm not complaining, mind you. i'm just stating facts. And millennials do all this while society tells them that they're ruining everything, they're starting their work life with six digit student debt because of college costs that are spiraling out of control so they can get a job that pays $40-60,000 for the first few years of their career.



Own that you're a millennial. In my experience, this "lazy, entitled millennial" is largely a negative stereotype that is a natural extension of the generational cycle--every generation thinks the generation that came after is destroying the world. I'm sure there are lazy, entitled millennials out there. But I know I'm not one of them and I doubt you're one of them. Show those from generations before us who would assign negative characteristics to an entire generation of people based on stereotypes they've seen on commercials that they're wrong about us, not by saying you're "not really a millennial" (which I used to do too, if I'm honest), but by being better, harder working, more tolerant, and more open minded than they are.

[prozac51]

Ah kids. They can keep ignoring Rolex and work hard. Then one fine day they finally 'get it' but have to fork out 2-3x the price of today's watches. True story.

Sent from my HTC_2Q4D100 using Tapatalk

[newbee1]

Well Since I'm in between generationX and millennials (82 born), I think me and most of the people/friends of my age group have an immense amount of respect for Rolex in terms of tradition and style. The moment I could, I bought a Rolex and extremely happy with it. I believe these watches are mechanical wonders and are meant to stay than fade away like smart watches. Smart watches are a trend while Rolex are serious watches and I personally don't have any complaints regarding the direction they're heading. If I could afford, I'll buy more Rolex as they actually make me smile everytime I look at my wrist :)

Anyway, everyone has their own opinion and they do/buy things whatever makes them happy.