Cutting off Flippers... Good or Bad?

[77T]

Originally Posted by thomaswentworth

Cutting off those who buy Rolexes from ADs out the back door in order to flip them or buy them for less of a discount in the showroom in order to flip them...

So many questions - one by one - below and a summary at the end.

What would happen if these people no longer existed?

What would we b**ch about then?
Our rituals would undergo massive change.

If they were cut off, would it be good for Rolex?

Rolex makes the same money either way. Better marketing would move them away from building the slow demand models (perhaps put those into a direct online pre-order channel where the customer chooses the fulfillment AD). Then they could focus on improved production rate of the high-demand models. Think like “floorplanning” works in automotive distribution to dealers.

Would it be good for ADs?

No difference IMHO since they sell all the hard to get models one way or the other.

Would it be good for consumers?

It could be - but only if Rolex went through metamorphosis and transition of their supply chain issues to meet demand.

Or would it be bad?

.

Over-control of distribution can be bad.

Could there be a certain segment of the market who would no longer buy the watches?

Yes, those without the wherewithal to “bribe” AD manager via multiple purchases to get on the list for the watch in high demand.

Would waiting lists shrink?

No - in fact there’d be a chance of AD eliminating them since there would be no competing alternative back channel.

Would waiting lists grow?

.

Yes - high demand doesn’t change with channel management as long as supply is low. Again, as long as ADs still kept lists in this new world concept.

So do you think shutting down the flippers would be good for the final end buyers or bad for them?

Well, the recent attempts via new rules around the Daytona500 was an epic fail methinks. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

But considering the ethics of the matter, here’s my take:

It would move the gouging for high-demand models from the flippers to the AD. On balance, in today’s arrangement, anyone with the cash can get one - just pony up the high price. No “VIP” status at an AD is required. It’s the ultimate Golden Rule. Yes, you paid thousands more but you had the gold so you ruled.

Now on the other hand, if no alternative backchannel existed, you would need to spend tens of thousands at an AD over a period of time just to get the VIP status you’d need to get the same watch. And you’d be competing against higher rollers who spent perhaps hundreds of thousands over the years.

So I am a free-market supporter in general - as long as the product meets stringent safety rules.
Can’t have exploding Daytona’s ya know

On balance buyers are better served now methinks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Since I have been a member, ss Daytonas have always been high demand.

This!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RolexNorth]

Originally I thought it bad when there was mention that Rolex would increase the price on their models, but you know what? I'm re-thinking my position on this. If they were to raise the price by 25% I'd be MORE than happy with that.

I want to make it as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who thinks they'll be ok if they buy a SS model for $20,000 by maxing out their credit card thinking they'll be able to flip it for a profit before the first credit card statement comes in and the wife finds out.

I guarantee you that if they do this, you'll see a whole lot more models available in the AD's display case.