Patek purchase history policy

[mineral]

Did the lady offer you at the MSRP at the first place? If yes I think you have missed the great opportunity to buy these popular models especially the 5167.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ichiran]

Flying to Vietnam now to buy that 5712G and a Calatrava!

[benzng]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

Flying to Vietnam now to buy that 5712G and a Calatrava!

I am on my way there now

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by benzng

I am on my way there now

I have the APEC Business Travel Card, and need not queue at the custom. That few extra minutes are crucial. Sorry bro.

[L_S_SHOE]

Originally Posted by thase13

For Veblen goods, FCFS is not the better option for everyone involved. Most retailers of Veblen goods understand that their sales closely mirror a Pareto distribution or, 80% of their sales revenue is generated by 20% of their customers (it probably scales even thinner than this).



Consequently, for these retailers, it simply makes more sense to create store programs and policies that facilitate sustainable traffic from that special class of repeat customer. It's not personal, it's business.

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

[thase13]

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.

[S``]

Originally Posted by GluryOl

It wast even 2 years ago that nobody wanted the bracelet...everyone asking whether rubber strap would fit....we are a fickle bunch

The premise of instant Cash $$ would turn any turd into gold

[MinhPham]

[QUOTE=sgwatchguy;10378046]Bear with me on the long read.

I was in Vietnam and late evening I walked into the Patek showroom attached to my hotel. To my surprise I see a 5712g and a 5167 in the showcase which the the lady SA confirms are available for sale ie not reserved for a buyer.

I check prices, made a couple of phone calls home and to a friend who can tell me more about this model and am getting around to rationalizing the decision to purchase the 5712. The SA patiently goes through the process and the forms to be filled up for the tax refund claim at the airport. I have the information I think I need, numbers worked out converting from the local currency to mine and checking MSRP in Singapore, tax return amounts, exchanged messages with my pal in Singapore who’s checked with his AD contacts and been advised the waiting period for this model is very very long and I should pull the trigger if I like the watch. I give all the information to the SA for the tax refund forms she can fill up while I’m speaking to my wife.

My wife has always said yes whenever I’ve spoken about a watch I wanted to buy. This isn’t one of those times and she convinces me to sleep over it - it is a lot of money and while I’ve been actively trying to look for PP models I had never thought of actually being in this situation and needing to make a decision. So I agreed and since we are past closing time now, the SA understands the situation and assures me they will hold the piece for me as long as I walk in at opening time and conclude the purchase.

After thinking through it the prior night - and deciding which of my pieces I would let go to make way for the 5712 - I am there the next morning right at opening time and in the door the moment they unlock it. Only now there’s another guy there who’s the manager for this location and who’s telling me I can’t have the 5712 because he’s holding it for existing customers since Patek has a strict prior purchase history policy. No amount of questioning or disputing that works. He then gets around to me consider buying a basic Calatrava with the 5712 or any of the ladies watches there - but not the 5167. The lady SA apologizes saying she’s new and doesn’t know all PP policies. Long story short, after a frustrating exchange at the store, I leave.

I like the 5712, and while I would prefer to get my first nautilus in a steel bracelet, getting the same watch in WG leather bracelet wasn’t a deal killer for me - no intentions to flip the watch but at the same time an assurance that I probably won’t lose money or not too much if I didn’t like the leather bracelet experience.

I’ve been reading up and while my friend says he’s not surprised on how it turned out, and he’s been told of this before- I can’t see anywhere that this is official Patek policy. Or is it?

Hoping to get some answers here.








I’m vietnamese and I did have purchase history with the AD you mentioned. Hornestly I have never seen any sport model that in show case, because they keep it well or local buyers will take immediately. Would you tell me the exact time when you were in? A bit strange situation
Best regards,
Minh

[Pateks]

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

Every watch you could possibly want is a available via grey market. If you don’t want to pay a premium, find another brand that looks similar as they all copy each other.

But the fact you want a Patek tells me their advertising is working - their brand management is working. They don’t need to change a thing.

[AshAP]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

I have the APEC Business Travel Card, and need not queue at the custom. That few extra minutes are crucial. Sorry bro.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[benlee]

Not cool of the AD to go back on their words but then, the OP isn't a local so perhaps they don't see the risk of offending a walk-in client that they will probably not see again.

[edyu]

Originally Posted by sgwatchguy

My wife has always said yes whenever I’ve spoken about a watch I wanted to buy. This isn’t one of those times and she convinces me to sleep over it - it is a lot of money and while

TBH, I think it might be a blessing in disguise. Sounded like your wife didn't approve and the fact your wife said "it is a lot of money" probably better that you didn't spend the money.

[emtee]

Should have just bought it there and then along with the 5167. Could have flipped them for a decent profit if you didn’t want to keep them. Live and learn I guess...

[italiafan]

Originally Posted by thase13

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.

Well said, and I agree. Same in the world of Ferrari.
I spend a lot and also participate in dealer and Ferrari events (expensive racing school, etc.)....and if some first-timer were to be able to walk into the dealer and buy a desirable car while I was away on vacation (taking my allocation) I’d be furious...as would all frequent fliers.
FCFS at this end of the retail spectrum is simply idiotic.

[Pateks]

Originally Posted by italiafan

Well said, and I agree. Same in the world of Ferrari.
I spend a lot and also participate in dealer and Ferrari events (expensive racing school, etc.)....and if some first-timer were to be able to walk into the dealer and buy a desirable car while I was away on vacation (taking my allocation) I’d be furious...as would all frequent fliers.
FCFS at this end of the retail spectrum is simply idiotic.

Ferrari is decent from a car buying experience. Porsche on the other hand....worst group of dealers ever. Talk about bad shopping experience.

[The Argonaut]

And that's the issue here. I don't think anyone would dispute that regular customers are largely keeping the AD's afloat, and thus deserve priority treatment ahead of walk-ins. The problem now is that because of the demand bubble, only the regular customers can even get the SS PP watches (curiously, this says a lot about what most of those buyers consider the important PP pieces. PP doesn't consider the SS pieces to be their foundation.). It's the same with Rolex, except Rolex are not high end watches--high quality, yes; but not high end. Until something changes the drive to acquire these pieces, which I believe is massively driven by social media and the desire to advertize status and success, the grey prices will remain.

However, there may be clouds breaking. There are lots of SS Naut and Aqua pieces with the greys and they don't seem to be moving. Look at the Daytonas: the 116500 is already down to just over $20k from mid $25k (the Pandas have come down too to mid $20s from nearly $30k, but are still grossly inflated); blue Skydwellers have come down to just over $20k from $25k (the white and black dial range from $16-19k and getting ever closer to MSRP.). All these watches are still in production and prices will continue to drop. The question is by how much and when, and what external events will change the conduct of buyers. As the reasons to acquire these pieces are superficial for many, I think the worm can turn easily. It will. It just might be another year or two.

[sgwatchguy]

Thanks all.

My disappointment stemmed from being told the piece was mine, and then seeing that being reneged on the next morning - with a ‘policy’ being cited as grounds. Last prospect out of the door night before and the first prospect walking in the next morning. Margin of error was low, but in hindsight not zero.

I have no regrets on my own actions- this wasn’t a first choice model and would’ve been my first PP, so cooling off was the right thing to do.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thase13]

Originally Posted by sgwatchguy

Thanks all.

My disappointment stemmed from being told the piece was mine, and then seeing that being reneged on the next morning - with a ‘policy’ being cited as grounds. Last prospect out of the door night before and the first prospect walking in the next morning. Margin of error was low, but in hindsight not zero.

I have no regrets on my own actions- this wasn’t a first choice model and would’ve been my first PP, so cooling off was the right thing to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good for you! Bravo on your attitude and perspective. I'm sure there will be other opportunities for you to get the watch you really want.

[sgwatchguy]

Originally Posted by WatchLurv

Normally for the VN Patek dealers they ONLY sell to locals.

May well be the case for the more desirable models ie with prior history as I encountered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sgwatchguy]

Originally Posted by thase13

Good for you! Bravo on your attitude and perspective. I'm sure there will be other opportunities for you to get the watch you really want.

Yes hopefully... There will be more opportunities and good watches to come. Cheers



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Codik]

Originally Posted by sgwatchguy

I have no regrets on my own actions- this wasn’t a first choice model and would’ve been my first PP, so cooling off was the right thing to do.

Not a bad outcome then. Given the cost, in my view it’s best to go only for the watch you really want, even if it means waiting longer. Plus the only way to really scratch the itch is to get the one you actually want.

[gtnator]

I’m sick of greedy AD’s jerking us around. But currently (and temporarily), they have the upper hand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by thase13

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.

This is the best description of the market as it stands today I have ever read. Very well put!

[L_S_SHOE]

Originally Posted by thase13

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.

Well put. A bitter pill to swallow.