Does Federer make a difference?

[Watchdaytona]

Originally Posted by joli160

Guy with his rep does indeed a lot of damage to the brand.

I don't agree with that, I think he is incredibly popular around the world. Asia, Europe and America, I think the majority of people were happy to see him win. Just look at the crowds that follow him and the ratings when he is playing.
I think it's only a matter of time until the Tiger Tudor watch takes off.

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by Headshrinker

Does everyone know the woman’s name that swam across the English Channel?, not likely, but we all know of her great accomplishment. Rolex, itself, mirrors these people, accomplishing things other watch companies have not....

Mercedes Gleitze.

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

A tremendous amount of talent. Someone who “dares”. You may not “like” her, but she is a good choice for their AD campaign.

Couldn’t agree more that she is a world class talent and I do in fact like her (loved her movie as well)... but there is a subtle difference between blindly endorsing a celebrity (all other watch brands) and endourcing a concept like “icon” that represents your brand and then aligning celebrities (or non celebrities) that possess said qualities (Rolex).

Lady Gaga is a blind endorsement based of her accomplishments, which to me is worthless IMO...

I posted in another similar thread...

“IMO your missing the point at what Rolex marketing is all about. Omega and like brands slap a watch on a celebrity wrist and call it a day. Rolex IMO is more sophisticated in their marketing approach. They tie their brand to concepts that align with their brand, not just people. The people who they market represent hard work, perfection or accomplishment in their trade, iconic status, greatness, etc. It not enough to be famous, the focus is much more about a trait (or accomplishment) that a celebrity has that aligns with the Rolex image. It is not even about the watch. “

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Brny11

Couldn’t agree more that she is a world class talent and I do in fact like her (loved her movie as well)... but there is a subtle difference between blindly endorsing a celebrity (all other watch brands) and endourcing a concept like “icon” that represents your brand and then aligning celebrities (or non celebrities) that possess said qualities (Rolex).

Lady Gaga is a blind endorsement based of her accomplishments, which to me is worthless IMO...

I posted in another similar thread...

“IMO your missing the point at what Rolex marketing is all about. Omega and like brands slap a watch on a celebrity wrist and call it a day. Rolex IMO is more sophisticated in their marketing approach. They tie their brand to concepts that align with their brand, not just people. The people who they market represent hard work, perfection or accomplishment in their trade, iconic status, greatness, etc. It not enough to be famous, the focus is much more about a trait (or accomplishment) that a celebrity has that aligns with the Rolex image. It is not even about the watch. “

I hear you, and I think we’re pretty much on the same page. I just think that what you’re saying about Rolex is exactly what Tudor is doing for their “dare” campaign.... they have recruited a modern day icon who dares to be different (who also works extremely hard and is extremely accomplished), just like how Tudor would like to position themselves with the “dare” campaign. In some ways, Tudor’s advertising is more “concept” than Rolex’s, which simply aims for greatness.

As for Rolex and celebrities and “image”, I think they tossed that out the window with Tiger. I like Tiger as an athlete, but he does not project Rolex quality to me.

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by jaisonline

Not really.
As great as he is (awesome athlete), Federer is no MJ, Tiger, Beckham, LeBron, Wilt, Gretzky, etc... when it comes to advertising.

LOL

Okay....

[bp1000]

Him and Rolex sponsor must drive bucket loads of women's DJ's through the AD's.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

...

As for Rolex and celebrities and “image”, I think they tossed that out the window with Tiger. I like Tiger as an athlete, but he does not project Rolex quality to me.

And therein lies the pit falls of celebrity endorsements... you just have no way of knowing where the skeletons are

[sensui]

How do you argue that it doesn't make a difference hah......why do you think top vintage references are tied to celebrities (Newman, McQueen, Bond etc)?

[shapa]

It definitely increases the appeal of that DJ in my opinion.
2017 Wimbledon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnjm]

Right. Seeing that he is in the final on Sunday... What watch will he be wearing at the ceremony?

I want to say hulk. Green for Wimbledon.

What a game by the way, pure class from both players.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[AK797]

Originally Posted by johnjm

Right. Seeing that he is in the final on Sunday... What watch will he be wearing at the ceremony?

I want to say hulk. Green for Wimbledon.

What a game by the way, pure class from both players.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

His backhand has gotten so much better these last few years, and to think he's played most of his career with no real backhand, if he'd had this 15 years ago he'd have another 5 slams at least. And he moves so well still, he's almost ageless, and rewriting all the rules, with Nadal, that Tennis is a young man's game, just pure class.

[marselluswallace]

Absolutely-an incredible game.

Looking forward to the final on Sunday.

[drtii]

Originally Posted by shapa

Recently saw a Rolex ad on Instagram about Wimbledon and Federer, specifically promoting the DJ Wimbledon watch. Just curious if certain models worn by Rolex ambassadors become more desirable. It certainly doesn't seem to be the case with the TRF crowd, but curious if it influences the general public.

It's simple. You only need to look at the demographics of Tennis (and golf) to see why a presence in the market is so important.

Do they see ROI from Federer? No. It's not something you can actually measure. As a marketer of 20 years I can say this definitively, Rolex has absolutely no idea if Federer is providing an ROI of any kind.

What they do know, from a branding standpoint, is that it's the "right" play for exposure in this market.

As a luxury items company they absolutely have to be involved in verticals with HNW demographics. Brand ambassadors help with exposure to this market and lend a certain cachet to a brand, brands want to leverage this.

They aren't always right, but it's a numbers game.

[johnjm]

Originally Posted by AK797

His backhand has gotten so much better these last few years, and to think he's played most of his career with no real backhand, if he'd had this 15 years ago he'd have another 5 slams at least. And he moves so well still, he's almost ageless, and rewriting all the rules, with Nadal, that Tennis is a young man's game, just pure class.

I was gob smacked at the quality of his backhand stroke. I can't get over it.

The only other quality games that nearly match this were the days of Becker vs edberg.

The game has really.moved up, I can't believe the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the game.

I was on edge for the whole game. Not to mention in awe.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Reign]

He’s just a small piece of the puzzle. They have loads of brand ambassadors, so if someone (good) wins anything, they’ll likely be sporting a Rolex - giving off the impression that winners wear Rolex.

It’s why all major brands sponsor more than one athlete. The only person that has been able to move a market on their own was MJ with his shoes. Not even Tiger could get people to buy Nike clubs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[drtii]

Originally Posted by Reign

He’s just a small piece of the puzzle. They have loads of brand ambassadors, so if someone (good) wins anything, they’ll likely be sporting a Rolex - giving off the impression that winners wear Rolex.

It’s why all major brands sponsor more than one athlete. The only person that has been able to move a market on their own was MJ with his shoes. Not even Tiger could get people to buy Nike clubs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...but in a rather ironic twist Tiger DID get thousands of golfers to buy expensive Scotty Cameron putters for which he wasn't paid to promote.

In a way I'd look at Rolex a lot like Titleist with their Pro V1. They just want to be used by the winners and that wide net + top ambassadors gives them a chance at that association.

[jlovda]

Any cricket players on the list?

[watchtung]

Originally Posted by teck21

Not on a conscious level. I’m pretty sure nobody has bought a Rolex because RF endorses it specifically.

He is paid to have the brand Rolex etched into the unconscious recesses of people’s minds. And have people draw associations between success, perfection and Rolex itself. That they are linked. There’s no way to measure his effect directly, but I’m sure it’s huge.

Just like the ads in top newspapers worldwide. Nobody actually reads the descriptions of whatever model is featured in that particular ad, but the Rolex emblem and name continually bombards people who happen to be reading the paper.

Although in my case the picture of the BB58 in just such an ad actually drew me to the watch. Prior to that moment, I don’t think I had ever seen a watch and went ‘It’s a good looking watch, i want it’.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah pretty much what I was thinking too. It builds an image for the company. Like how we don't understand the tudor ambassadors, it seems silly. Tudor wants edge or something, and Rolex wants class.

I don't think any of us buy a rolex because federer or anyone in particular is sponsored by the watch but their association to those people raise the brands image.

Legendary figures make the watches more valuable later on too. For instance Jack Nicklaus's watch is probably going to fetch a fair amount and was a sponsorship watch. That probably has paid well over for the brand image of the watch for the "class" it represents.

[multimedia]

Originally Posted by AK797

His backhand has gotten so much better these last few years, and to think he's played most of his career with no real backhand, if he'd had this 15 years ago he'd have another 5 slams at least.

To be fair, his backhand has always been very good (best slice on tour for example. And his one hander has always been a joy to watch). :) Now a days though, he has finally figured out how to beat Nadal. You can tell that Rog has a clear plan on how to beat Rafa. This wasn’t the case earlier. Then he was more trying to figure things out as the match/es went on. And the longer they went, the more chance that Rafa ended up winning the thing.

The backhand is the difference, yes. Really, the position of standing on top of baseline and half volleys was huge last night = giving Nadal no time at all (plus, yesterday the spaniard was clearly not feeling the ball as well as we are used to seeing him). Also, he is converting a lot more breakpoints now a days. If he could only become a bit better at challenging (hawk eyes), he would be unstoppable... ;)

Cheers,
100% tennis fanatic/player/nerd Joe

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by AK797

His backhand has gotten so much better these last few years, and to think he's played most of his career with no real backhand, if he'd had this 15 years ago he'd have another 5 slams at least. And he moves so well still, he's almost ageless, and rewriting all the rules, with Nadal, that Tennis is a young man's game, just pure class.

Oh come on, he has always had a great backhand. He's more confident coming over it these days, but it has always been better than most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvBb5Zkw3JY

[41mets]

It must or they wouldn't pay him. There are worse ambassadors for sure.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[SeaAndSky]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

I like Tiger as an athlete, but he does not project Rolex quality to me.

Tiger is a great golfer but not a good ambassador for any product. I don't expect anyone to be perfect but I certainly expect that any brand ambassador will comport themselves better than Tiger. In the end, none of them influence my decision to buy a thing. But it's cool when someone I admire and respect uses the same thing I bought. That is exceedingly rare though and becoming more so the older I get and the more society declines.

[MercedesHand]

A lot of wanna bees will never play professional tennis at the highest levels, but they can wear his watch.

Of course he makes a difference. But watch manufacture have to be very careful. When I think of Richard Mille, I dont think of RM and how good they may be. Instead I think of Nadal and Bubba Watson. They dont wear RM. RM wears them. It's backwards.

I wish Rolex in particular didnt extend to the level of this "ambassador" idolatry. It cheapens the brand. Dont even get me started on Tudor. Or Omega with the otherwise cool Spectre watch totally undone by "007" second hands, dial logo and caseback.

Even the nicknames are pushing it. "Panda" the real Panda ref6263, "Pepsi" "Coke" I can understand in that they are decades old.

"Smurf"? Cute but juvenile. "Hulk" makes sense but stating the obvious. "Batman"? bewildering if you dont know the mythology of the Dark Knight.

But if it helps to sell one more watch that otherwise wouldnt be sold, it'll be done.

[Jaysta]

Originally Posted by jaisonline

Not really.
As great as he is (awesome athlete), Federer is no MJ, Tiger, Beckham, LeBron, Wilt, Gretzky, etc... when it comes to advertising.

What's a Gretzky????

I don't think Rolex would consider anyone on that list to be an ambassador besides Tiger and Beckham (Tudor). The athletes you mentioned are big names in the North American market but Federer's name is known world wide.

[dylan0024]

Let's go Federer. Beat Djokovic!!!

[Macnavara]

Originally Posted by shapa

Recently saw a Rolex ad on Instagram about Wimbledon and Federer, specifically promoting the DJ Wimbledon watch. Just curious if certain models worn by Rolex ambassadors become more desirable. It certainly doesn't seem to be the case with the TRF crowd, but curious if it influences the general public.

I actually dislike the connection between a watch (or anything)and a celebrity....a quality product like rolex can speak for its self.....its one of the things that puts me off certain Aps too.....bit tacky for my liking.
To me it cheapens something and i hope rolex never do a james cameron thing again.

I do get the feeling that federer is a genuine rolex fan which is more than can be said about countless celebs that obviously take the cash but have no interest in the watched they advertise......its as if the product is below them in real life.....like tag ambassadors that are seen wearing rolex when photographed in those gossip mags.....

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Jaysta

What's a Gretzky????

I don't think Rolex would consider anyone on that list to be an ambassador besides Tiger and Beckham (Tudor). The athletes you mentioned are big names in the North American market but Federer's name is known world wide.

Michael Jordan is not a household name world wide? (That’s a serious question, not a rhetorical one,)

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by jaisonline

Not really.
As great as he is (awesome athlete), Federer is no MJ, Tiger, Beckham, LeBron, Wilt, Gretzky, etc... when it comes to advertising.

[SpeakWithMichael]

Rooting for Roger, match about to start.

[jaySL350]

Originally Posted by pickettt

Michael Jordan is not a household name world wide? (That’s a serious question, not a rhetorical one,)

Whenever I see the initials “ MJ” I think of Magic Johnson,,
Not a follower of basketball and I am getting on a bit so that probably explains it,,