Serotonin said:

---

I Am A Critic said:

---

The pearl clutchers are out in force today. It's a desirable, affordable novelty. I know it's not a real Omega. I don't expect anyone else to think it's a real Omega. I don't get butthurt by what other people wear on their wrists. I just think they're kind of cool looking and would be fun to have around when I want to wear something different. It doesn't make me think any less of Omega as a brand. I know where the real value in their watches lies. It's not in a cross-brand knock-off.

---

No pearl clutching from me, I think they're cool and want one. I'd order one right now if it were available.

However I do think it's fair game to question marketing strategy. Even Rolex gets questioned a lot about their supply/demand issues.

These companies are not infallible and sometimes make marketing mistakes.

When you say you "know where the real value of their watches lie", I think that gets to the exact discussion point. Omega's value is driven partly by the material (the quality of the components, build, movements) and partly by the brand. What's the breakout? And does the brand get harmed if there are $300 Omega collabs out there? I think it's all fair questions to ask.

---

AgEng06 said:

---

I think they are cool and will definitely buy one once they are available for MSRP. I also plan to buy a 3861 Moonwatch soon, so if this collab could go ahead and devalue that... that would be nice.

---

TheOC16 said:

---

I don't think that's an accurate comparison.

An accurate comparison would be if Augusta National opened AN branded putt putt courses across the country serving soggy egg-salad sandwiches at the bar and the course had little quirks and features (whatever those might be, I'm not a golf fan) to remind you of AN.

But even still - I figure the answer to the question would still be no, it doesn't de-value it.

In fact... I think I just had a brilliant new business idea...

---

AgLA06 said:

---

jh0400 said:

---

I'm familiar with the concept. My comment was aimed at the posters who believe similar to the guy who was lamenting the perceived lesser value of the Omega, because that's the indicator of someone who has "made it".

---

A large portion of the demand for luxury items is purely for status. Sure they pick the brand and style they want, but they buy because of the exclusivity. You're fooling yourself of you don't think this turns off potential buyers of real Omegas when thousands of the general public is running around with $300 knock offs.

Rolexs wouldn't be selling double or triple MSRP on the grey market if that wasn't the case.

---

AgLA06 said:

---

jh0400 said:

---

I'm familiar with the concept. My comment was aimed at the posters who believe similar to the guy who was lamenting the perceived lesser value of the Omega, because that's the indicator of someone who has "made it".

---

A large portion of the demand for luxury items is purely for status. Sure they pick the brand and style they want, but they buy because of the exclusivity. You're fooling yourself of you don't think this turns off potential buyers of real Omegas when thousands of the general public is running around with $300 knock offs.

Rolexs wouldn't be selling double or triple MSRP on the grey market if that wasn't the case.

---

YouBet said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Graph seems to be significantly wrong. Rolex should be in Superpremium unless y'all are aware of someone selling them from $1,500-5,000.

Please share with board ASAP if you know where to find these unicorns.

---

No doubt, it has to be mid-2000s vintage. Look at where Panerai and IWC were. No one is putting them above Rolex in the 2010s and it would be even more laughable today.

I enjoy talking the brand strategy but I could go either way. The Mercedes example is a good one; if you are introducing new people to the brand and building some brand loyalty then that is a good strategy.

---

I was going to post this the other day but I couldn't verify my memory. When I was in business school, we had a case study in our Marketing class on brand strategy and it was about a luxury watch maker. The gist of the case study was that this watch maker was a mid-range watch maker that almost overnight transformed their brand by simply deciding to declare themselves as a high end watch maker.

Nothing really changed other than them simply telling people: "We are high-end now". And people said "Ok" and they were then high-end and commanded high-end prices and got them. There was more to it than that I'm sure (this was ~20 years ago), but that particular case always fascinated me because a company changed their trajectory by simply speaking it without changing anything underlying it.

In my head, I had always remembered it as Rolex which was why I wanted to post it, but their story didn't feel like it aligned with that so it must have been someone else and I've been unable to find it.

---

I Am A Critic said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

jh0400 said:

---

I'm familiar with the concept. My comment was aimed at the posters who believe similar to the guy who was lamenting the perceived lesser value of the Omega, because that's the indicator of someone who has "made it".

---

A large portion of the demand for luxury items is purely for status. Sure they pick the brand and style they want, but they buy because of the exclusivity. You're fooling yourself of you don't think this turns off potential buyers of real Omegas when thousands of the general public is running around with $300 knock offs.

Rolexs wouldn't be selling double or triple MSRP on the grey market if that wasn't the case.

---

Almost as much as you fooling yourself if you think this will turn off those potential buyers. These are two completely different target markets you're talking about. The well-informed buyer who can afford an Omega couldn't care less about someone else wearing a Swatch knock-off.

---