Do you consider Rolex an independent or a conglomerate?

[metallic]

Obviously it depends on how you define it.

There are a variety of criteria that could be used:

Public vs Private company
Single vs multi brand
Market penetration
Annual monetary value sold
Annual number of pieces produced
Marketing budget

There are clear cut independent brands such as Dufour or Greubel-Forsey. There are typically accepted independents such as PP, AP, and Journe.

It is similar to the art vs pornography question. You know it when you see it.

Aside from the first criteria, all of the other criteria I listed point to conglomerate.

My answer therefore is conglomerate.

[S.Explorer]

Not conglomerate, to me that's a multinational involved in many different industries.

I see Rolex as an independent that happens to have mass production capability.

[brandrea]

Mass production independent.

[majidessa]

Rolex is a secret organization (in the from charity) with $ 11.5 billion of revenue per annum and a profit margin of not less than 50%. It is also a real estate tycoon.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Mass production independent.

Succinctly expressed.

[KatGirl]

It does not meet the criteria to be considered a conglomerate. It is a very successful independent company.

Kat

[BraveBold]

It is an independent. Not debatable.

[Mystro]

It’s a Indy pretty clear.

[Cru Jones]

Per Cambridge, a conglomerate is “a company that owns several smaller businesses whose products or services are usually very different”

Rolex is clearly not a conglomerate.

Rolex might me too big to be considered an “independent” like some brands like Journe or Czapek.

Maybe “behemoth” is a better term?

[Zach69SS]

Tycoons, the biggest and one of the most successful Independent company in the world
Most well know company in the world known as the king of watches.
50% margins or more now that they are retailers too.

[fargowill]

Independent, it’s not even a question

[Mimar2910]

It's an independent organizations IMO.

[RotorSelfWinding]

It’s an international watch firm which builds entirely in Switzerland. It’s not a conglomerate.

[BBRAYS]

It's an independent company with mass production not a conglomerate.

[Rebar]

They are free to operate as they wish - within the bounds of the law of course. No board or shareholders to satisfy. That sounds independent to me.

I worked with someone at the Hans Wilder Foundation before I took a serious interest in watches. Wish I had asked more about it then.

[tigerpac]

An independent multi brand trust

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by tigerpac

An independent multi brand trust

I don’t think having Tudor as its sole subsidiary brand would make it a multi brand trust, as the prefix multi generally refers to many, not just two.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tigerpac]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

I don’t think having Tudor as its sole subsidiary brand would make it a multi brand trust, as the prefix multi generally refers to many, not just two.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's just semantics in the end so doesn't matter . However, Merriam-Webster defines multiple as more than one. But even assuming it needs to be more than two brand the trust owns the Bucherer brand. Plus Tudor and therefore the trust owns a majority of Kenissi.

[KatGirl]

I did not think Carl F Bucherer, the watch brand, was a big deal. Perhaps with Rolex’s acquisition of the Bucherer massive network of retail stores, they ARE now a conglomerate, just not one that manufactures watches, but sells them. I read that nothing will change, as far as the management of Bucherer. I am not sure I believe that, though. Time will tell!

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[omar-rye]

A start up

[Andad]

Too high up the mental tree for me Rick.

I just though they were a watchmaker.

[metallic]

Not trying to belabor the point. It’s just a silly academic discussion. However, as time goes by, the answer is becoming less and less clear.

From a more practical standpoint, with the power of the brand and the Bucherer acquisition, do we anticipate an ongoing expansion of the retail footprint? More acquisitions, expansion of the boutiques, elimination of a number of AD’s? How about online ordering?

[John Doyle]

Obviously independent.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by metallic

Not trying to belabor the point. It’s just a silly academic discussion. However, as time goes by, the answer is becoming less and less clear.

From a more practical standpoint, with the power of the brand and the Bucherer acquisition, do we anticipate an ongoing expansion of the retail footprint? More acquisitions, expansion of the boutiques, elimination of a number of AD’s? How about online ordering?

Yes, not as straightforward as I thought at first. The Bucherer acquisition changes things dramatically. That was a 5 billion dollar transaction. As for online ordering, that will NOT happen. It’s the opposite of Rolex’s goal to become more upscale. They want to be more physically visible, while maintaining their exclusivity. The ability of a customer to go online and order a GMT overnighted to him from a Rolex Boutique would be counterintuitive to their ultimate vision.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Easy Rhino]

It's simply a brand of watches.

[metallic]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Yes, not as straightforward as I thought at first. The Bucherer acquisition changes things dramatically. That was a 5 billion dollar transaction. As for online ordering, that will NOT happen. It’s the opposite of Rolex’s goal to become more upscale. They want to be more physically visible, while maintaining their exclusivity. The ability of a customer to go online and order a GMT overnighted to him from a Rolex Boutique would be counterintuitive to their ultimate vision.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with you Kat that Rolex will probably never go to online ordering. Though that practice is not unusual in the luxury goods world. Cartier, Chopard, Omega and JLC all do it to name a few. You cannot just order an Ed White Speedmaster or a JLC tourbillon online but you can certainly order their more basic watches. Of course the demand for those more basic watches is a world of difference from the demand for Rolex.

The most highly sought after Rolex may become even more difficult to acquire in the future however unless you go through Bucherer or Rolex Boutique.

[Krash]

A conglomerate to me is a company with multiple lines of disparate businesses like United Technologies. They make aircraft engines, HVAC equipment, escalators, elevators, etc.

I suppose Swatch group would probably classify as a conglomerate since they have a lot of different brands.

But I’d still consider Rolex an independent company despite having Tudor and acquiring Bucherer.

Reality is that there is a fine line between the companies that are considered conglomerates vs the companies that are not.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calatrava r]

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...wns-rolex.html


Good info on Rolex structure

[yessir69]

Yes.

[TEPSD4K]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...wns-rolex.html


Good info on Rolex structure

Thanks for posting. Exceptionally innovative. I hope the structure continues to serve Wilsdorf’s intentions for centuries to come.