Rolex brand positioning over the years

[Dlong]

Don't get me wrong, if I had the jam, I'd get a PP.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Patton250

You totally had me in 100% agreement until you “ Rolex outperforms them”. You previously stated, and correctly, that these are two different leagues of brands. Rolex is an awesome watch but the movements are not even close to Patek and AP. In fact it’s not even fair to compare them. It’s like comparing the difference between a gocart and a Ferrari engine.

Rolex did great with its marketing because they got the reputation of being a somewhat affordable expensive watch in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Famous people were seen wearing them in the music and acting industries. That has just gotten worse over the years and made it more popular a brand.

Rolex for the most part is an image brand. It has been for the last 40 years. That’s because everyone knows what it is. Well almost everyone. :-) Patek and AP as well as many other luxury brands are serious horology.

I suspect the pricing increase comes from an awesome economy where more people have money to spend. Apparently Rolex is not increasing its production and so there’s much less to buy. That always increases pricing. On any product. Some guy started a thread a couple of days ago stating that he can’t wait for the economy crash so prices will fall and he can get a good deal on his next Rolex. Unfortunately there are only two ways for prices to stabilize or come down and that would be for the economy to crash or for Rolex to increase its production. I for one pray it’s the latter.

perhaps outperforms means different things to each of us, and perhaps it is not as significant in this context as all of the manufacturers make competent movements with modern technology and materials. much like water resistance ratings over 100 meters for a daily watch ... any benefit above 100 meters will likely never be realized by the user.

for clarity, when i refer to "outperforms," i am referring to durability and functionality, (timekeeping is likely on par with them all and the least of my concerns)

patek for example:
is still using movements that have not been updated for too long, often too small for their cases and with substandard power reserve by todays standards. additionally many of their calendar watches do not have modern protections to prevent damage when setting... of course rolex doesn't quite compete in the calendar watch arena.


all of the brands mentioned provide excellent reliability and some are finished with more beauty and care, that said i appreciate rolex industrial architecture as much as pateks half hearted attempts at finishing (compared to many other manufacturers at a similar price point)


after owning several pateks, my experience in general is i do not see their movements as being particularly interesting, nor beautiful, nor durable. (there are exceptions of course but they come with caveats) i guess this is a consequence of having a display back.

when it comes to rolex, they do not call attention to the movement, i don't see the movement, as a result my expectations of the movements are that my watch keeps ticking, is protected from moisture, has a practical power reserve and keeps time close enough were i don't show up late for meetings... regarding reliability, my experience has been positive for 27 years.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Patton250

The Rolex movement is not even close to being the same. It’s two completely different leagues. It’s remarkably unfair to Rolex to even attempt to compare the two.

Other than they’re prettier and have more gold, please explain how the movement in a 5711 is any better than the movement in a DJ 41.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dtwer]

With a price range predominantly from sub 10k to $30k, Rolex captures a much wider swath of customers than AP or PP would ever be able to do. I think that is a very ideal place to be.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Krash

Other than they’re prettier and have more gold, please explain how the movement in a 5711 is any better than the movement in a DJ 41.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you are equating better with durable/utilitarian and that is a different criteria than artistic/haute horology. One is not better than the other, they are DIFFERENT


Spending an obscene amount to time and manpower to decorate movements is art as well as case design and complex angles. Rolex is made in a functional way to house a movement of a watch. i don't get how its remotely similar

Count the different surfaces/angles and the amount of polished and brushed surfaces on a RO for example vs a Sub. its not even close.




https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=31

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by dtwer

With a price range predominantly from sub 10k to $30k, Rolex captures a much wider swath of customers than AP or PP would ever be able to do. I think that is a very ideal place to be.

Read what Tyler said. Just different. Two different leagues. They should not be compared. If you want to make a fair comparison compare a Rolex movement to an Omega movement or a Breitling movement.

Or compare a Patek movement to an AP, VC, ALS or JLC movement. Now it’s apples to apples.

Originally Posted by tyler1980

you are equating better with durable/utilitarian and that is a different criteria than artistic/haute horology. One is not better than the other, they are DIFFERENT


Spending an obscene amount to time and manpower to decorate movements is art as well as case design and complex angles. Rolex is made in a functional way to house a movement of a watch. i don't get how its remotely similar

Count the different surfaces/angles and the amount of polished and brushed surfaces on a RO for example vs a Sub. its not even close.




https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=31

Once again very well put.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by dtwer

With a price range predominantly from sub 10k to $30k, Rolex captures a much wider swath of customers than AP or PP would ever be able to do. I think that is a very ideal place to be.

normally production volumes are directly related to the size of the customer base at the relative price levels ignoring the crazy watch market at the moment.

Selling a SS watch at $50k vs selling a SS watch at $10k the number of customers is obviously different. Patek cant sell 800k watches a year and Rolex needs to sell more than 50k watches a year.

i don't see what who reaches a larger market segment has to do with anything. Bentley sells less cars than Toyota. Is Bentley doing it wrong?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Read what Tyler said. Just different. Two different leagues. They should not be compared. If you want to make a fair comparison compare a Rolex movement to an Omega movement or a Breitling movement.

Or compare a Patek movement to an AP, VC, ALS or JLC movement. Now it’s apples to apples.



Once again very well put.

sometimes i really don't get it. Its like people are judging what they want to wear separately from what a watch is. There are plenty of watches i will never want to wear that i absolutely think are masterpieces. Not my style but amazing all the same.

People have a hard time separating preference from the watch objectively. Its not a popularity contest. Rolex wins that every time.
I think almost all FPJ watches are ugly. They are still on a completely different level than a Rolex which i prefer.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

sometimes i really don't get it. Its like people are judging what they want to wear separately from what a watch is. There are plenty of watches i will never want to wear that i absolutely think are masterpieces. Not my style but amazing all the same.

People have a hard time separating preference from the watch objectively. Its not a popularity contest. Rolex wins that every time.
I think almost all FPJ watches are ugly. They are still on a completely different level than a Rolex which i prefer.

Well didn’t you know that Rolex was the only brand.

[Car32]

Just curious, many cite the reason for the recent shortage as Rolex trying to artificially increase value/demand/perception as a luxury good, but hasn’t that been their brand reputation for the past 50 or so years?

But pre-mid-2017, was it basically always the case that you could walk into an AD and get any model either right away or with a short wait, often at a discount (except Daytona since the mid-80s I believe)?

So if they still enjoyed status as highly regarded brand AND you didn’t have a major issue getting one pre-2017, what’s changed as Rolex’s availability pre-2017 doesn’t have seemed to hurt the brand’s image of quality and prestige historically?

[peterpl]

Rolex demographic and customer base is totally different to AP/PP.

Mass produced, mass marketed and its customers are to the masses. Simple as that. They may be trying to move up but they wont move up far if they did.

The simple fact that millions of watches per year has been produced for decades that in itself means

1) Most Rolex's will never be collectible.
2) Can never be on the same playing field as the others. There is just way too many of them out in the world.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

you are equating better with durable/utilitarian and that is a different criteria than artistic/haute horology. One is not better than the other, they are DIFFERENT


Spending an obscene amount to time and manpower to decorate movements is art as well as case design and complex angles. Rolex is made in a functional way to house a movement of a watch. i don't get how its remotely similar

Count the different surfaces/angles and the amount of polished and brushed surfaces on a RO for example vs a Sub. its not even close.




https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...7&postcount=31

I get that there is a lot of work going into it. It’s a beautiful work of art, no doubt. I’d love to have a Nautilus.

But people above were saying the PP movements do more and that’s justification for why they’re less reliable and less robust than a Rolex movement.

My argument is that if you use the 5711 as an example, the PP movement doesn’t do anymore than a DJ 41 movement. It actually does less. It’s prettier, there is more gold, the craftsmanship is in another league, etc. I get all that, but you can’t say it does more, and then use that to justify why it’s less robust and less reliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[broham84]

Originally Posted by subtona

I don’t see why Rolex should be concerned with Patek or AP.

They are different watches for a different buyer.
The Real luxury watches made by Patek and somewhat by AP are well into the six figures, that is a market that rolex has not addressed unless we are talking about gem covered unique pieces. Rolex does not produce Uber complicated watches nor does it produce high a level of movement finishing that draws customers to Patek and AP. Rolex design efforts are durable, reliable and timeless sport watches.

Rolex outsells and out performs both of them by multiples.

If anyone should be looking to evolve, I would expect it is AP and Patek

Patek in most instances are using tired old movements and struggling with dozens of different designs that are not appealing to their customers. The nautilus and the aquanaut are the most desirable watches that Patek is producing, this is rolex market.

AP had a rush with their ROO but the interest seems to have diminished some over the last year.

Yes rolex may be working their production to sell higher priced PM pieces but I don’t see them changing their designs to compete in the haute horological realm.
Just my late night

This man knows exactly what he is talking about.

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I tend to think that Rolex is positioned perfectly and right where they want to be. Good watches with reliable movements at a fair price.

I don’t think they even try to compete with PP and AP and the other higher end brands.

100%.

[Rsdecker971]

Originally Posted by broham84

This man knows exactly what he is talking about.

He lost me after paragraph 3, when he switched objective to subjective.

I am new to the forum, but am amazed by the number of threads where Rolex fans feel the need to draw comparisons with Patek. Then no matter the subject of the comparisons, Rolex ‘of course’ must win it hands down.

I bought watches from these two brands, because they had different value propositions. Each brand is the best at what it does and I love having them both in my collection because of their differences.

Is a grand battle between Rolex and Patek some sort of WIS wet dream? The thunderdome of watches!!!

[broham84]

Originally Posted by Rsdecker971

He lost me after paragraph 3, when he switched objective to subjective.

I am new to the forum, but am amazed by the number of threads where Rolex fans feel the need to draw comparisons with Patek. Then no matter the subject of the comparisons, Rolex ‘of course’ must win it hands down.

I bought watches from these two brands, because they had different value propositions. Each brand is the best at what it does and I love having them both in my collection because of their differences.

Is a grand battle between Rolex and Patek some sort of WIS wet dream? The thunderdome of watches!!!

He was talking about as a business Rolex is leaps and bounds ahead of AP and PP. nothing to do with watches.

[Rsdecker971]

Originally Posted by broham84

He was talking about as a business Rolex is leaps and bounds ahead of AP and PP. nothing to do with watches.

Oh, Business movements.

I will give it to you, I love the passion out of the Rolex fans. Just out of curiosity, do the strong Rolex brand proponents have single brand collections?

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by joli160

Rolex has been jewellery since the early 80's last century already. Nowadays referring to the tool watch concept is very funny

Okay, I'll bite here. Let's say I am looking for a mechanical sports watch that is very accurate, water proof, robust, has functional/comfortable bracelet, handles lots of jostling and bangs, will last me for decades, and is made of materials that continue to look good after a lot of wear. Who are the list of contenders?

Certainly the Sub is high on the list:
-it runs within 2 seconds per day (often less)
-the steel holds up very well
-the bezel looks great and doesn't scratch easily
-watch will last for decades
-the clasp is functional and tough

What other watches are on that list? Some Tudors, a Planet Ocean, a Grand Seiko automatic? I'm not a watch expert, so educate me. The Tudor steel doesn't look as good over time, IMHO. THE Planet Ocean is way thick and not as comfortable as the Sub.

The point is, I think Rolex sports watches can serve practical functions and are not just jewelry.

[mr_gray]

There are a wide range of Rolex enthusiasts. Personally I came to Rolex about 6 years ago hell bent on recognising only functionality. I hated the DJ aesthetic. I wanted the 114060 sans bracelet because i didn't want it so blingy. Back then I would have 100% agreed with you re: the utilitarian role of a Sub. The Omega PO is a hockey puck and what other bracelet works after the glidelock?

But I don't know. I mean, what about an Oris? They are incredible watches. The depth gauge one is brilliant. Or the Omega SMP (which I loathe the look of) which is relatively cheap, and apparently not lethal when worn.

I think now I believe our interest in watches (which is utterly utterly disproportionate) runs very deep. Hard to explain the basis of the impulse. Not rational though. Like, a white gold submariner 116619. How does that make sense?

Also two of your 5 criteria pertain to aesthetics (steel holds up well and bezel blingy). Rolexes look very good IMHO. Also Rolexes are distinctive due to:
- date window blob
- reflective crystal
- bracelet.

Why not an SMP for you for example then? A very decent watch by all accounts, a world class movement, legibility, etc.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

The point is, I think Rolex sports watches can serve practical functions and are not just jewelry.

i agree 100%. can be a tool, not normally used or positioned (image wise) that way any more... making a tool watch in gold or platinum sort of reinforces that point. its absolutely jewelry as far as intent.

Selling a backstory is fine, it adds legitimacy and piece of mind. When push comes to shove most err on the side of caution with a 10k watch.

People don't queue on a waitlist for a tool they need for a practical purpose. Its like a carpenter waiting for a year for a hammer. What are they supposed to do in the meantime?

I also don't think the cost/benefit makes any sense purely as a tool when there are plenty of options at way lower prices. cost/benefit as far as jewelry is justifiable.

[broham84]

Originally Posted by Rsdecker971

Oh, Business movements.

I will give it to you, I love the passion out of the Rolex fans. Just out of curiosity, do the strong Rolex brand proponents have single brand collections?

Not sure what you’re trying to insinuate here, but I’m a watch fan that collects more than just Rolex. Had my AP phase and it didn’t last long. I like the 5711 as much as any PP fans out there, but I’m not gonna sit here and pretend its so special that the bridges don’t cover better parts of the movement.

Just out of curiosity, do the strong Rolex brand opponents dislike Rolex because of the brand stigmas or just a superiority complex in the personality that drives them for a more “prestigious” brand?

[joli160]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

i agree 100%. can be a tool, not normally used or positioned (image wise) that way any more... making a tool watch in gold or platinum sort of reinforces that point. its absolutely jewelry as far as intent.

Selling a backstory is fine, it adds legitimacy and piece of mind. When push comes to shove most err on the side of caution with a 10k watch.

People don't queue on a waitlist for a tool they need for a practical purpose. Its like a carpenter waiting for a year for a hammer. What are they supposed to do in the meantime?

I also don't think the cost/benefit makes any sense purely as a tool when there are plenty of options at way lower prices. cost/benefit as far as jewelry is justifiable.

This sums it up quite nice

[Lloydas1]

...

[singe89]

Originally Posted by broham84

Just out of curiosity, do the strong Rolex brand opponents dislike Rolex because of the brand stigmas or just a superiority complex in the personality that drives them for a more “prestigious” brand?

Not a "Rolex brand opponent" but what drives me crazy is when people compare apples and oranges of brands and try to say one is better. I love Rolex for what they are.

Sure compare a Sub, datejust or the highest end Rolex to an entry level Royal Oak or Nautilus and you can make a case for either.

AP base RO/ROO and Patek base Nautilus/aquanaut: History of HH, limited production/more exclusive, superior finishing, etc.

Rolex: more robust, strong history of tool accomplishments, more accurate on average, etc.

The problem I have is when people say Rolex is better than AP or Patek across the board. I don't see any grande comps, skeletons, split minute chronos, minute repeaters, etc. coming out of Rolex. People will bash AP for not having an "in house" chrono or using the DD modular chrono yet forget that all their grande comps have split minute chronos and APRP makes the most complicated chrono...the Schumi Lap Timer.

I appreciate Rolex as a luxury "tool" watch company

I appreciate Patek as a HH dress watch and more dressy sport watch company.

I appreciate AP as a HH sport watch company.

Lets not also forget that Patek fans put the Nautilus or Aquanaut over the RO or ROO offshore yet the most complicated Patek sport watch is just a PC. AP has SIGNIFICANTLY higher end and more complicated HH sport watches than Patek. The high end AP watches would better compare to RM but APRP makes RM's high end movements too.

[dtwer]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

normally production volumes are directly related to the size of the customer base at the relative price levels ignoring the crazy watch market at the moment.

Selling a SS watch at $50k vs selling a SS watch at $10k the number of customers is obviously different. Patek cant sell 800k watches a year and Rolex needs to sell more than 50k watches a year.

i don't see what who reaches a larger market segment has to do with anything. Bentley sells less cars than Toyota. Is Bentley doing it wrong?

I was not disagreeing with what you were saying, actually. What I was trying to get at is the fact that while Rolex doesn't command the same price premium as brands like AP or PP, it has the volume to make up for. They each occupy quite different market segments that don't overlap and target different customers. IMO the position that Rolex is in is quite ideal; that's what I was trying to say.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by dtwer

I was not disagreeing with what you were saying, actually. What I was trying to get at is the fact that while Rolex doesn't command the same price premium as brands like AP or PP, it has the volume to make up for. They each occupy quite different market segments that don't overlap and target different customers. IMO the position that Rolex is in is quite ideal; that's what I was trying to say.

I think a more mass market position is probably better from a brand strength position for sure. Rolex is so well known that everyone knows the name. Its the default "luxury watch" to pretty much everyone. I guess the risk is being mass market you have to move really a lot of watches year in and year out. As trends shift if you are not on top of it, thats a ton of production and watches that you can't sell.

[Rsdecker971]

Originally Posted by broham84

Not sure what you’re trying to insinuate here, but I’m a watch fan that collects more than just Rolex. Had my AP phase and it didn’t last long. I like the 5711 as much as any PP fans out there, but I’m not gonna sit here and pretend its so special that the bridges don’t cover better parts of the movement.

Just out of curiosity, do the strong Rolex brand opponents dislike Rolex because of the brand stigmas or just a superiority complex in the personality that drives them for a more “prestigious” brand?

I made a statement about how the brands were equal and I love them both. Your response was that Rolex business was better. Then your ‘nothing to do with watches’ comment seemed disconnected as the previous comment was about PP movements and AP’s ROO.

Yes I found your response funny and I called you on it. No offense was meant.

[dtwer]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

I think a more mass market position is probably better from a brand strength position for sure. Rolex is so well known that everyone knows the name. Its the default "luxury watch" to pretty much everyone. I guess the risk is being mass market you have to move really a lot of watches year in and year out. As trends shift if you are not on top of it, thats a ton of production and watches that you can't sell.

I agree.

That's also why I believe Rolex is being very strategic and cautious in refraining from altering the brand image by either over producing or over valuing its products on account of the recent high demand. It's a mass market brand that maintains a brand prestige, that's a space I don't see them moving away from any time soon.