Attention Rolex & Authorized Dealers-ALLOCATION PRACTICES IN CHALLENGING MARKET

[ChronoZach]

Yes, Rolex does gives back and does not have too. Rolex is not responsible for what we have been through with this hobby. In the end it’s all supply and demand and those who take advantage of it.

I have not been on here for that long but I heard some nice stories of ADs taking care of a veteran, teacher or first responder , so it does happen, not everyday or as much as some of us would like. But it happens sometimes…..everyone’s experience will be different.

Find a good AD and stick with them the pieces will come your way.

Keep the faith brothers and sisters.

[worldofoyster]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Actually, you are wrong. It most certainly IS a charity. The Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, which owns Rolex, donates millions of dollars annually to various charitable organizations.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s constructed that way to avoid taxes

[Robison347]

Rolex dealers receive a mix of platinum, gold, two tone and steel models every year. They have limited choice in that; Rolex decides the mix and within that dealers can make requests.

There are some models - like the stainless GMT or Daytona - that are always easy to sell. There are other watches - like a jeweled President - that are tougher to match with a buyer. All dealers get a mix of both. The ability to sell it all is essential for an AD.

When the person who buys that hard-to-place President walks into the dealer and asks if he can get one of the new stainless GMTs, what’s the AD to do? He has one in the safe. Does he sell it to the guy who really helped him out, or does he let it go to someone he may never see again?

With any luxury good, there are many people who are “one and done,” and a few who become loyal customers of the brand. If you are a dealer, those clients who will buy 4-5 watches a year are important to retain. A dealer who cultivates 100 special clients who will buy 2-3-4 pieces a year will be in a very secure position, and it behooves that dealer to give those people what they want before walk-ins.

Yet the dealers know that every good client starts as a walk in. That makes it very important for a dealer to decide accurately who is likely to stay with them, and who just wants one watch, never to be seen again. Given the reality of more demand than supply, the person who seems like a one time buyer probably won’t ever get one of the hottest watches from many ADs and will be left to the secondary market. Dealers simply don’t have enough of the most desirable models to go around.

When one of the AD’s top clients asks for a watch for a son, daughter, or co worker, don’t you expect that person will get a watch quicker than someone with no connection or history? Fifty of those clients making such requests may absorb most of the dealer’s most desirable allocation of stainless watches.

As a business owner, I understand my local dealer has to sell whatever he receives. Not just the popular pieces. I also understand there is no “bad Rolex.” I may not want a jeweled President, but I’d take a platinum 1908. There is someone who would love that President, and could care less for a 1908. Many or most stainless GMT buyers don’t want either of those. When one watch or the other is one the way, the successful dealer will have an idea who may want it.

For any luxury business, long term clients are essential. They are the ones that the dealer can rely on. To say those people - who some would call collectors - as unimportant is just crazy talk, in my experience. ADs cannot survive without people with the means and desire to buy the PM pieces that do not go through the roof in value. They need those people - loyal clients - to buy $40k gold watches that are on the secondary market for $35k, because they want to know they bought it new. If this was all about price, and not relationships and feelings, how would many PM watches every sell at new prices? But they do, and that is why.

[mickyd329]

Wow, what a read... I'll contribute my thoughts.

Is Rolex involved in how AD's allocate pieces? NO. Once they wholesale to their AD, the AD owns the piece and they sell to whomever they wish, when they wish.

Do some AD's hold inventory in their safes? YES. Those that say AD's don't do this, you're kidding yourself.

Do AD's create an illusion of scarcity? YES. Of course they contribute and help the scarcity narrative.

Is there scarcity? YES. Of course there is scarcity. Demand obviously outstrips supply.

Do some AD's sell to greys? YES. Again, this happens as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Not all, but some AD's do engage in this practice.

Are they lying to you if they tell you they don't have the watch your looking for? NO. Even if they have it in stock, they might want to sell it to someone else and therefore, they don't have it in stock for you.


Is any of this unethical? NO. The AD has to do whatever they need to do to maximize their profits. It's a business and we can't fault them for this.
Yes, there are good AD's and bad ones. The bad ones try to squeeze every ounce of benefit out of the situation. They probably will pay for this in the long run as they alienate customers. However, the good ones have been real good and will do just fine in the long run.


And yes, Rolex is a business first and charity second. Let's not get that twisted. Just my 2 cents.

[James84]

Originally Posted by Robison347

Rolex dealers receive a mix of platinum, gold, two tone and steel models every year. They have limited choice in that; Rolex decides the mix and within that dealers can make requests.

There are some models - like the stainless GMT or Daytona - that are always easy to sell. There are other watches - like a jeweled President - that are tougher to match with a buyer. All dealers get a mix of both. The ability to sell it all is essential for an AD.

When the person who buys that hard-to-place President walks into the dealer and asks if he can get one of the new stainless GMTs, what’s the AD to do? He has one in the safe. Does he sell it to the guy who really helped him out, or does he let it go to someone he may never see again?

With any luxury good, there are many people who are “one and done,” and a few who become loyal customers of the brand. If you are a dealer, those clients who will buy 4-5 watches a year are important to retain. A dealer who cultivates 100 special clients who will buy 2-3-4 pieces a year will be in a very secure position, and it behooves that dealer to give those people what they want before walk-ins.

Yet the dealers know that every good client starts as a walk in. That makes it very important for a dealer to decide accurately who is likely to stay with them, and who just wants one watch, never to be seen again. Given the reality of more demand than supply, the person who seems like a one time buyer probably won’t ever get one of the hottest watches from many ADs and will be left to the secondary market. Dealers simply don’t have enough of the most desirable models to go around.

When one of the AD’s top clients asks for a watch for a son, daughter, or co worker, don’t you expect that person will get a watch quicker than someone with no connection or history? Fifty of those clients making such requests may absorb most of the dealer’s most desirable allocation of stainless watches.

As a business owner, I understand my local dealer has to sell whatever he receives. Not just the popular pieces. I also understand there is no “bad Rolex.” I may not want a jeweled President, but I’d take a platinum 1908. There is someone who would love that President, and could care less for a 1908. Many or most stainless GMT buyers don’t want either of those. When one watch or the other is one the way, the successful dealer will have an idea who may want it.

For any luxury business, long term clients are essential. They are the ones that the dealer can rely on. To say those people - who some would call collectors - as unimportant is just crazy talk, in my experience. ADs cannot survive without people with the means and desire to buy the PM pieces that do not go through the roof in value. They need those people - loyal clients - to buy $40k gold watches that are on the secondary market for $35k, because they want to know they bought it new. If this was all about price, and not relationships and feelings, how would many PM watches every sell at new prices? But they do, and that is why.

As the person who started this thought-provoking and controversial thread, I will say this is a fair and well thought out perspective from the other side. Every side has a context and what they are dealing with as far as challenges and long term business strategy goes.

I still stand by what I posted and I want people, Rolex, and AD’s to think objectively from all sides. But I cannot refute the above is a fair perspective from the other side.

Again my intent was to always get feelings and perspectives out and create a good dialogue from all sides. I am NOT a troll, I am a genuine collector with long term intentions of the brand and hobby. But I am a voice for several out there who have felt and experienced these things.

Keep the great dialogue going, it’s all healthy and helps everyone better understand what everyone is going through in the hobby.

[James84]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

Wow, what a read... I'll contribute my thoughts.

Is Rolex involved in how AD's allocate pieces? NO. Once they wholesale to their AD, the AD owns the piece and they sell to whomever they wish, when they wish.

Do some AD's hold inventory in their safes? YES. Those that say AD's don't do this, you're kidding yourself.

Do AD's create an illusion of scarcity? YES. Of course they contribute and help the scarcity narrative.

Is there scarcity? YES. Of course there is scarcity. Demand obviously outstrips supply.

Do some AD's sell to greys? YES. Again, this happens as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Not all, but some AD's do engage in this practice.

Are they lying to you if they tell you they don't have the watch your looking for? NO. Even if they have it in stock, they might want to sell it to someone else and therefore, they don't have it in stock for you.


Is any of this unethical? NO. The AD has to do whatever they need to do to maximize their profits. It's a business and we can't fault them for this.
Yes, there are good AD's and bad ones. The bad ones try to squeeze every ounce of benefit out of the situation. They probably will pay for this in the long run as they alienate customers. However, the good ones have been real good and will do just fine in the long run.


And yes, Rolex is a business first and charity second. Let's not get that twisted. Just my 2 cents.

Great thoughts Mike. Thank you for the perspective and contribution.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

Wow, what a read... I'll contribute my thoughts.

Is Rolex involved in how AD's allocate pieces? NO. Once they wholesale to their AD, the AD owns the piece and they sell to whomever they wish, when they wish.

Do some AD's hold inventory in their safes? YES. Those that say AD's don't do this, you're kidding yourself.

Do AD's create an illusion of scarcity? YES. Of course they contribute and help the scarcity narrative.

Is there scarcity? YES. Of course there is scarcity. Demand obviously outstrips supply.

Do some AD's sell to greys? YES. Again, this happens as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Not all, but some AD's do engage in this practice.

Are they lying to you if they tell you they don't have the watch your looking for? NO. Even if they have it in stock, they might want to sell it to someone else and therefore, they don't have it in stock for you.


Is any of this unethical? NO. The AD has to do whatever they need to do to maximize their profits. It's a business and we can't fault them for this.
Yes, there are good AD's and bad ones. The bad ones try to squeeze every ounce of benefit out of the situation. They probably will pay for this in the long run as they alienate customers. However, the good ones have been real good and will do just fine in the long run.


And yes, Rolex is a business first and charity second. Let's not get that twisted. Just my 2 cents.

Perhaps, but donating at least 300 million Swiss Francs annually, to a very varied group of charities, is some serious giving back to the community. Do some research. It’s rather fascinating how Hans had set this all up,since he would die, without any direct descendants, to whom he could leave his watch company and his fortune.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Perhaps, but donating at least 300 million Swiss Francs annually, to a very varied group of charities, is some serious giving back to the community. Do some research. It’s rather fascinating how Hans had set this all up,since he would die, without any direct descendants, to whom he could leave his watch company and his fortune.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rolex generates over $11 billion annually in revenue. $300m chf to charities pales in comparison to what they actually net after expenses. Nobody knows exactly what their net profit is because they are not required to report it, but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than $300m chf.

Again, a business first and charity second. Remember, their net profit is way larger than any other company because Rolex doesn't pay taxes. Where does the rest of it go annually?

Not trying to knock their charitable efforts one bit. It's extremely admirable and love the fact that Hans Wilsdorf had the foresight to set it up this way to support charities around the world long after his time here. What I don't agree with (we can agree to disagree and it's ok) is when people try to put Rolex on some pedestal of being some company not interested in the profitability of the business and the only reason for it's existence is to save the planet. That narrative, I don't buy. Just my opinion and not trying to discredit yours or anyone else's.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by James84

They are immoral and unethical for the following reasons.
1.) Lying to customers about inventory and ability to sell.
2.) Hiding all stock in the back to avoid the transparency that some models sit forever, and they claim they have nothing and everything is sold out which is another lie.
3.) Optical illusions of “I can’t get anything it’s all sold, gone, and supply too low….then 5 days later the “lucky miracle text comes of I just got a ladies diamond bezel president, it’s a beauty and WOW how lucky I got this…..WANT IT”….this tactic is rooted in the optical illusion of empty cases and messaging 5 days prior that everything is sold and impossible to get, all while this “miracle piece” was in the back collecting dust.
4.) Dangling the steel Daytona and GMT as a carrot before buying 250k of the “miracle lucky pieces” consumers bought as explained in point 3.
5.) KNOWING they will NOT sell certain pieces to certain customers, but STRICTLY following guided messaging to never EVER say that to a consumer and continue lying with vague false messaging and false hope.

All of the above is directed by Rolex to the AD’s. These people have become worst than used car salesman, only far more sophisticated and strategic.

My biggest beef is how they “USE” the term “collectors first” when it suits them to say this cliche line, but in reality the shark tactics reveal glutinous greed.im a true collector, STOP using my name to pose as if you care about me when it suits you. You don’t, and points 1-5 clearly reveal how much you care about consumers.

Originally Posted by omar-rye

But all these five points you’ve mentioned could be fake news, no? Why are you so certain these rumors are facts? Do share your sources.

I'm still waiting for your sources James

[huncho]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

I'm still waiting for your sources James

he has sources he just can't reveal them, or the watches he bought for 100k, because "they" might be reading this. you just gotta trust him bro

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by James84

They are immoral and unethical for the following reasons.
1.) Lying to customers about inventory and ability to sell.
2.) Hiding all stock in the back to avoid the transparency that some models sit forever, and they claim they have nothing and everything is sold out which is another lie.
3.) Optical illusions of “I can’t get anything it’s all sold, gone, and supply too low….then 5 days later the “lucky miracle text comes of I just got a ladies diamond bezel president, it’s a beauty and WOW how lucky I got this…..WANT IT”….this tactic is rooted in the optical illusion of empty cases and messaging 5 days prior that everything is sold and impossible to get, all while this “miracle piece” was in the back collecting dust.
4.) Dangling the steel Daytona and GMT as a carrot before buying 250k of the “miracle lucky pieces” consumers bought as explained in point 3.
5.) KNOWING they will NOT sell certain pieces to certain customers, but STRICTLY following guided messaging to never EVER say that to a consumer and continue lying with vague false messaging and false hope.

All of the above is directed by Rolex to the AD’s. These people have become worst than used car salesman, only far more sophisticated and strategic.

My biggest beef is how they “USE” the term “collectors first” when it suits them to say this cliche line, but in reality the shark tactics reveal glutinous greed.im a true collector, STOP using my name to pose as if you care about me when it suits you. You don’t, and points 1-5 clearly reveal how much you care about consumers.

In item 2, what models are sitting forever?

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by Zach69SS

I have not been on here for that long but I heard some nice stories of ADs taking care of a veteran, teacher or first responder , so it does happen, not everyday or as much as some of us would like. But it happens sometimes…..everyone’s experience will be different.

I get water in a glass bottle when I visit my AD—Vellamo spring water from the Salpausselkä Ridges, formed during the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago. Forget buying more watches; now I just go for the prehistoric hydration!

[Sunny Arizona]

Exactly what I was thinking. Lol

Originally Posted by WatchTimes

LOL!!!

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by huncho

he has sources he just can't reveal them, or the watches he bought for 100k, because "they" might be reading this. you just gotta trust him bro

So... James is probably not his real name eh?

[Cassian739]

Originally Posted by joe100

Rolex literally is a charity. That’s the whole point of their watch business.

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Actually, you are wrong. It most certainly IS a charity. The Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, which owns Rolex, donates millions of dollars annually to various charitable organizations.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Perhaps, but donating at least 300 million Swiss Francs annually, to a very varied group of charities, is some serious giving back to the community. Do some research. It’s rather fascinating how Hans had set this all up,since he would die, without any direct descendants, to whom he could leave his watch company and his fortune.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by mickyd329

Rolex generates over $11 billion annually in revenue. $300m chf to charities pales in comparison to what they actually net after expenses. Nobody knows exactly what their net profit is because they are not required to report it, but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than $300m chf.

Again, a business first and charity second. Remember, their net profit is way larger than any other company because Rolex doesn't pay taxes. Where does the rest of it go annually?

Not trying to knock their charitable efforts one bit. It's extremely admirable and love the fact that Hans Wilsdorf had the foresight to set it up this way to support charities around the world long after his time here. What I don't agree with (we can agree to disagree and it's ok) is when people try to put Rolex on some pedestal of being some company not interested in the profitability of the business and the only reason for it's existence is to save the planet. That narrative, I don't buy. Just my opinion and not trying to discredit yours or anyone else's.

Rolex SA - is a business. I am 100% certain that Jean-Frédéric Dufour (CEO) has revenue growth and profitability targets set by the Hans Waldorf Foundation Board of Directors. If he doesn’t meet those, he will be fired. With that said, since they wholly owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation (non-profit), Rolex does not pay taxes. Same with Tudor (owned by Rolex SA) and all the income generated by the foundation’s real estate and other investments. Also, and not to confuse things, but Rolex does make direct charitable investments (Rolex.org) into the arts, science, environment, and mentoring. These investments are within the business’ profitability targets set by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation.

Hans Wilsdorf Foundation is a non-profit which distributes the majority of its income to charity and social causes, mainly in Switzerland. Non-profits are not subject to taxation in Switzerland as long as they meet the legal definition of a non-profit (for another discussion). In addition to Rolex and Tudor, they are also one of the largest land owners in Switzerland. Plus who knows what other private investments they have.

[James84]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

Rolex generates over $11 billion annually in revenue. $300m chf to charities pales in comparison to what they actually net after expenses. Nobody knows exactly what their net profit is because they are not required to report it, but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than $300m chf.

Again, a business first and charity second. Remember, their net profit is way larger than any other company because Rolex doesn't pay taxes. Where does the rest of it go annually?

Not trying to knock their charitable efforts one bit. It's extremely admirable and love the fact that Hans Wilsdorf had the foresight to set it up this way to support charities around the world long after his time here. What I don't agree with (we can agree to disagree and it's ok) is when people try to put Rolex on some pedestal of being some company not interested in the profitability of the business and the only reason for it's existence is to save the planet. That narrative, I don't buy. Just my opinion and not trying to discredit yours or anyone else's.

Well thought out and totally agree with this.

[bluestreak]

This is probably the fifth thread saying all these things *this week.*

Imagine being so wrapped up in oneself that you think you are coming here with new revelations. Or so entitled as to think that an AD has some obligation to sell a luxury watch to you. Or thinking so highly of yourself that you see yourself as some sort of person whose clout Rolex should care about.

So if I had to pick between those pathologies and just being a troll, I might actually pick troll.

[rockysw]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

Rolex generates over $11 billion annually in revenue. $300m chf to charities pales in comparison to what they actually net after expenses. Nobody knows exactly what their net profit is because they are not required to report it, but I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more than $300m chf.

Again, a business first and charity second. Remember, their net profit is way larger than any other company because Rolex doesn't pay taxes. Where does the rest of it go annually?

Not trying to knock their charitable efforts one bit. It's extremely admirable and love the fact that Hans Wilsdorf had the foresight to set it up this way to support charities around the world long after his time here. What I don't agree with (we can agree to disagree and it's ok) is when people try to put Rolex on some pedestal of being some company not interested in the profitability of the business and the only reason for it's existence is to save the planet. That narrative, I don't buy. Just my opinion and not trying to discredit yours or anyone else's.

I dont think there is any expectation from Rolex to save the planet. It is first and foremost a business in my view. But the general point (and it is not just Rolex) should business do whatever it takes to maximize profit without any transparency? I dont want to offend anyone but this is just my view that businesses should have transparency.

And as far as I can see there is no transparency in allocation. And yes I appreciate that it is ADs who are responsible for allocation and not Rolex but Rolex pretty much controls every aspect of their sales and in my view they can certainly influence ADs to be more transparent in their allocation.

Now having said all of that, with everything going on in the world, rolex allocation seems like a teeny tiny problem in our lives.

[James84]

Originally Posted by Cassian739

Rolex SA - is a business. I am 100% certain that Jean-Frédéric Dufour (CEO) has revenue growth and profitability targets set by the Hans Waldorf Foundation Board of Directors. If he doesn’t meet those, he will be fired. With that said, since they wholly owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation (non-profit), Rolex does not pay taxes. Same with Tudor (owned by Rolex SA) and all the income generated by the foundation’s real estate and other investments. Also, and not to confuse things, but Rolex does make direct charitable investments (Rolex.org) into the arts, science, environment, and mentoring. These investments are within the business’ profitability targets set by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation.

Hans Wilsdorf Foundation is a non-profit which distributes the majority of its income to charity and social causes, mainly in Switzerland. Non-profits are not subject to taxation in Switzerland as long as they meet the legal definition of a non-profit (for another discussion). In addition to Rolex and Tudor, they are also one of the largest land owners in Switzerland. Plus who knows what other private investments they have.

Informative, thanks for sharing this perspective.

[MP777]

This is a great write up and I agree
On the flip side, I know an AD that takes bribes and lets you cut the line. Rolex found out and they just fired a random SA and pinned it all on him. Lots of bad apples out there

Originally Posted by Robison347

Rolex dealers receive a mix of platinum, gold, two tone and steel models every year. They have limited choice in that; Rolex decides the mix and within that dealers can make requests.

There are some models - like the stainless GMT or Daytona - that are always easy to sell. There are other watches - like a jeweled President - that are tougher to match with a buyer. All dealers get a mix of both. The ability to sell it all is essential for an AD.

When the person who buys that hard-to-place President walks into the dealer and asks if he can get one of the new stainless GMTs, what’s the AD to do? He has one in the safe. Does he sell it to the guy who really helped him out, or does he let it go to someone he may never see again?

With any luxury good, there are many people who are “one and done,” and a few who become loyal customers of the brand. If you are a dealer, those clients who will buy 4-5 watches a year are important to retain. A dealer who cultivates 100 special clients who will buy 2-3-4 pieces a year will be in a very secure position, and it behooves that dealer to give those people what they want before walk-ins.

Yet the dealers know that every good client starts as a walk in. That makes it very important for a dealer to decide accurately who is likely to stay with them, and who just wants one watch, never to be seen again. Given the reality of more demand than supply, the person who seems like a one time buyer probably won’t ever get one of the hottest watches from many ADs and will be left to the secondary market. Dealers simply don’t have enough of the most desirable models to go around.

When one of the AD’s top clients asks for a watch for a son, daughter, or co worker, don’t you expect that person will get a watch quicker than someone with no connection or history? Fifty of those clients making such requests may absorb most of the dealer’s most desirable allocation of stainless watches.

As a business owner, I understand my local dealer has to sell whatever he receives. Not just the popular pieces. I also understand there is no “bad Rolex.” I may not want a jeweled President, but I’d take a platinum 1908. There is someone who would love that President, and could care less for a 1908. Many or most stainless GMT buyers don’t want either of those. When one watch or the other is one the way, the successful dealer will have an idea who may want it.

For any luxury business, long term clients are essential. They are the ones that the dealer can rely on. To say those people - who some would call collectors - as unimportant is just crazy talk, in my experience. ADs cannot survive without people with the means and desire to buy the PM pieces that do not go through the roof in value. They need those people - loyal clients - to buy $40k gold watches that are on the secondary market for $35k, because they want to know they bought it new. If this was all about price, and not relationships and feelings, how would many PM watches every sell at new prices? But they do, and that is why.

[BillA]

Don’t we already know all this?

[bluestreak]

Originally Posted by rockysw

I dont think there is any expectation from Rolex to save the planet. It is first and foremost a business in my view. But the general point (and it is not just Rolex) should business do whatever it takes to maximize profit without any transparency? I dont want to offend anyone but this is just my view that businesses should have transparency.

And as far as I can see there is no transparency in allocation. And yes I appreciate that it is ADs who are responsible for allocation and not Rolex but Rolex pretty much controls every aspect of their sales and in my view they can certainly influence ADs to be more transparent in their allocation.

Now having said all of that, with everything going on in the world, rolex allocation seems like a teeny tiny problem in our lives.

Why are you, or anyone here, owed any transparency into how a business allocates luxury watches?

They are not selling pharmaceuticals, or food, or utilities or anything that even remotely approaches being essential. Why on earth does anyone need to know how they sell watches?

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by BillA

Don’t we already know all this?

We’ve heard it all before, but don’t tell the OP! He thinks it’s “breaking news”!

Kat

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by rockysw

I dont think there is any expectation from Rolex to save the planet. It is first and foremost a business in my view. But the general point (and it is not just Rolex) should business do whatever it takes to maximize profit without any transparency? I dont want to offend anyone but this is just my view that businesses should have transparency.

And as far as I can see there is no transparency in allocation. And yes I appreciate that it is ADs who are responsible for allocation and not Rolex but Rolex pretty much controls every aspect of their sales and in my view they can certainly influence ADs to be more transparent in their allocation.

Now having said all of that, with everything going on in the world, rolex allocation seems like a teeny tiny problem in our lives.

I don't think Rolex has any grand expectations of saving the planet either, but if you read posts by some Rolex diehards, you would think that is the sole purpose of the brands existence or something. Just my personal observation.

Transparency in allocations from AD's will be a challenge. I'm sure there are legal and contractual limitations on what Rolex (franchisor) can force their AD's (franchisee) to do. Once a watch is wholesaled, the AD legally owns it and not Rolex. Unless they go direct to consumer, controlling that process is going to be difficult at best. That's why they probably bought Bucherer, to have better control of the retail process. Even then, the experiences are not going to be the same across the board. AP has gone the boutique route, but everyone's experience differs from person to person and boutique to boutique and there are plenty complaining about the same issues. As long as there is compensation/bonuses tied to performance per location, human instincts will take over to maximize opportunities for themselves at the employee level, thus creating a non transparent process even if factory owned.

We have to remember that AD's are in a tough predicament. Not defending some of the practices we have seen, but how do you allocate a hot piece once you have it in hand? Do you allocate it to a first time customer that has not bought anything from you and only wants a Daytona, but has been on the "waitlist" for 3 years? Or do you allocate it to a repeat customer who has spent 6 to 7 figures with you over a long period of time? As a business, who do you take care of? On the flip side, how would you feel if you were that VIP customer and are told to wait in line with the rest of the first time customers who walked in off the street?

No right answers IMO and you are right, we have much bigger problems in the world than Rolex allocations..

[123Blueface]

Whoever thinks Rolex is 100% non profit and all profits go to charity are sadly mistaken and have not read enough on the subject.
Do they distribute a lot to charity? Yes, they do.
Do they stash profits as well? Very ignorant to think they don’t as they have no legal reporting requirements. Anyone believing they don’t stock up on profits, let me know if you are interested in vast amounts on property around the world that I’m selling.

[SLWoodster]

I am told that Rolex designates who is getting the puzzle pieces and the Le Mans daytonas.

agree with pretty much everything you said.

Originally Posted by mickyd329

Wow, what a read... I'll contribute my thoughts.

Is Rolex involved in how AD's allocate pieces? NO. Once they wholesale to their AD, the AD owns the piece and they sell to whomever they wish, when they wish.

Do some AD's hold inventory in their safes? YES. Those that say AD's don't do this, you're kidding yourself.

Do AD's create an illusion of scarcity? YES. Of course they contribute and help the scarcity narrative.

Is there scarcity? YES. Of course there is scarcity. Demand obviously outstrips supply.

Do some AD's sell to greys? YES. Again, this happens as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Not all, but some AD's do engage in this practice.

Are they lying to you if they tell you they don't have the watch your looking for? NO. Even if they have it in stock, they might want to sell it to someone else and therefore, they don't have it in stock for you.


Is any of this unethical? NO. The AD has to do whatever they need to do to maximize their profits. It's a business and we can't fault them for this.
Yes, there are good AD's and bad ones. The bad ones try to squeeze every ounce of benefit out of the situation. They probably will pay for this in the long run as they alienate customers. However, the good ones have been real good and will do just fine in the long run.


And yes, Rolex is a business first and charity second. Let's not get that twisted. Just my 2 cents.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Whoever thinks Rolex is 100% non profit and all profits go to charity are sadly mistaken and have not read enough on the subject.
Do they distribute a lot to charity? Yes, they do.
Do they stash profits as well? Very ignorant to think they don’t as they have no legal reporting requirements. Anyone believing they don’t stock up on profits, let me know if you are interested in vast amounts on property around the world that I’m selling.

Are you still trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge?

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SLWoodster]

I will say i felt what you felt maybe 2 years ago. I've spent 6 figures and been told that the model i asked for 3-4 years ago is now "overcommitted".

In many ways you are not actually purchasing things on some kind of set scale. You are actually competing against the buyers on the AD's existing list. You're having to break into to their allocations list. You basically having to climb over others. If you're in a major city with lots of long term customers... that's going to be difficult. I've seen multiple occasions where they are preparing 5, 10, 20 Rolexes as corporate gifts.

I've luckily had the opportunity to have friends who are on their different AD journeys. I would say that it's mostly not worth it. Generally at about $250,000 of spend, the cali dealers pay more attention to your requests. And it should be things that they have trouble or feel are more difficult to move that you buy consistently, once or twice every 3-9 months at a time. Some of them will bundle with jewelry, some of them will ask you to buy other watches at the same time.

The most time-saving method is to just go grey. I know many don't want to but really that's kind of the best way right now if what you want is the hypest pieces. As you said, you bought what you liked but you also felt like you "lost" money buying them. So, take the losses, and just get what you wanted to begin with.

Originally Posted by James84

Again my intent was to always get feelings and perspectives out and create a good dialogue from all sides. I am NOT a troll, I am a genuine collector with long term intentions of the brand and hobby. But I am a voice for several out there who have felt and experienced these things.

Keep the great dialogue going, it’s all healthy and helps everyone better understand what everyone is going through in the hobby.

[shaunylw]

100k in spend isn’t blue collar. You could have had that watch a long time ago with that level of spend. You’re the perfect customer for that AD. They dangled the carrot and you spend boatloads, why give you the treat now? They can keep stringing you along, and if you buy nothing else, they got 100k out of you.

With that much spend, and it’s been 7 years, it’s unlikely to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Are you still trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge?

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Too much competition.
Moved on to other, lesser known bridges.