Rolex lineup strategy...

[Tallbark]

Rolex have some models that always are in great demand. They also have some references that are on the other side of the scale. Watches you know exists but not much more than that. Still, these watches stays for a long time in the lineup. Millgaus and YM2 is two examples. AK was in the same category, now they even decided to stick with it and uppgrade it in spite of not being that popular.

So, what do you think the strategy is here? We dont sell many watches in this series, but we keep it anyway?

I talked to a dealer who said that the MG was a total sleeper until rumours started to circulate that it was soon to be discontinued. Still they kept it for a long time - 2007-2022.

Now I guess we can exect the AK to be around for many years ahead.

I would like to be a fly on the wall in the Rolex product strategy room.

Based on models that has been introduced and discontinued - what do you think the strategy is?

[joli160]

Guess they don’t want to become a one trick pony.

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by joli160

Guess they don’t want to become a one trick pony.

Exactly that. Also, this has been their "official" stance according to central distribution here in Greece at the beginning of the hype. That, and I quote, "Rolex is not just a couple sports models but so many other references, too."
I will add that Rolex sell every single one of the 1+ million watches they produce each year regardless, as we already know.
And people just keep buying them all anyway, oftentimes not necessarily because they like them but because they have other uses for them as we also know...

[dannyp]

Don't confuse "hype" and "popularity" here. Is there a lot of "hype" around a TT DJ36 with a white Roman dial? No. Is it still a very popular, iconic Rolex? Probably in the top-three.

Personally, I preferred (from a product management and tradition perspective) the old Rolex approach relying heavily on modularity. Virtually no Rolex had model-specific components. DJ36, DD36, Explorer all shared a mid-case (in different metals). Same with all 40mm Professional models that weren't the Daytona or SD. Many Professional models (Explorer, GMT, Explorer II, Sub, Sub Date, SD) all shared identical bracelets (and two clasps between the six models). Dials essentially came in three sizes.

The result was also the ability to use already-produced parts for something else should production numbers need to shift. Easy enough to even phase out something relatively unpopular (more likely a configuration than a whole model).

However, that also made the watches easier to modify/reconfigure without "approval" which Rolex used to care little about. Even ADs could/would swap bracelets within display case models or order different color dials/bezels in order to sell a languishing watch. Today, not so much. Now, it seems that no two watches share any major components besides movements. Every Professional watch is a different size, or at least case shape. Zero modularity there. Diminishes much of the perceived utilitarian nature that Rolex built much of its reputation and brand equity on.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Don't confuse "hype" and "popularity" here. Is there a lot of "hype" around a TT DJ36 with a white Roman dial? No. Is it still a very popular, iconic Rolex? Probably in the top-three.

Personally, I preferred (from a product management and tradition perspective) the old Rolex approach relying heavily on modularity. Virtually no Rolex had model-specific components. DJ36, DD36, Explorer all shared a mid-case (in different metals). Same with all 40mm Professional models that weren't the Daytona or SD. Many Professional models (Explorer, GMT, Explorer II, Sub, Sub Date, SD) all shared identical bracelets (and two clasps between the six models). Dials essentially came in three sizes.

The result was also the ability to use already-produced parts for something else should production numbers need to shift. Easy enough to even phase out something relatively unpopular (more likely a configuration than a whole model).

However, that also made the watches easier to modify/reconfigure without "approval" which Rolex used to care little about. Even ADs could/would swap bracelets within display case models or order different color dials/bezels in order to sell a languishing watch. Today, not so much. Now, it seems that no two watches share any major components besides movements. Every Professional watch is a different size, or at least case shape. Zero modularity there. Diminishes much of the perceived utilitarian nature that Rolex built much of its reputation and brand equity on.

This!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[watchwatcher]

The words "less desirable" went out the window a few years ago.

Now they can sell every single watch they make.