Is Omega’s Biggest Strength Also Its Weakness?

[chadmills]

Omega offers incredible variety—divers, chronos, dress watches, vintage reissues, you name it. There’s something for almost everyone.
But I sometimes wonder: does the breadth of Omega’s catalog hurt its focus?
Compared to Rolex's tight lineup, Omega's collection can feel overwhelming. At the same time, that variety is what makes the brand so interesting and accessible.
What do you think—is Omega’s wide range a strategic edge, or is it time to trim things down and focus on fewer, stronger core lines?
Would love to hear how others see it.

[1William]

To me, Omega's product line-up is bloated and needs both elimination and updates across the board. So many options, and not in a good way, that it waters down both the value and the collectability. I am an Omega fan and multiple watch owner, 3861 Black/White and a 1861. But someone needs to have a conversation with management and tell them that they are not, nor will they ever be, Rolex or an alternative to Rolex based on desirability and brand recognition. Omega is now being positioned with Tudor and on the outside, Longines. A sad state of affairs for Omega as the brand was at least mentioned in the Rolex discussion but not so much any more. Pricing is ridiculous and yet they continue the march it up. So many issues and self inflicted bad decisions. Cartier is now number 2 behind Rolex so if there is any though about Omega having issues just take a look at the brand.

[FTX I]

It's a mess.

[ppierce]

Speedmaster, PO, Seamaster 300 and AT should be the focus. Everything else needs to go. A lot of that other stuff resembles cheap mall watches.

[njlam]

I think Omega's weaknesses far outweigh its strengths, especially when compared to Rolex.

Their product line is too broad, with too many configurations, and inconsistent design languages. Rolex on the other hand has well-defined and understandable product lines, frustratingly limited configurations and incredibly consistent design language.

Furthermore, Omega has incredibly poor bracelets. The are forgettable and look dated. The only iconic bracelet they have is the flat-linked model that comes on the current 321 and the FOIS, and while that one is historically relevant, it has no ability to micro adjust. Better bracelets is low-lying fruit and completely doable. Omega needs to do better here. Rolex on the other hand has three globally-recognizable bracelets in the Oyster, Jubilee and President and these bracelets makes all Rolexes recognizable from every angle.

Some of Omega's design language is inconsistent and unfinished. Some of their models have hands that look like they match. However many of their models have hands that don't. For example, some models have a minute and with a "broad arrow" tip with an hour hand that does not. Others have an hour hand with the broad arrow tip, but a minute hand that does not. Some have both hands with the broad arrow tip, others have plain hands. Yet when asked, most Omega sales people have no idea of the rhyme or reasons for this inconsistent application of design language. It makes me think Omega is not a brand that charts its own future/destiny....like Rolex is.

While I have a few Omega watches (321/3861 and the new ND SMP), there are not many more that I aspire to buy. However if they fixed some of the issues mentioned above, there are a few more I might care about (that are not currently made).

That being said, I love the Omega buying experience. Everyone is happy to see me when I visit my local OB and they always have something to sell/show me. Rolex, on the other hand is a completely horrible AD experience.

[ap1]

Too thick

[fflump]

Originally Posted by 1William

To me, Omega's product line-up is bloated and needs both elimination and updates across the board. So many options, and not in a good way, that it waters down both the value and the collectability. I am an Omega fan and multiple watch owner, 3861 Black/White and a 1861. But someone needs to have a conversation with management and tell them that they are not, nor will they ever be, Rolex or an alternative to Rolex based on desirability and brand recognition. Omega is now being positioned with Tudor and on the outside, Longines. A sad state of affairs for Omega as the brand was at least mentioned in the Rolex discussion but not so much any more. Pricing is ridiculous and yet they continue the march it up. So many issues and self inflicted bad decisions. Cartier is now number 2 behind Rolex so if there is any though about Omega having issues just take a look at the brand.

Longines-seriously? Omega has its problems but it is nowhere near its lower end Swatch stablemate. What do you mean that Cartier is “number 2” ? On what basis is it number 2 in anything?

[njlam]

Originally Posted by fflump

Longines-seriously? Omega has its problems but it is nowhere near its lower end Swatch stablemate. What do you mean that Cartier is “number 2” ? On what basis is it number 2 in anything?

I agree Longines is not a good comparison. While Longines was a great watch in the 1950s-60s, it is now a low-to-mid price point offering from a watch conglomerate. Nothing special/innovative about a Longines in the 2000s

I think Omega is good competition to brands like TAG Heuer/Grand Seiko/JLC but tend to be the watch people go for when a Rolex is not readily available.'

As the top brand at Swatch, Omega does have some advantages, however being owned by a watch conglomerate has its limitations.

[Cru Jones]

If Omega has too broad of a catalogue, then Rolex is a total mess….

• Omega: four families of watches.
  
• Rolex: fifteen families of watches, and how many variants of Date-Justs can one get?

I don’t think having a variety of watches is a problem. The more choice, the better, IMHO.

Now about those Asian-made parts. THAT is Omega’s biggest weakness.

[fflump]

Originally Posted by njlam

I agree Longines is not a good comparison. While Longines was a great watch in the 1950s-60s, it is now a low-to-mid price point offering from a watch conglomerate. Nothing special/innovative about a Longines in the 2000s

I think Omega is good competition to brands like TAG Heuer/Grand Seiko/JLC but tend to be the watch people go for when a Rolex is not readily available.'

As the top brand at Swatch, Omega does have some advantages, however being owned by a watch conglomerate has its limitations.

In terms of men’s luxury watch sales Omega is still 2nd I believe as Cartier sells heavily in its ladies ranges. So while Omega has problems it’s not doing badly. In terms of competition I think Breitling is the closest major brand in terms of cross-shopping customers rather than Tag or GS, and even then Omega outsells Breitling 3 to 1.

[1William]

Originally Posted by fflump

Longines-seriously? Omega has its problems but it is nowhere near its lower end Swatch stablemate. What do you mean that Cartier is “number 2” ? On what basis is it number 2 in anything?

Cartier is number 2 for watch sales behind Rolex for the last two years. It does not matter if they sell heavily to ladies, a sale is a sale. Longines is a quality brand that has continued to improve the watches they offer and the prices have marched up. They are a legitimate alternative to Omega/Tudor when looking at quality and pricing.

[samson66]

The biggest problem for Omega is they are seen as the Moonwatch brand. The other watches they produce are offered in so many sizes and variations and special editions that they just sort of get lost in the fog. When you think Rolex you think Submariner, Daytona, Day-Date, GMT-Master. But with Omega, it's just Moonwatch.

Omega needs to thin the heard AND come out with a simple and competitive GMT watch. Offer just a few Seamasters and Planet Oceans, not the dozens that are offered now.

They are trying to be everything to everyone, but as an overall brand strategy I don't think it works.


Sent from my SM-X710 using Tapatalk

[samson66]

Originally Posted by fflump

Longines-seriously? Omega has its problems but it is nowhere near its lower end Swatch stablemate. What do you mean that Cartier is “number 2” ? On what basis is it number 2 in anything?

Longines owner here. I don't see them on the same level as Omega. I see Longines as a legitimate alternative to Tudor however. Longines is putting out some nice stuff these days and Tudor sales have dived hard in the past couple years.

Sent from my SM-X710 using Tapatalk

[chadmills]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

If Omega has too broad of a catalogue, then Rolex is a total mess….

• Omega: four families of watches.
  
• Rolex: fifteen families of watches, and how many variants of Date-Justs can one get?

I don’t think having a variety of watches is a problem. The more choice, the better, IMHO.

Now about those Asian-made parts. THAT is Omega’s biggest weakness.

Rolex’s variety works because each model has a clear identity and strong following—plus, their updates feel purposeful. Omega’s broader catalog sometimes feels like trying to cover every base without a unifying vision. Variety isn’t the issue; it’s how you manage it and maintain consistent quality that counts.

[njlam]

Originally Posted by samson66

The biggest problem for Omega is they are seen as the Moonwatch brand. The other watches they produce are offered in so many sizes and variations and special editions that they just sort of get lost in the fog. When you think Rolex you think Submariner, Daytona, Day-Date, GMT-Master. But with Omega, it's just Moonwatch.

Omega needs to thin the heard AND come out with a simple and competitive GMT watch. Offer just a few Seamasters and Planet Oceans, not the dozens that are offered now.

They are trying to be everything to everyone, but as an overall brand strategy I don't think it works.

^^This^^

A pure GMT to compete with Rolex's GMTII is a hole in Omega's lineup. Also, don't call it a Seamaster.

[chadmills]

Originally Posted by samson66

The biggest problem for Omega is they are seen as the Moonwatch brand. The other watches they produce are offered in so many sizes and variations and special editions that they just sort of get lost in the fog. When you think Rolex you think Submariner, Daytona, Day-Date, GMT-Master. But with Omega, it's just Moonwatch.

Omega needs to thin the heard AND come out with a simple and competitive GMT watch. Offer just a few Seamasters and Planet Oceans, not the dozens that are offered now.

They are trying to be everything to everyone, but as an overall brand strategy I don't think it works.


Sent from my SM-X710 using Tapatalk

Spot on. Omega’s Moonwatch overshadows their lineup. Simplifying and focusing on key models, like a strong GMT, would sharpen their brand and boost appeal.

[gamingdoctor]

Agree on Omega needing to narrow their vision.

You can see it even in the Bond movies. Pierce Brosnan's bond was defined by one watch (yes I know Goldeneye's was a quartz) - the SMP 300.

Daniel Craig? Every movie he was wearing a different watch, and in some movies he was even wearing two! It felt all marketing, and no respect given to a watch being a "bond watch."

[2001jesper]

The lineup is a complete mess and with no clear direction. But i also dont need for Omega to become Rolex

[jcdevoe26]

Originally Posted by fflump

Longines-seriously? Omega has its problems but it is nowhere near its lower end Swatch stablemate. What do you mean that Cartier is “number 2” ? On what basis is it number 2 in anything?

Cartier officially took over the #2 spot in terms of global sales a few years ago. Rolex is #1 and Omega was #2 for a long time until just recently.

[fflump]

Originally Posted by samson66

Longines owner here. I don't see them on the same level as Omega. I see Longines as a legitimate alternative to Tudor however. Longines is putting out some nice stuff these days and Tudor sales have dived hard in the past couple years.

Sent from my SM-X710 using Tapatalk

Totally- not dissing Longines but like you indicate they are a different price point finish and movement level. Omegas issue I feel is changing its styles within its SM and PO ranges too much too often using gimmicky colours so they age badly and don’t achieve model recognition as a result. Forget the Sub which is in a different league but successful sports watches retain their classic DNA and evolve gradually over time like the BP FF, RO, Overseas, Navitimer.

[Know1isgod]

Homerun on the 3861 Speedy Bracelet but perhaps too many Speedy models. It's also way overdue for a revamped Seamaster Bracelet. Also, IMO short term money on plastic watches that sell for $249 do hurt long term sales of other items. As an official Olympic timekeeper, not sure why they have not been able to leverage that into larger sales.

[trailblazer68]

Too broad a catalogue imo, its dilutes the exclusivity and the sense of luxury.

[Guppydriver]

As a watch lover usually enthralled with new releases, Omegas (seemingly) monthly new iterations of the same watch don’t even register to me anymore. I think another 300m was launched this week with some orange in it and I was like… “okay”. I didn’t even bother to open the various online articles about it from the usual suspects.

They seem a little lazy to me. The Railmaster was a very lethargic effort and is nothing more than a no date Aqua Terra IMHO. I don’t want another color of an AT Worldtimer, I want a proper sports GMT at a price closer to $5k than to $7k.

I also think the Swatch group in general is somewhat of a mess right now. Blancpain has lost their mind value wise, GO is severely under resourced and under promoted, Breguet is failing to appeal to anyone younger than 50.

I like Omega a lot, but it went from a brand I enjoyed buying new, to a brand I now budget shop in the secondary market.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

If Omega has too broad of a catalogue, then Rolex is a total mess….

• Omega: four families of watches.
  
• Rolex: fifteen families of watches, and how many variants of Date-Justs can one get?

I don’t think having a variety of watches is a problem. The more choice, the better, IMHO.

Now about those Asian-made parts. THAT is Omega’s biggest weakness.

Beat me to it

[ppierce]

first step should be to upgrade the SMP300 bracelet. the watch is a homerun after that.

[codecow]

I like Omega a lot, my first nice watch.

TBH I think they need more chase pieces like the 321 and Snoopy.

[herts9]

It's like a good restaurant. You have 87 things on the menu that are mid, but would be better if you had 10 things and did them well.

But people like options. If it were the other way, everybody would complain that they didn't have this option in a certain metal or color.

Find what you like, and don't worry about the background noise of other offerings.

[usmc_k9_vet]

I’m ok with Omega’s catalog. I like a lot of different things from them from a Speedy to a Moonphase to a ‘57 to a 321 to an FOIS to a Seamaster to a De Ville. They make very nice dressier watches that are often overlooked. The Aqua Terra and Seamaster 300 lineups are also nice and give people other options to the Diver 300, as does the Planet Ocean lineup, although I haven’t been drawn enough to one of those to buy one.

I actually really like what Omega has done with the Seamaster Diver 300 lineup. The ones released in 2018 until recently primarily had ceramic bezels, dates, flat crystal, and were offered on rubber strap or bracelet. The ones they have been bringing out more recently tend to have aluminum bezels, no date, a more domed crystal, and are offered on rubber strap or mesh bracelet. I’m not a fan of the mesh bracelet at all because there is just a ton of material where the bracelet overlaps with the clasp, but I do like that Omega gives people more options to get the Seamaster they like when it comes to dial color, date vs no date, wave vs non-wave dial, etc.

I also like their offerings in the Speedy Moonwatch category. You’ve got great options in steel, great options in two tone (I really like the Moonshine gold / steel version), and great full precious metal options to choose from. The bracelet that is now offered is excellent, in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FloydRedford]

I’m a big Omega fan. I’ve owned many and still have a couple in rotation. Their movements are reliable and accurate, and their cases and dials are beautifully designed and implemented imo. And their deployant strap/buckles are next level comfortable.

Where they fall short is in the bracelet category. Personally, I haven’t found one that I don’t have some gripe with— no taper, no micro adjustment, ugly, dated, etc. The 3861 bracelet is almost great but for the life of me I can’t understand why Omega didn’t smooth out, soften the corners of the links. It feels rough to the touch and leaves imprints on my wrist. I can live with it just fine, but it could be so much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[samson66]

Originally Posted by FloydRedford

I’m a big Omega fan. I’ve owned many and still have a couple in rotation. Their movements are reliable and accurate, and their cases and dials are beautifully designed and implemented imo. And their deployant strap/buckles are next level comfortable.

Where they fall short is in the bracelet category. Personally, I haven’t found one that I don’t have some gripe with— no taper, no micro adjustment, ugly, dated, etc. The 3861 bracelet is almost great but for the life of me I can’t understand why Omega didn’t smooth out, soften the corners of the links. It feels rough to the touch and leaves imprints on my wrist. I can live with it just fine, but it could be so much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree on the sharp corners of the bracelets. I'm not sure why Omega does this, but it definitely makes the Rolex bracelets feel more comfortable. And the larger and heavier the watch, the more noticeable and annoying it is. I really noticed it on my Speedmaster Moonphase.