Who started this Diversification into aspiration luxury ?
Isn't watch collecting supposed to be about artfully created tools? Remember the near downfall of the Swiss brands during the quartz crisis, it was survival for the fittest who in the case adapted to the popularity. Digital watches were cool and aspirational because of shows like Stranger things which similarly is how CEOs wear Apple Watches. Independent brands and Watch makers drown in this situation currently just because they are unable to produce luxury aspiration tools. For me if I buy a Rolex, Patek Philippe,Tudor etc it would be about luxury nothing more. Ask Drake who probably owns a minute repeater what that means. It won't matter to him because all he cares is that it is iced out and not accessible to the wider majority. Nowadays watch brands popularise limited editions so essentially it's about aspiration to luxury tools not about collection of artfully created tools.
Big brands advertise their luxury in a way you feel some way like a loser for not being able to purchase their luxury tools.
Take the Patek ads with the line "You never own a Patek Philippe you merely look after it for the next generation" The aspiration target is 14% , they are supposed to like quality and goodness but no one has taught them what those things look like so when someone does point it out to them they will go all in. It has inculcated a narrative about watches that has been very common in the luxury sector for over 40 years. It says to the viewers if you are worthy, if you are a real man, of you are truly successful and if you are a really good father, husband or son you would buy this watch. Make your son proud and don't be a loser.
It’s typical of any luxury goods company. Even if I had am able to afford their products, I am impervious to their wiles. I buy stuff based on looks, value for the money and comfort upon which no brand has the monopoly there.
Your reference to the aspirational 14% has me wondering if you've read that The Last Psychiatrist article.
But the true luxury in "luxury" is minimal to negative. It's mostly exclusivity and conspicuous consumption. Did you know that a lot of these things aren't even gold?
“Big brands advertise their luxury in a way you feel some way like a loser for not being able to purchase their luxury tools.”
You’re among friends on WatchCrunch. No one here thinks that’s why you’re a loser.
Your reference to the aspirational 14% has me wondering if you've read that The Last Psychiatrist article.
But the true luxury in "luxury" is minimal to negative. It's mostly exclusivity and conspicuous consumption. Did you know that a lot of these things aren't even gold?
Rolex PM pieces are hallmarked.
Meh, if it bothers you stop listening and wear good watches. Or bad, awful, gaudy, monstrosities that will make haute horologistas have an aneurysm....🤏🏻🤣😜
Meh, if it bothers you stop listening and wear good watches. Or bad, awful, gaudy, monstrosities that will make haute horologistas have an aneurysm....🤏🏻🤣😜
@SpecKTator
BOOM! #moarwings
I see where you are coming from but you need to look further back into history. Watches started their life pretty much as a rich man (was mostly male)'s toy. Watches were very expensive back then (im talking 19th century) and only Royals were able to afford them. They did become somewhat more affordable with more wars and industrialisation but brands like Patek Philippe were always luxurious and exclusive. I know many new collectors or aspirational collectors feel turned off by this but I think there is a place for brands like Patek Philippe as well as Seiko, Casio as well. We live in a time where we have alot of choice depending on our lifestyles and budgets so its a great time to be a collector imo.
Your reference to the aspirational 14% has me wondering if you've read that The Last Psychiatrist article.
But the true luxury in "luxury" is minimal to negative. It's mostly exclusivity and conspicuous consumption. Did you know that a lot of these things aren't even gold?
Patek ads almost require you to suspend disbelief. Little kids in sweater vests and ironed shirts, really? Father and son on a yacht in clothes not suitable for sailing. It's not about the watch anymore, it's just a symbol for a future that only seemed plausible in the past. Almost all references to modern life are missing, which tells you what age group they are targeting.
Patek ads almost require you to suspend disbelief. Little kids in sweater vests and ironed shirts, really? Father and son on a yacht in clothes not suitable for sailing. It's not about the watch anymore, it's just a symbol for a future that only seemed plausible in the past. Almost all references to modern life are missing, which tells you what age group they are targeting.
Disagree. They show dated visions because they look better and exude wealth and status better. If they showed some unshaven bedhead in a wrinkled t-shirt staring at a cell phone, who'd view that as aspirational? But I agree that the modern rich are nothing to look up to, if that's where you're going with this. No class.
Disagree. They show dated visions because they look better and exude wealth and status better. If they showed some unshaven bedhead in a wrinkled t-shirt staring at a cell phone, who'd view that as aspirational? But I agree that the modern rich are nothing to look up to, if that's where you're going with this. No class.
Yes, it's a Catch-22. The modern rich appear garish. (With that I mean those who flaunt their wealth. Most wealthy people I know don't.) So that image will work only for a minority.
As an alternative you can pull a version from the past, but that seems stuffy and detached, and may only appeal to an older demographic, not intentionally, but as a side effect of a lack of anything close to a consensus of what current success looks like.
Yes, it's a Catch-22. The modern rich appear garish. (With that I mean those who flaunt their wealth. Most wealthy people I know don't.) So that image will work only for a minority.
As an alternative you can pull a version from the past, but that seems stuffy and detached, and may only appeal to an older demographic, not intentionally, but as a side effect of a lack of anything close to a consensus of what current success looks like.
Well, the other thing is the whole "heritage/dynasty" thing. And that, as that TLP article I previously mentioned references, they are selling an image to aspirational outsiders.
Well, the other thing is the whole "heritage/dynasty" thing. And that, as that TLP article I previously mentioned references, they are selling an image to aspirational outsiders.
Yes, they are selling to aspirational outsiders. Yet this advertising is going very much against the current cultural shifts. A lot of wealthy women may not identify with the role depicted in those ads. Marriage rates are dropping, also. With that, the concepts of heritage and dynasty fade more and more into the background.
There is a reason a Richard Mille can be sold at the current prices, because it addressed those who live in the present. Even though they could aspire to what Patek is suggesting, they are clearly not. If I would buy my son a Patek as an heirloom, he would suggest a psychiatrist.
In contrast, those who are establishing a dynasty don't need a watch to remind them of that.