Do you know the founder of Omega and why the brand chose that name without looking it up?
First - totally relying on the honor system here - please be honest.
Next, I've been wondering about SWATCH group in general and Omega specifically a bit lately and their utter failure in marketing themselves. And it struck me, take away Bond, the Moon, perhaps the Olympics I know next to nothing of Omega history. I went back through review after review checking and I found that unlike Rolex (that never lets an opportunity to talk about Hans Wilsdorf go by) there's little to nothing of Omega history.
So I figured I'd try and gauge this more broadly.
15 comments
Sort by
Pete
Consistently overthinking watches, still, better than underthinking I guess.
Melbourne, Australia
Member since
Last active: 1 year ago
I knew the who, but not the why, so I answered "no."
I knew the last name, but nothing else about him, or the story behind the brand.
Actually like Omega's marketing over Rolex's. At least it feels like Omega's accomplishing things as opposed to Rolex's attempts to rewrite history.
Sadly I like Rolex/Tudor's watch designs more than Omega's.
I’m not going to spoil by posting the who and why here, but you don’t have to be Jack Forester to know it. If you’re into Omegas, you probably know.
Not sure that I’d characterize a brand’s marketing success by whether or not they market their brand name‘s origin story front and center. Kudos to Rolex for managing to make an origin story involving a businessman talking to himself on public transportation sound divine.
Early 20th century Omega ads did focus a bit on the name meaning and history. Turns out being the first watch worn on the moon is a bit more interesting for more recent generations than Greek alphabetical order references. 🤷🏼♂️
I’m not going to spoil by posting the who and why here, but you don’t have to be Jack Forester to know it. If you’re into Omegas, you probably know.
Not sure that I’d characterize a brand’s marketing success by whether or not they market their brand name‘s origin story front and center. Kudos to Rolex for managing to make an origin story involving a businessman talking to himself on public transportation sound divine.
Early 20th century Omega ads did focus a bit on the name meaning and history. Turns out being the first watch worn on the moon is a bit more interesting for more recent generations than Greek alphabetical order references. 🤷🏼♂️
Totally agree, knowing these facts is not going to make anyone buy an omega. Rather, I would say that so few people having a clue what they are indicates a failure of omega to sell its brand.
On your specific point, I would say rolex sells a ton of datejusts because of the submariner story - I doubt omega sells a single deville on the back of the moon.
social media is inundated with people (that haven't even got the watch yet) proudly proclaiming they've bought their "first" rolex - secure in the knowledge that there will be more. Ive never seen someone overjoyed at by their "first" omega - expecting this to be the first of many omegas.
Its not really about knowing the history - its about leveraging the history to be more than a few isolated snippets associated with specific watches and creating a brand that transcends any particular watch - something I fear omega has utterly failed at.
For example - the origin story of the brand name 'Omega' ties together the co-axial escapement, metas certification, the olympics, the moon and james bond and every single watch omega makes- its the thread that make these individual things more than the sum of their parts.
Omega are about the watches. Rolex are about the brand.
Idk, I’m making that up. 🤷♂️😂
Didn’t remember the founders name, but knew the story behind the brand name.
Not sure if that is much of an indication about the brand’s marketing. Seems you know four things about Omega’s history anyway!
Brand identity inevitably changes when they become part of a group. Mining that heritage needs to be done sympathetically or it can come across as cynical or false.
Thinking about many other watch brands, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t know or remember the founders name for most of them (including the brand with the part of the founders name incorporated into the name).
It might make a good watchcrunch quiz?!
Totally agree, knowing these facts is not going to make anyone buy an omega. Rather, I would say that so few people having a clue what they are indicates a failure of omega to sell its brand.
On your specific point, I would say rolex sells a ton of datejusts because of the submariner story - I doubt omega sells a single deville on the back of the moon.
social media is inundated with people (that haven't even got the watch yet) proudly proclaiming they've bought their "first" rolex - secure in the knowledge that there will be more. Ive never seen someone overjoyed at by their "first" omega - expecting this to be the first of many omegas.
Its not really about knowing the history - its about leveraging the history to be more than a few isolated snippets associated with specific watches and creating a brand that transcends any particular watch - something I fear omega has utterly failed at.
For example - the origin story of the brand name 'Omega' ties together the co-axial escapement, metas certification, the olympics, the moon and james bond and every single watch omega makes- its the thread that make these individual things more than the sum of their parts.
I’d like to introduce you to a little watch site called Fratello and a hashtag called “SpeedyTuesday” where you will find lots of overjoyed Omega owners who have bought their first of many. Omega marketing is not an utter failure by a long shot.
You are correct that Rolex uses the Submariner to move a lot of Datejusts (and even Cellinis sometime). Datejusts can be specifically ordered by ADs and aren’t distributed based on the AD’s random allotment for those on the registry of interest.
Does Omega compete with Rolex? Yes. Are they trying to be Rolex? No, and that’s a good thing. Do a lot of enthusiasts own both, and other brands as well? Yes. It’s not a zero sum game.
I‘m pretty sure I could poll people going in and out of the local Rolex boutique on Rolex trivia and get similar results. At the end of the day, if people are buying their watches and happy with their purchase and the experience, that’s what matters.
I know why they chose the name. Not sure who founded it.
I’d like to introduce you to a little watch site called Fratello and a hashtag called “SpeedyTuesday” where you will find lots of overjoyed Omega owners who have bought their first of many. Omega marketing is not an utter failure by a long shot.
You are correct that Rolex uses the Submariner to move a lot of Datejusts (and even Cellinis sometime). Datejusts can be specifically ordered by ADs and aren’t distributed based on the AD’s random allotment for those on the registry of interest.
Does Omega compete with Rolex? Yes. Are they trying to be Rolex? No, and that’s a good thing. Do a lot of enthusiasts own both, and other brands as well? Yes. It’s not a zero sum game.
I‘m pretty sure I could poll people going in and out of the local Rolex boutique on Rolex trivia and get similar results. At the end of the day, if people are buying their watches and happy with their purchase and the experience, that’s what matters.
absolutely true - but then I guess we could shut down watch social media because whats the point of talking about anything.
I agree with others here, I can’t classify Omega’s marketing as a failure at all. I actually think they do a better job of framing their brand identity than Rolex, which seems to be happy with the “unobtainable luxury” social medial has given it recently.
I agree with others here, I can’t classify Omega’s marketing as a failure at all. I actually think they do a better job of framing their brand identity than Rolex, which seems to be happy with the “unobtainable luxury” social medial has given it recently.
cool - tell me just what is the omega brand identity - I cant find any evidence of one.