"I would never pay $$$$ for THAT brand!": Pricing Pigeonholing/Stereotypes

I've been thinking about this issue for a while now . . . this has happened with other brands, but I think what really made me notice certain comments was the rise or the Oris 400 movement series (in particular the Big Crown versions). As we might suspect, comments under articles and influencer reviews sounded like:

"Too much!" / "I remember when Oris was . . ." / "I would never pay that much for an Oris!"

Now, I do think we can try to attribute reasonable price ranges based on brand/engineering/specs . . . but a lot of pricing is based on intangibles (and to some degree we only have other collectors to blame for buying these things and confirming a new price point).

But what I'm more interested in is this idea that a brand should always cost a certain price range, that its identity is caught up in a certain price range, that any innovation that the do should be within that range. I honestly think this is short sighted and unfair. Brands should innovate and should grow and these things cost time, labor, money, and other resources. At one point we all probably balked about another brand increasing prices until we got used to that new range. Thoughts on any of this?

Reply

It is unrealistic to expect watch prices to remain frozen in time.

Unfortunately, inflation is real. And, because the costs increase, prices must increase over time.

While this might be unpopular, this is a fact of life and business.

Completely agree. It is unfair to pigeonhole one brand into a price range and dismiss everything they do outside of that category without giving the watch a fair chance by comparing its objective qualities instead of fabricating a false opinion based only on the brand's name.

This was very apparent with the release of the last Christopher Ward Twelve X a couple days ago. Everyone immediately decided it was inappropriately priced and assuredly a worse watch than a skeletonized Zenith or Oris based on a stupid name without ever seeing the watch in the metal. What if it is actually a better watch? Snobs are so brainwashed by a name on a dial that they won't consider the actual product. Are you buying a watch or a brand name on a tag? 馃檮

I mean I would not buy a Tag Heuer or Breitling at retail, as I think in hand for my perceptions and preferences they are over priced compared to Tudor, Longines, Omega, and Rolex. Now someone else may feel that way about Tudor or Omega. In either case the personal opinion and perception on the value proposition is valid.

Well I would say it depends on the watch itself for example an entry level hublot is way to overpriced, even some of the steel rolexes but since they retain value I would consider it okay. On the other hand I like Longines or Oris for what you get as I think sub 10K you do not really get much better watches but instead you are paying for the brand.

Unfortunately in my humble opinion it boils down to...Simple economics 101 supply and demand.

Take a look a G-Shock, they make $50 watches and $5000 watches.

My point on this is very subjective. If I were the owner/CEO of a brand, I鈥檇 love to have the possibility of going up market whenever it makes sense鈥 That being said, as a consumer, if Baltic comes up with a $10K horological masterpiece, would I buy it? Probably not. I鈥檇 be happy they make it, but I wouldn鈥檛 buy it. I鈥檇 rather spend that money on another brand. That鈥檚 not to say I expect Baltic to keep selling watches under $3K forever. Why would they?

Salty1

I mean I would not buy a Tag Heuer or Breitling at retail, as I think in hand for my perceptions and preferences they are over priced compared to Tudor, Longines, Omega, and Rolex. Now someone else may feel that way about Tudor or Omega. In either case the personal opinion and perception on the value proposition is valid.

Oh, for sure . . . and of course someone might have very particular relationships with certain brands or only with particular eras/collections that inform that perspective.

I paid $3000 for a secondhand Seiko and do not agree with paying $10k for a Rolex Submariner. I guess, therefore, I don't agree with pigeonholing and assessing higher or lower value of a brand base on the name. Prices for watches will go up like everything else.

In the case for Oris, the 400 caliber watches represent their investment in their future by fronting the costs for the new movement. It is a better movement. Their only flaw that made me not buying them for now is their laid back attitude in coming out with new cases and dials that distinguish them from the old. Maybe, attitudes will change when the new models come out.

I understand the point of the post and acknowledge there is merit in the argument... but, there is, in my opinion, an exception to this. As far as I know, the brand "Tudor" has always been lower tiered than "Rolex" so I think the majority of people would actually be surprised if one day Tudor releases series of watches that are more expensive than counterpart-comparable Rolex models...

Beanna

Completely agree. It is unfair to pigeonhole one brand into a price range and dismiss everything they do outside of that category without giving the watch a fair chance by comparing its objective qualities instead of fabricating a false opinion based only on the brand's name.

This was very apparent with the release of the last Christopher Ward Twelve X a couple days ago. Everyone immediately decided it was inappropriately priced and assuredly a worse watch than a skeletonized Zenith or Oris based on a stupid name without ever seeing the watch in the metal. What if it is actually a better watch? Snobs are so brainwashed by a name on a dial that they won't consider the actual product. Are you buying a watch or a brand name on a tag? 馃檮

To your very last sentence, I actually - speaking for myself - buy the watch and the brand name... 馃槄