Independence (or lack thereof) in watch journalism
Collective Horology’s Openwork podcast recently covered the topic of the conflicted nature of watch journalism. They don’t name names, but they mention a number of outlets who have cozy or even economic relationships with brands via online or brick and mortar shops.
A key exchange occurs when the hosts ask the guest about the nature of watch journalism as “access journalism,” meaning that reporter have to maintain a relationship with brands in order to get access to watches, executives, etc. to even be able to write the stories that readers want to read. When prompted, the guest, who is a report, concedes that he has abstained from writing negative reviews about watches to preserve his access to certain brands.
While I understand his point, this just comes off all wrong to me. At the same time, art and restaurant critics have unfettered access to the subjects that they review. Therefore, they can afford to speak their mind without jeapordizing their careers. Not so in watch journalism.
This is something that TGV has called out on his channel, and I’m curious what other folks think? There are certainly examples of this that are super obvious that rub me the wrong way (Time & Tide / anything LVMH) (Fratello / Omega), but others that don’t (Worn and Wound / Wind up Watch Shop).
What do you guys think? Is there a sustainable lane for independent watch journalism from 2024 onward, or does the problem of access as a result of the high cost of watches and hype cycle of the industry prevent in independent, free wheeling watch press?
HMU if you’re in Chicago! Baltimore transplant by way of New York.
I do not think there is a going to be a lot of independent watch journalism in the future. And it is not because watch journalists are somehow bad journalists. A lot of them are very good and are very enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the subject. But, journalists also need to make a living. They have mortgages to pay and kids to support. So they do what they need to do. Especially in such a small niche as watch journalism.
To be truly independent, you need to very wealthy or be extremely well supported by consumers of your material, so you can buy the watches you want to review. I do not think many of us regularly send subscribe (and pay) for watch publications. So, they depend on the brands to provide them with material to write about. And no brand will send you a watch if they think you may have a negative opinion about it. And if you do not get the material, you cannot do your job. So, I think, they try to do their best to still provide information to the reader, but avoid being overly negative.
So, I think, it is our responsibility, as consumers of watch journalism, to get as much information about this topic from the sources out there, with understanding that some of it may be biased, or influenced by interested parties. So, like with other news, we need to get our information from multiple sources, and verify it as much as we can. Fortunately, for most people, this is part of their entertainment, so it is not life-threatening.
They all depend on borrowed watches or gifted watches to review and the gifted ones come with a cheque. Sooner or later they get into the watch reselling game themselves with their own brand or storefront. It's about the clicks and subs.
It sucks for sure, but I don’t see any way around it. The public wants watch stories but they don’t want to pay for them. Unless people can make money from another source, they’ll have to cozy up to watch brands.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me too much. I’m aware that any YouTuber or watch site probably has some type of connection to somebody selling watches. I consume their content to get a better idea of what a watch is like, but the truth is that nobody can really tell you what you’ll think of a watch.
I do not think there is a going to be a lot of independent watch journalism in the future. And it is not because watch journalists are somehow bad journalists. A lot of them are very good and are very enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the subject. But, journalists also need to make a living. They have mortgages to pay and kids to support. So they do what they need to do. Especially in such a small niche as watch journalism.
To be truly independent, you need to very wealthy or be extremely well supported by consumers of your material, so you can buy the watches you want to review. I do not think many of us regularly send subscribe (and pay) for watch publications. So, they depend on the brands to provide them with material to write about. And no brand will send you a watch if they think you may have a negative opinion about it. And if you do not get the material, you cannot do your job. So, I think, they try to do their best to still provide information to the reader, but avoid being overly negative.
So, I think, it is our responsibility, as consumers of watch journalism, to get as much information about this topic from the sources out there, with understanding that some of it may be biased, or influenced by interested parties. So, like with other news, we need to get our information from multiple sources, and verify it as much as we can. Fortunately, for most people, this is part of their entertainment, so it is not life-threatening.
Another comment the guest made is that there are so many YouTubers offering more critical opinions that it’s really not necessary for the journalists themselves to be so critical.
It sucks for sure, but I don’t see any way around it. The public wants watch stories but they don’t want to pay for them. Unless people can make money from another source, they’ll have to cozy up to watch brands.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me too much. I’m aware that any YouTuber or watch site probably has some type of connection to somebody selling watches. I consume their content to get a better idea of what a watch is like, but the truth is that nobody can really tell you what you’ll think of a watch.
Great points. The outlets that I respect the most are also transparent about and either explicitly or implicitly concede their biases or conflicts. Not to fangirl for them too hard, but I think worn & wound does a pretty good job of this. They’re not seemingly in bed with any single brand and more than anything like to support brands where they really are able to get to know the people and stories behind the watch. I really like that angle vs commenting from afar / stanning enormous brands blatantly for access.
Great points. The outlets that I respect the most are also transparent about and either explicitly or implicitly concede their biases or conflicts. Not to fangirl for them too hard, but I think worn & wound does a pretty good job of this. They’re not seemingly in bed with any single brand and more than anything like to support brands where they really are able to get to know the people and stories behind the watch. I really like that angle vs commenting from afar / stanning enormous brands blatantly for access.
I think (maybe “hope” is more like it) there’s one thing that keeps watch “journalists” pretty honest, and that’s the internet. If all the pros are raving about a watch that sucks, it won’t be long before some guy gets one and posts the real story. There are plenty of folks out there who would gladly rub their noses in the fact a watch isn’t as good as they say. So maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I believe people give some thought to how hard they want to pander out of fear they’ll lose credibility. Or maybe not.
Another comment the guest made is that there are so many YouTubers offering more critical opinions that it’s really not necessary for the journalists themselves to be so critical.
Well, with the advance of Social Media, every one now is a "newsmaker" and we all can voice our opinions about anything and everything. And those opinions will be spread all over in just moments. And more opinions you have, a bigger "influencer" you are. But this is not what I would call "Journalism". This is people sharing opinions. And, for some reason, if you have a negative opinion, it is shared a lot more, than a positive one.
Thats journalism in general at the moment. Motoring journalists are in an even worse place than watch journalists for me as they are deeper in bed with the brands.
On a side note, Fratello isn’t as pro Omega as others are pro-“whatever brand backs them” as I’ve seen and heard their own negative feedback on the Swatch group and Omega on the fratello on air podcast hehe but they were holding back alot more 😁.
Even youtube its hard to see through the fluff on whats “sponsored” content. Not all youtubers are as honest on which vids are sponsored or not.
Thats journalism in general at the moment. Motoring journalists are in an even worse place than watch journalists for me as they are deeper in bed with the brands.
On a side note, Fratello isn’t as pro Omega as others are pro-“whatever brand backs them” as I’ve seen and heard their own negative feedback on the Swatch group and Omega on the fratello on air podcast hehe but they were holding back alot more 😁.
Even youtube its hard to see through the fluff on whats “sponsored” content. Not all youtubers are as honest on which vids are sponsored or not.
All great points. And re Fratello, RJ has been honest that going to back to his initial interest in watches, there’s something about Omega that’s connected with him so he gives them a lot of coverage. I think that type of honesty is at least somewhat important given the structure of the “market” for watch journalism, so to speak.
I didn’t even think about cars, that makes so much sense.
All great points. And re Fratello, RJ has been honest that going to back to his initial interest in watches, there’s something about Omega that’s connected with him so he gives them a lot of coverage. I think that type of honesty is at least somewhat important given the structure of the “market” for watch journalism, so to speak.
I didn’t even think about cars, that makes so much sense.
Yeah among the big watch publications Fratello gets my nod of approval. I’ve already shied away from Hodinkee and the rest unless its just news on new releases. For reviews at least I go to forums and watch groups now.
At least microbrand watch reviews are more “honest” in some way as the most many of them do is gift the watch and hope the reviewer doesn’t say anything “bad”.
Has it ever been different? Film and television captured the press that reports on them (Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, etc.). The automotive press relies on crumbs given out by the industry. Watches are niche industry followed by a niche press. There is no economic framework to chart a more independent course.