Does Omega have an identity crisis?

I think they are trying to get clicks by making silly statements...

Not every brand has to be Rolex, with a couple of watch models, and nothing else on offer.

Omega is one of my favorite brands, with 7 in my collection. The main issue that I have with them is the size, as they tend to be larger watches than comparable pieces from other brands. A secondary issue is the winding crown - many models are much less pleasant to wind than many other brands.

I would disagree that they don't have much to offer. The Speedmaster is available in a variety of different configurations, and the Seamaster has 4 distinct sub categories, each of which offers a distinct and different vibe (Diver 300M, Planet Ocean, Seamaster 300 Heritage and Aqua Terra). They also have the Constellation and DeVille lines for dressier pieces.

I am not watching her video but Omega is the Acura of watches. They don't have a cohesive brand identity or design language. I'd be fine with this were they banging out attractive designs of all sorts but is anyone going to say this is the case? They truly have no rizz.

This pains me doubly because, besides the fact that they make quality watches, they used to make sooo many amazingly attractive things back when they were trying during the quartz revolution. Those things are beautiful. Almost all of them make me drool while their modern stuff is ... there.

I'm glad that @tempus broke the ice on the size issue. There is a good amount of "nice enough" designs of theirs, but it's all very modern (read "too damned big") size. Was there some lost technology from half a century ago when things were tidy and slim???

I had previously assumed that the size (at least the thickness) was due to the coaxial escapement, but the new Speedmaster Professional doesn't suffer from the same bloat as many of the other models with that same escapement. I realize that the Speedy Pro is manual wind, but I don't think that the coaxial 3861 version is significantly thicker than the previous 1861 version (please let me know if I'm wrong). I suspect that the coaxial escapement may result in slightly thicker movements, but I don't think it's the only reason.

In some ways, I like the heft of some of the models. I don't own one, but I think that much of the appeal of the Planet Ocean is the wrist presence, but it requires wrists larger than mine. Whenever I see one being worn by someone with large enough wrists to pull it off, it always makes me look into them again.

Omega have an amazing back catalouge. I have always found the many special edition Speedmasters to be interresting and something that set them apart from many other brands. They are chaning their strategy and I hope they return stronger. I think your "identity crisis" observation is spot on!

Who is jenni Elle and why?

Huh. I just told a friend the other day that I love their catalog, and if I could only buy from one company to fill out a casual-to-dressy collection it would be Omega.

I recently picked up this Seamaster second hand and had it serviced by Omega. I really love this watch, the dial is the best part. It is really the only Omega that speaks to me. I am trying to get into other newer models, but nothing really calls out to me like the original Bond Seamaster.

I wear Omega and drive an Acura. 🤣

Omega does not want to be Rolex.

Thank goodness.

People just want clicks. That’s their business.

I just want a Constellation Globemaster.

Perfection to me.

Yeah, is it Oh-May-gah or Oh-Mee-guh?

I actually had to Google her. Lots of videos on YouTube. Maybe watch one when I get a chance.

I really like Omega & have a number of their main models. In recent times though I think the accusations being made against them are 100% valid.

Too many anniversary editions, too many variations of the one model & too many price increases. I say that as a man who just bought the 75th anniversary Seamaster Summer Blue. Clearly my opinion carries serious weight 😀

In 2019, I waffled between a DJ41 and the Globemaster. Ended up getting the DJ (before this AD supply nonsense) because I already owned 3 Omegas. Still think about that Globemaster all the time.

I've tried with Omega, but I can't summon any real interest in anything they do. The Moonwatch leaves me unmoved, I have issues with the AT (handset, don't ask) and similarly 'meh' feeling about the rest of the range. I toyed with a Railmaster for a while but the feelings fizzled. Vintage Omega has a lot of appeal, but I don't feel any draw to their modern design language, story or marketing.

Omega is arguably the best “value” product in and around the 5k price range (although they are slowly getting too expensive). The movements are phenomenal and they do for the most part look and feel amazing. But I kinda agree with Nico and Jenni, there’s a lack of flair it seems like one of those brands that keeps trying to recapture the past when it has its “glory days”. The marketing for both the moonwatch and the Bond watch gives me so much secondhand embarrassment. Not to mention that outside of those two watches a lot of their catalog is entirely forgettable, be honest has anyone actually bought a DeVille or a Tresor? It’s a shame cause it should be on top of its game but brands like Tudor, Longines and Oris are creeping up on them with far more interesting and affordable options from brands who seem like they genuinely listen to their customers.

Yes it does look like Oris is going to take Omega’s spot among watch enthusiasts soon.

Not gonna say their entire catalog is perfect lol, but it’s such a quirky and likeable brand

Omega has a lot of variety, but to say it has no identity is absurd. Like others have said, they are trying to say controversial things to get the clicks. Ever since the massively successful moonswatch (record breaking wait lines for a watch, social media craze, resale prices and demand, increase in actual speedmaster professional sales) they’ve been trying to find any excuse to talk down on Omega.

The Apollo moonwatch, the successful PR stunt moonswatch, the bond seamasters, Aqua Terra’s versatility and also appearance on skyfall, the constellation is a fantastic dressy watch, they are sponsors and known as the timekeepers for the Olympics for generations. Only Rolex can compete with Omega’s fame but Rolex is only more identifiable due to marketing but I think Omega has more to offer for less and Omegas resume is more impressive and complete.

I can understand why some people would think they are pumping out too many models. But then again, having choices in something as subjective as aesthetics can never be a bad thing.

Saying they lack identity when they have several iconic designs even recognized in pop culture is probably pushing it for the clickbait title.

The main criticism I would do about Omega is that they are tone deaf and too slow to evolve. Their watches are too big and bulky, in an era where every major brand is downsizing to accommodate more people. Their bracelets are subpar and they are years behind updating all their watches with on the fly adjustable options. And that god damn helium escape valve is dumb. All criticisms enthusiasts have been making for years and they listen to no one, which to me is the reason they are losing the appeal of the community.

What?! Nonsense. Omega (I don’t own one, but I want one) has so much brand identity that it’s coming out their ears.

Great designs (Speedmaster, Seamaster, Aquaterra, De Ville, Railmaster), movements (co axial escapement) going all Master Chronometer (METAS), history. They are on par with Rolex and GS in the upper mid tier of horology.

Now Zenith, that’s another story. All they have is “we once made the movement for the Daytona”.

Omega MSRP is getting to ridiculous levels. You may want to consider the preowned market if you are looking at Omega.

I interpret several comments to mean that Omega is trying to sell a luxury product using non-luxury marketing and branding techniques. Well, excluding the (boomer cold war nonsense) laurels of da Moon and Jimmy Bond.

One should be able to list a few adjectives that uniquely identify the brand. I can do this with most successful brands. It becomes trickier as you go down the line because lower end brands are competing on merit. Quality, value, and style are pretty generic descriptors. That's the Omega problem. What makes the brand special? As Rolex has proved, it can be totally imaginary propaganda but it has to be something and it has to reach people.

In fairness, JLC has the same problem. Outstanding products, but what is their identity? There's a reason almost everyone thinks "that 1930's flippy rectangle watch!" It is unique.

Grand Seiko gets it. I still don't know what their 'typical customer' would be or any such thing but about anyone that has heard of them immediately thinks "spring drive, zaratsu polishing, organically textured dials." Each is enough alone to uniquely identify the brand.

Omega, despite them slowly crawling out of my affordability range, will always be special to me. :)

Sadly, I feel like they’re being incredibly lazy with what they’re putting out these days in terms of originality. The old generation Seamaster was always my favourite watch and I own it and love it. But frustrating to see how reliant they’ve been on the Speedmaster and as someone pointed out above, there is a lack of cohesion in their current offerings for the Seamaster and Aqua Terra. More is not better.

Good point, aldough the things you mentioned are imo not identity definition, just products and/or features. Identity should be defined as what you stand for, what are your values and why you do what you do

True, but they all are none more than Rolex.

Give me a break. This stuff about omegas being too thick or whatever is a conclusion looking for a reason. Ok I totally understand that folks need to say something that gets attention. Last time I looked at the catalog I didn’t make it through the pages. Lots of choices. Uniform not so much. Mostly good or very good mechanical watches.

That’s not much of a comparison, considering Rolex MSRP is already at ridiculous levels.

The way Rolex organizes the collections on line is what Omega should look at. It’s not really too many watches, it’s that it’s presented online in a cluttered manner.