The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Hi Peoples,

This article was brought to my attention in the week. Pretty interesting.

I thought of the Forum as there has been some discussions on sales tactics noted this week. Not related, but an interesting confluence of marketing, pitch and politics, so I figured you might be interested.

What’s the feeling out there?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/16294638

_________________
Jim

"You have Control".

That's pretty well known among WIS, although I'm sure that most Joe Public buyers have no idea.

Personally I think that it's inevitable, and I don't see the situation improving with Swatch cutting supplies. Tag is looking to Japan for hairsprings and others will follow - there simply isn't enough hairspring supply in Switzerland. I am much more concerned with quality than origin and borders are fairly arbitrary - anyone care to suggest that Lange and GO are lower quality because they are not on the Swiss side of the border?

My thoughts exactly. Quality knows no boarders in theory. Management of manufacturing outside a country is a matter of culture & social norm pertaining thereto. Get it right & no one will notice.

I think though if this was a discussion on food labelling,& the extent to which that constitutes, then Swiss made might have a different outcome. Degrees of local manufacture & a system of recognising this might be a way but honestly, it should be as it says on the tin. If it isn't, then it's not. Confidence is the key.

_________________
Jim

"You have Control".

How many products (let alone products with hundreds of parts are produced solely from parts made in the stated country of origin?

'Italian suits' have been known to have been imported from tbe Far East and get nothing more than the label sown in Italy. As for food, well I think that Europeans have learned a lot about how many countries are involved in producing prepared meals after the recent horsemeat scandal.

There must be a website that can help source out the parts for a watch from different sources like they do for an iPhone!

I agree with everything that is being reasoned here. I think we are missing the point though.

Meat substitutions are a ratchet. They are illegal, unethical and immoral. That’s a far cry from inappropriate labelling laws we are discussing here. Believe me; here in Australia our Federal Government is hard pressed to introduce labelling laws that are reflective of public aspirations, as there are so many vested interests in what labels say and what they truly mean. If the public truly knew what was in the tin, would they buy it? Can we skirt round the issue and say just enough in hope that this is good enough and perhaps no one will notice?

We can slice and dice, spin the excuses, plead the circumstances and control the image, but when you strip away all of that; it is difficult to accept that a label does not reflect what it is supposed to mean. It’s deceptive at best. It assumes everyone knows that saying something is truly made in one country of origin really means; that it has 30, 40 or 50% of its components made offshore. We all pat ourselves on the back, knowing the real truth, but accepting the story anyway. That’s ridiculous. I think of George Daniels leaning 45 different artisan trades to make his watches truly from materials and processes developed in his workshop and nowhere else. No parts or processes were offshore or bought in to make up for a lack of local supply or know how. ‘More strength to his arm’ for local manufacture and technology transfer.

If any watch maker of larger size is aware of future supply issues (you would expect no less of watch giants) then they take action that is in their best interest. I have no problem with this. But you can’t say in the same breathe that it’s necessarily in the best interest of consumers. Perhaps you remove the label altogether, so problem solved then! Well, not if you want the prestige of a known worldwide claim planted on every watch you sell!

Perhaps the industry as a whole is not trying hard enough. Complacency is a business killer and competition is constantly growing. Remaining true to a brands values will eventually win the hearts and minds of consumers the world over. If prices have to rise accordingly for this to remain the raison d'être, then so be it. If you want exclusivity of country of origin, then there is a price to pay. Buyers are more sophisticated today (although sometimes you wonder), so a return to a trade war based on price from offshore suppliers is not as likely to happen anytime soon. That’s a risk though and one that goes with the territory, but buyers these days make up their own mind on a range of topics of which price is just one. Country of Origin is another. If they see an advantage in being truly unique or a point of difference that reaches outto their aspirations, then they will spend regardless of price and back your story, if they can afford it. Forget about the fake market in this debate, as those who buy a $10 Rolex will eventually buy one of the real things. If they never do however, then they never would have anyway. It just wasn’t meant to be. QED.

Lastly, it’s not the Swiss watch making industries fault the Franc is so high. There government have tried to buy down the Franc in the past with some success. Protection of this sort is a different debate however. What is within the grasp of all watch makers in this era is the strategy they adopt to flourish in an increasing globalised world. Do you meet the competition or do you counter it? Do you buy down in supply or do you buy up! In the end it’s a matter of self confidence and knowing where you want to be. It the industry falls over because of poor strategic decisions, then that would be a pity. But if it falls over because it lacked vision, then that would be tragic.

_________________
Jim

"You have Control".

That wasn't my point. My point was that the illegal activity is revealing that meals 'made' (packaged) in one country will regularly consist of ingredients that originated in a different country and were processed in a 3rd county.




OK, but this isn't an argument about just watches - take a look at any manufactured good in your house and see what percentage of the parts were made in the country that the product was produced in.




The industry is complying with Swiss law - as they should. They are for profit companies and will do no more than they have to in order to comply with the law - same as every company in every industry the world over - you spend the least that you have to to stay on the right side of the law. If the law changes then the industry will change, prices will go through the roof while supply goes through the floor, and non Swiss companies will spring up with far less regulation and transparency to fill the void.

Its a very interesting debate.

It’s all about disclosure. To advertise that your product is not necessarily 100% made in your country of origin is the point. Not many would disclose this (where they buy parts from overseas) as it makes the idea of what you might say on the tin a little more questionable and perhaps devalues its impact. So there is the answer to this conundrum in a nutshell, and is why the discussions are going on at the moment. They are talking about 60 down to 50% which is scary enough if it were not so tragic.

Whether you are complying with local laws are not, whether you are considering differences in perceptions from one place to another, in the end you have to ask yourself; what is the expectation of customers worldwide and what obligations do you have to disclose? If it’s good enough in some regions to display a rusted on reference to the product being made in a certain place or country of origin, then it must be perceived that this is a rational marketing tool in that place. If you do it there, then customers there must understand the claim and what it means. Otherwise, you would not do it.

It’s simple really.

_________________
Jim

"You have Control".