With admiration and respect, but concern, for IWC

The following post is one collector's attempt to describe my passion, yet concern, for IWC. I will do my best to present a balanced view of what I see as an inherent conflict pulling on IWC management. It is not my intent to criticize IWC. I am merely stating my concern. I am very interested in the opinions of my fellow members of this Forum and I hope this post will stimulate some discussion.

I first became aware of IWC in late 2000. I began reading a major watch site and felt an immediate connection to the wonderful creation they called "Mark XV". I couldn't believe I was soon wearing my first good mechanical watch. So began a long term love affair for me with IWC.

I instantly bonded with that Mark XV. As I learned more about IWC, the bond developed into a distinct preference for the brand, and then into a deep respect and I suppose even love. The attraction for me was based on understated styling, a strong emphasis on engineering, performance, and workmanship rather than marketing hype, clear Germanic rather than French influence and style (and I mean no disrespect to any nationality), and the rich company history.

In the 9 years since, I have bought more than 45 IWC's representing virtually all of IWC's lines. While an average of 5 IWC's per year doesn't make me a huge customer, perhaps it at least means I have bought more than the average customer.

I still have a strong preference for IWC, but I have grown increasingly concerned about their recent direction.

The IWC with which I first became acquainted was a bit of a "cult classic". The brand wasn't available everywhere, was perhaps best known to a group of cognescenti, and marketing seemed to match the understated functionality of the product. Ad campaigns like the "strap hanger" watch were clever and consistent with brand image.

Recently, it appears to me that marketing and brand positioning have gone far more "big time". We have seen an ongoing array of special or limited editions, much higher profile marketing campaigns directed at a far wider (dare I say "mass") audience, more product placements and celebrity presence, etc. While I understand that for a public company top line (revenue) growth is necessary and that prior to the recession IWC has succeeded in that respect, I can't help but feel that this positioning degrades the exclusivity and desirability of the brand in my collector eyes.

The conflict for me is that I strongly preferred what was to me the "old" IWC. However, I've had a successful career in business and fully realize that product development isn't inexpensive. Some of the revenues from the marketing efforts I don't like are no doubt used to fund the development of new movements and models that collectors love. And, to their credit, IWC does a superb job of listening to, and rewarding, their collector base. We as a group no doubt do not represent IWC's largest market segment, though we may be the most passionate and most vocal.

So what's a company to do? How do they walk the tightrope between exclusivity and over exposure?

For me, while I understand the pull on IWC for constant revenue growth and I appreciate that some of it funds developments collectors favor, I wish IWC would "dial it back" just a shade and maybe wind the clock back a few years. The perceived exclusivity and understatement I always associated with IWC were highly desirable traits. I can't help but feeling that the current direction and more intense, higher profile marketing reduce that perceived exclusivity and therefore desirability of the brand.

That's one collector's opinion. No doubt everyone will have their own thoughts. How about you? What's your opinion?

I share your concerns...

regarding the direction IWC has been taking in the last couple of years. I fear that the sense of exclusivity is being steadily eroded, probably by pressure to increase profits in the short term. This can be a very dangerous strategy in the medium or long term.. Other luxury brands have collapsed by over-exposure or by exposure of the wrong kind.
This is a case where I would be happiest if proven wrong.

I am not clear why you take it so personally.

It's clear you do have passion for the brand and are a loyal, caring customer, and your affinity for the brand goes deeper than the SKU/Product itself. I do personally like where many of the product lines have evolved to in the recent 5-6 years and believe that the design, aesthetics, movement innovation improvements are directly related to all other strategic marketing and operational improvements.

I do NOT think that IWC should operate like a "private country club" where we all buy/own a stake in the business and make just enough watches for only "us" to enjoy and limit who else we let into the club.... It almost sounds like that's what you're aiming for.

While this forum is a great community - I do enjoy discussing WATCHES and watch collecting lifestyle - I fear that the proliferation of internet discussion forums and brand-sponsored forums induce some sort of self-entitlement by its members that "we" should dictate how this company is managed.

I don't believe my participation here entitles me to any necessity to voice opinions on how the company is managed. For me, I enjoy the product - and the legacy that these watches will become in due time.

I don't take it personally, Richard. I don't

disagree with you that being a customer gives us no "right" to manage the business. I have no such right, and I claim no such right. I do have the right to "vote" with my wallet, same as we all do.

This Forum does provide us the "privilege" of discussing the watches, the ownership experience, and indeed even the company. Michael does a great job moderating and keeping things on track, and dialogue here stays quite civil. I do think that in addition to superior technical content, one thing that makes this Forum the best IWC Forum around is that we are able to go beyond "what are you wearing today?" and "what color strap goes with this watch?" though those threads are fun once in a while, too.

I've been thinking about the issue lately and I simply expressed my opinion as one collector. IWC or any member of this Forum can listen or not, and agree or not. I think it's a pertinent subject, but others may agree or disagree as you have. I value the discussion with my fellow collectors wherever it may lead.

to me, exclusivity is a non-issue...

Hi Dick,

You raise some reasonable issues regarding marketing emphasis, and I appreciate the constructive way you’ve approached the subject. I hope the discussion can continue on that tone.

There’s no doubt that, if I were “czar” of IWC, I’d do a few things differently than Georges Kern –and so would others. But still I think his success with the company is undeniable and extraordinary. On balance, I think there are far more right moves –some great moves—despite reasonable differences of opinion on some marketing emphasis.

However, and I don’t mean to be “defender of the faith” I frankly question some of your premises, and the underlying psychology regarding them. I hope you also won’t take this personally, but I do believe there are some issues involving “exclusivity” as a need.

I’m not sure that I buy a watch for its “exclusivity”, so to me –personally—that’s not an issue. My latest watch purchase is, would you believe, a Swatch (well, okay, it’s a very special one –but it’s still a Swatch). I don’t care how many other people have it or whether it appeals to teeny-boppers or is marketed with Rock Stars. To me, the issue is the watch.

My St Ex gold chrono is, to me, a great design. I don’t mind, in fact I like, that Antoine’s countenance is on the back --it adds to the romance. But regardless, and regardless that there are only 250 of it, it’s just a good looking and well-crafted and fine functioning watch. If one wants exclusitivity, this watch has it regardless of marketing --although t that's not why I have the watch. I just like the watch.

My Regulator Tourbillon is special, and only 100 are or will be made in each metal. So it’s exclusive enough –and I don’t care if Boris Becker wears a Big Pilot’s watch and is one of many “friends” of IWC. That doesn’t detract from the exclusivity of the watch. And frankly I don’t care that there are only 100 –if they made 1000s that’s OK too. I just like the watch, its style, its craft and its function.

I can go on and on, but, honestly, I think some of the marketing is addressed to other audiences. And that is totally irrelevant to my values. But not all the marketing is so irrelevant –a lot is good, no –a lot is great.

I respect what IWC does with the Darwin Foundation. Sure it also gives recognition to IWC to a broader audience, but the watches are still the watches. And a good cause is a good cause. And I respect the Galapagos book –commissioning a work of art and publicizing, tastefully, these Islands and the values here is good.

So to me the issues are very different than you raise. I know of no watch company more socially conscious and ecologically minded than IWC. I think the watches –at least many of them-- are great and will be.

I think, with respect, this “over-exposure” stuff isn't a threat assuming quality is maintained. If there has been any over-exposure so far, it hasn’t hurt the product nor the intrinsic values --what makes a great watch-- one iota. It also hasn't hurt sales; on the contrary, there has been some correlation between that IWC has done and its sales increases. But product which often sells for $10,000 or more isn't going to be over-exposed because of inherent economic limitations.

Still broader marketing and different audiences can't always be "right" for some buyers. However, I also respectfully suggest that the real issue may be some buyers' psychological needs, but I suggest that the better approach is to ignore anything other than the product and lasting values surrounding it. You'll be happier, and have great watches. And IWC will continue to sell products which are "exclusive" enough to some, even if that shouldn't be a criteria.

Regards,
Michael

I share many of your concerns but ...

there's a balance of commercial interests and the exclusivity of the brand. Yes, IWC could be a special brand to those who have that special bond. I hesitate to offer the Groucho Marx principal that "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member". IWC needs the sales to fund the R&D to innovate and keep the many watchmakers who are probably on short time as they survive this recession. I am in South Africa this week and never in my experience of coming down here over the last decade seen so much stock in the shops. Most of the stock had been diverted to the "growth markets" in the past. These guys have to survive and the loss of exclusivity and low key marketing is a price we may have to pay to keep the concern going.

We need to give them some slack. I have enough faith in the guys at Richemont that they will not damage the long term equity of the watch maisons.

I hope this makes sense. I've had a tough week of meetings on short sleep.

I really love the tone of this thread

but sadly I cant prioritise my time this evening to share ALL my thoughts in this post.....but I make a start anyway. It is also less efficient from an iPhone.

As a lover of the brand, for only a few years, I am also raising an eyebrow from time to time based on the opinions I am forming about IWC and IWC watches in the public domain.
As some may know many of my watches belong to the vintage category and recently in dialogue with members here I am also guilty of wondering why some of the latest endeavours havent met with "my approval"......hhmmmm (who does this think he is ?)

Well in any conflict situation it is important to look in the mirror and perhaps it is partly, if not fully, due to my lack of adaption to change that IWC are experiencing which is my concern and not that of IWC itself?

If IWC stays the same perhaps it will not evolve adequately to survive (Darwin et al) and certainly if there are a few unhappy collectors this will not effect the company significantly.

Within my social circles IWC still remains a luxury brand and from time to time there is a wow moment when a discussion partner sees and comments on my watch - so therefore I feel that my small doubts and those of my AD are not shared by Joe public and perhaps even on the contrary......the quality of the message that IWC wishes to share is becoming even more efficient than in the past.

Saying all that - I love all watches in my collection but there are certainly a number of modern IWC watches that I would never buy.
This ratio is perhaps the same as those in the vintage category as well.

Modern internet social websites: I strongly believe that IWC need to focus on the QUALITY of the message and not the QUANTITY of the message. The old saying that exclusivity of information = power is something I never liked and this has been helped by trying to give consumers equal access to useful information. IWC should do whatever they need to get access to their full latent potential customer base. I dont believe that the stereotypical facebook etc community fan will be a large %age of that - but I know next to nothing about these type of things. Even if I am global head of initiatives along these lines within my company - where we share (sorry cant say in the public domain).

I would rather a world class innovative internet site evolved fully owned by IWC - where speed of information (like Franz Mattes exemplified) and quality of content was shared with the option for electronic updates via the use of choice by the user.......A creative team should be established to help with this.....and I am sure plenty skilled in this area are reading this message already.

Andrew

Hi Dick, discussion appreciated! To me....

....your story is 90% straight out of my heart!

However, for me personally it is not about 'exclusivity' at all (I hope we don't give you the impression that you were just trying to make that point!).

I'm most concerned on:
1. the designs of the last few years and to what extend IWC stays close to their roots ('DNA'), and
2. to what extend they sacrifice 'quality' for mass production.

I do NOT mean this in negative terms, but in my opinion design limits and marketing stories are certainly 'stretched' and I simply like some older watches better because I appreciate some quality aspects more (to name one: just compare a back-cover engravement from the first Big Pilots with the newer ones. Bracelets have been a discussion too).

Anyway, as you rightly say, we 'vote' with our wallet and I'm certainly true to IWC and respect their great achievements. I'm also a business guy and IWC's success is not something we should take for granted! Neither the amount of innovations and product launches they do every year (year on year!!!) with actually a pretty small team of great professionals!

As you suggested, maybe they should just 'tune it down' a bit?!

Again, the discussion is really appreciated and IWC will be my favourite brand for a long time I think!

Bob

I see it differently....

For me it is strictly about whether I will wear the watch. So I have to like the design, the feel, the look. If it is more exclusive so be it.
For example, I have the ceramic doppel with the blue face. To me the blue dial made the difference. I would have bought it limited edition or not.
I find when I look over my watch collection that I wear IWC watches about 80% of the time. And so, in my eyes, they must be doing something right. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But they seem to get much more right than most other watch firms.
I can't wait to see the new issues for 2010. I have a feeling I will be wearing at least one by year's end.

A newbie viewpoint>>>

Since I "came to" IWC about a year ago, the current watch lines and marketing strategies are the status quo for me...and point of reference. This is not to say that I do not have a sense of company history and the evolution of the product families, because this forum has been a constant source of education. Nevertheless, I became enthralled and began purchasing IWC watches because I liked the watches that were available. I learned about the company while visiting Switzerland. I have not seen a plethora of advertising overexposure (it is practically non-existent in my locale) compared to most luxury advertising. I may find myself several years forward despairing over how the company reached its peak in 2009/10, but that perspective is time-specific and the company/brand/product evolution continues. I respectfully proffer this view only to make the point that one's opinion about "where the company is going" is at least somewhat subject to where you got on the train.

Best regards,
Jim

Loyalty to the brand

I started to like IWC because of the quality of the watches, every aspect of the watch: all of the components had to be first class. As there are more brands that make really first class watches, something else had to come in, and for me it was looks. This of course is personal, but I liked that open and clean look with a lot of expression that most of the watches have. Not boring, and often not super beautiful the first time you see them. But some of the watches of IWC just get to you at a certain moment, and then you are lost. Have such an experience a few times, and you develop a loyalty that is difficult to get rid of.

What happened the last few years? A lot of exposure that I do not like too much, but is not interesting to me too: I just don't care. The watches grew bigger, but they proved to wear comfortably, and I adjusted to it: I cannot see myself with a less the 40 mm watch anymore. Some of the lines I do not like very much, but I do not care as long as there are lines that I like very much, like the Portuguese. I guess I was lucky with the VC watches. The point is, I cannot buy all the watches, I already have more of them than I would dream of only five years ago.

As long as IWC keeps making really first class watches with some innovation here and there, and a certain amount of them really catch my eye, I really don't care what happens. I stay hooked, the rest may be interesting, like all the good causes, but are beside the point for me.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing the watch that says it all, the rose gold VC Portuguese

i think what we have to remember is...

IWC are a profit led organisation owned by another profit led organisation and as such their sole purpose it to make money for their stakeholders.
lots of companies do this and no-one moans about it.
the problem - and at the same time the great thing - with IWC is, they make product that we collectors love and they connect with us in a way hardly any other company does.
this is a beautiful thing for IWC to do, but at the same time we get spoilt by it. the more they give us the more we want.
it's like a football team that has done well for years, the fans just keep wanting more.
i think we should ease off on them. they do so much for our group already and we should be thankful.
marketing is a nasty thing - i know this - i do it for a living. but it needs done and celebrities are a quick way to get to the hearts of masses - not collectors i grant you - but masses of new people and new markets with their products.
i disagree that 'special editions' dilute the collectors 'worth'. IWC does not force us to buy them. it's just marketing.
they need to do this and in the long term the collectors will benefit from it. guaranteed.
i think we are too hard on IWC sometimes and i think they need a break from our moans occasionally.
rant complete.
stephen

Great comments guys, & a credit to this Forum that

we can have this discussion without name calling or vitriol.

I'm enjoying reading your thoughts and hope to see more.

Interest is the blue dial

Do you have a picture of the ceramic blue dial doppel? I'm not familiar with this model and would love to see it. Thanks -Kevin

My perspective, for what it's worth....

My perspective is the same as a few others in this interesting thread. I buy a watch for is design, craftsmanship, quality, and after putting it on my wrist deciding if it passes the “must have” test. I am not swayed one way or the other by limited / exclusive editions, celebrity endorsements or because a particular ad medium or message passed by my eyes. Nor do I blame IWC management for offering a new product that may not appeal to me. If a new reference does not strike my fancy, I simply don’t buy it.

If I were the czar of marketing I would be reaching out to the target audience with new products and advertising in as many formats and venues as possible and affordable, while sticking with the basic business strategies (Probus Scafusia) we all admire. I think IWC has done a reasonably good job of sticking to the traditions and history of the company in its products and communications. They are not perfect, but consistency of the strategy and executions has been an IWC strength.

If IWC were to be too traditional or static in its executions, I fear revenue would stagnate and we would all suffer. Like a shark, the company must keep moving or perish. IWC cannot forget the lessons of history. They must adapt to a changing market with new products and innovative communications or profits will suffer. It takes profits to fund R&D, capital investment, support of our favorite forum, and to maintain a firm and ascending position in the Richemont conglomerate. The latter is important. IWC must remain a key brand in the Richemont portfolio. Without financial success IWC would not get its share of scarce corporate resources. So, I think the company is in a great position. I look forward to future with IWC.

Bill

Quite an interesting thread, indeed.

Lot of good points here, some new ideas. My humble point of view is the following : IWC made and still make good watches. Some are appealing to me. If I can afford them, I'll buy them. Some don't, and that's not bad at all (at least for my bank account). I just don't buy them, that's all. I don't have to be annoyed by those models who just don't appeal to me.

The main problem is that I love many "old" models (ref. 5001, 3227, 3706) that I bought and I will want "all" models from IWC being so appealing, to have more in my "price bracket" to choose from. But unfortunately, IWC do not produce exclusively for me.

Thank you for this good discussion

Regards,
Jean

Here you go...

IMO, very well stated (nt).