Reply With QuoteSame here. Absolutely love it and gets the most comments of any of my watches.Originally Posted by Go Big
Steve
Brand awareness with the the correct target market is the whole problem and as Walkerwek implies, that is not rocket science. Particularly in this day and age of programatic targeted marketing (for those that don't talk fluent advertising that's basically when you look at something on line then suddenly start seeing banner ads everywhere for related things).
Rolex probably has one of the most enviable brand reputations and awarenesses in the world. They could decrease their marketing spend to £2 for the year and i very much doubt they would see much of a blip in their sales figures. Tudor can not be treated anything like Rolex in this regard, it needs to have massive marketing spend put behind it to raise public awareness, gain association with enviable lifestyle, celebrity/sports person/event endorsement. At present their marketing and advertising campaign strategy seems to be more on a par with the likes of Christopher Ward. They really can't expect it to succeed with such a poor strategy and what seems like a stringent budget. If you add the possible pressure they are putting on ADs for Rolex like sales figures then it is doomed.
Same here. Absolutely love it and gets the most comments of any of my watches.
Steve
But the Sub has changed so much. Vintage subs are far more appealing but I would never buy one because of cost and fear of forgery. A BB would probably look good with a bit of wear on it where a modern Sub is made to look immaculate.
Does anyone think that the name may hold them back too? Tudor sounds incredibly old-fashioned in the UK and conjures up thoughts of 80s houses with planks nailed to the front of them. It is what it is but can't help.
Definitely - it is, frankly, a rubbish brand name. For me it always makes me thing of Henry VIII. The logo(s) doesn't help either. Only really great watches could make you overlook a brand name like that.
I think Rolex is a good financial backer to Tudor however I also see that holding them back. It's the same for one of the oldest and most famous watchmakers, Longines.Disagree about it being 'difficult', putting a man on the moon is my definition of difficult, but I agree it won`t be quite so straightforward as they hoped.
This is all about advertising and marketing the Tudor brand in the correct way and (more importantly) getting the prices right. Provided the watches are appealing, not priced at a silly level, and given plenty of the right advertising, they'll do OK. Rolex and (to a growing extent) Omega prices are way beyond what many are prepared to pay for a watch, so buyers are bound to be looking for something more affordable but still having the Swiss brand/heritage kudos.
I don`t do marketing/advertising-speak, it's an alien language to me; however, even I can see that it's a challenge to rebuild a brand once it's lapsed in the public perception. Other brands such as Longines and Tissot have fallen into that category; excellent heritage based on true quality back in the 50s and 60s, but not perceived in the same light thesedays.
As I`ve said several times I think there are bigger problems facing the whole Swiss watch industry; persuading the younger generation (and some of the lapsed oldies) to even wear watches is the big challenge IMO. Possibly a well-marketed brand such as Tudor has a part to play?........who knows.
Paul
Owned by Swatch has some benefits but Swatch deliberately hold Longines back so they can push Omega. I think Rolex possibly hold Tudor back in the same way rather than push them.
Reiterating what I said in my original post, the local AD says Tudor sales are struggling however Rolex are flying out the door in their words. No shortage of money about then so it's down to the appeal of the brand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It does sound like a very generic 'heritage' brand but so does 'Daniel Wellington' and that doesn't seem to have been a problem for them. It doesn't conjure thoughts of old boots or famous generals :).
Maybe Tudor don't have to grow and grow. It would take years of brand investment to turn them into TAG but why do that if you are Rolex? If they did, then they would probably turn into a different range of watches altogether.
To be honest I prefer some of the designs to the Rolex equivalents as they are simpler and more straightforward.
I think its way too early to make a judgement and depends on what the long term aim is.
Not sure what their sales are like outside of UK or how they are doing in the US but they are/have been making
the watches for other markets anyway so apart from marketing budget there isnt much additional cost.
I'm guessing they planned to switch to the in house movement a while ago and wanted to try to increase sales
by re entering the UK and US markets to off set some of the cost of this.
Whatever is happening, surely Rolex will be playing a long game. People have noted the lack of ostentatious marketing. Perhaps first of all they're waiting until they've built up a lot of credibility within the knowledgeable watch world - and built up the right to charge plenty for them - before expanding more aggressively into the mass market. You wouldn't want to attempt it the other way round.
I doubt Rolex flying out the door comes as a surprise to anyone. If you asked the next 100 people you passed on the street to name 1 luxury watch brand 99 of them would say Rolex. The other 1 person would sshout something mental like "LABRADOR!" cause there's always one mentalist.
You only have to look at this very forum as proof. Of the first 20 threads in the "watch Talk" section almost half are Rolex related and the "Hi! first post, thinking of buying a Rolex for my up coming 40th and looking for some advice" post is almost a weekly occurrence. There's nothing wrong with any of that but i would like to know by what measure the AD feels Tudor sales are struggling as I'd imagine almost everything looks like it's struggling compared to Rolex. I wonder how they are selling compared to Bell & Ross, Oris, Nomos, Bremont etc. Is the expectation just too high from those that know about the Rolex connection?
You shouldn't put down a brand just because you aren't familiar with it
You may have hit on the only watch brand name that's less appealing than Tudor... apart from Christopher Ward, of course...
Simon
On a serious note, it does seem to me that strenuous attempts are being made to downplay the relationship between Rolex and Tudor, as opposed to making the most use of it. I'm very struck by the fact that if you look at the display windows in Fraser Hart Brent Cross, Rolex occupy most if not all of the display space on the top level of the right hand window, while Tudor are jostling for attention in a smallish space in the left hand window.
If they wanted to point out the relationship between them I would have thought they would be locating them alongside each other?
Simon
Tudor were relaunched in the UK in September 2014, so they're two years into their business plan. They withdrew from the UK in 2006.
Their problem? They lack identity (in the sense of 'the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is') among the general public. People who frequent fora like this one know who/what Tudor is as a brand, but they haven't penetrated the consciousness of the watch-buying masses.
There was a thread in January 2014, not directly about Tudor, but a few posts targeted the brand:
What is their USP to the masses? Rolex halo? Is there something else I'm missing?
Then there's their celebrity endorsement:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...e-One-Show-now
______
Jim.
No it's no surprise Rolex sells well at all. I'm thinking though Rolex could push the tudor brand more for sales. The AD reckoned the "about half the price" of a Rolex was enough to make folk pay the extra
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Zeitwinkel, anyone?
Yes OK, you've got me there...
Simon
They should put 'Rolex' in small letters under the Tudor name or at the base of the dial and in big letters on the case back.
Rolex halo and price point. As Rolex creeps ever upwards something like a Pelagos or BB is actually the ideal watch for Mr about-to-turn 30/40 etc who probably wants a sub but isn't quite prepared to spend £4k+. At the moment it seems to me that Tag Heuer make a killing in that market.
Thanks for the link. I now want to sell my BB after finding out that buttock aperture wears one.
Firms like Mercedes and BMW have managed to occupy all sorts of price ranges....competing with firms like Volkswagon and Ford at one end, Porsche and Bentley at the other. Maybe Rolex should try the same, because it seems you can do that without 'cheapening' the brand. And the Tudor models are not so far from Rolex quality anyway.
Some of them seem more interesting.
How about putting on a Rolex crown, Rolex case back and Rolex bracelet. Or have they tried that one before?
Funnily enough one of the guys in WOS in Glasgow said a very similar thing to me. He basically said that they up-sell to most people that come through the door.
Would that not be like Baume & Mercier putting Jaeger-LeCoultre at the base of the dial* or Audi putting Porsche in small letters on the back of their cars?
I think they want a separate brand and it has to mean something in its own right - youthful, cheaper, even cutting edge design etc. But younger watch buyers seem to either want a Rolex, a TAG, a Michael Kors or a smart watch. Hence the tie ins with Ducati etc.
There is hardly a mention of Rolex on the Tudor website.
*Feel free to choose your own combinations.
What about "Wancher"?
Also perhaps they are also concerned that whilst WIS types (or those who know their watches) will never buy Tudor over 'the' Rolex (might buy Tudor as a second watch) if people don't really care about watches, but have enough for a Rolex (or, are saving for one) should Rolex sudden make it clear Tudor is, basically, a Rolex...well, does that hurt their bottom line? On the other had, I thought one thing Apple had figured out was that if one of your product line cannibalises the other who cares, cos it's still profit?
As I said, I think Tudor's competition is Tag (everyone non WIS seems to love Tag) and maybe Oris. I'd love to know how they sell against high end Oris (those Oris Audio chrono's ain't cheap!).
- - - Updated - - -
Also perhaps they are also concerned that whilst WIS types (or those who know their watches) will never buy Tudor over 'the' Rolex (might buy Tudor as a second watch) but if people don't really get too geeky about watches, yet have enough for a Rolex (or, are saving for one), should Rolex suddenly make it clear Tudor is, basically, a Rolex...well, does that hurt their bottom line? I'm not sure, but I guess it does (I bet they make more profit - pound for pound - on Rolex over Tudor). Still, I thought one thing Apple had figured out was that if one of your product lines cannibalises the other who cares, cos it's still profit?
As I said, I think Tudor's competition is Tag (everyone non WIS seems to love Tag) and maybe Oris. I'd love to know how they sell against high end Oris (those Oris Audi chrono's ain't cheap!).
I somewhat agree. I don't think Omega was any less upmarket or desirable because they had a quartz Seamaster.
They don't need to put Rolex anywhere.
One time you pull out the crown and see how reassuring the crown action is ( best in business), you know that the Rolex quality is there.
The problem is that it is not a Rolex, is it?
Fair enough, I'm sure that's true. The website is there to get people to try a Tudor in the first place though. If more people did I'm sure they would sell more.
No it's not and for me that's a very good thing.
They are the thinking man's Rolex.
And the a big part of the brand they are trying to reanimate relied on a strong strain of Rolex DNA in areas that really mattered, the dial hands and case. For me the cases on the new range are the biggest problem; seems they decided that minimal work doesn't look lazy and second rate.
The other problem in the UK is:
If a thinking man wants a Rolex he buys one.
And many do as the watches are deserving of their reputation. However, far more seem to be sold to nonWIS. The brand represents the average joe's aspirational statement of wealth, the middle England dream of one day having a Rolex submariner on your wrist to go with the German car on the drive of your 4-5 bedroom cookie cutter new build home. It is part of a stereotype. The Submariner is practically part of a middle age man uniform consisting of mid to dark blue straight leg jeans, casual leather shoes (never trainers, that would be too much) and what looks like a Charles Tyrwhitt casual shirt tucked in with the sleeves rolled twice. A common site in many parts of England on any given evening or weekend.
This. It's funny how so many Sub wearers I see fit a particular stereotype –*the one you mention.
But then, I'm just a stereotype wearing different shoes.
Haha
:)
Fine for a WIS but not much help to someone who has no point of reference.
It's still got the "It's the cheaper Rolex" brand hanging over it's head imo and an Omega is better value at the same level, My SMPC is leagues ahead of the black bay in every way.
I have spoken to 3 or 4 people advising to buy a Tudor and all have said "it's not a Rolex" and "people in my office would know that !!!!"
I also bought a black bay like many have done, from here in fact, and soon sold it on, it feels too cheap for the price.
the case shape feels and looks bulky to me and I never liked the hand design really, I paid £1650 and had to sell it even cheaper !!
Would I buy the brand again, not after buying two more Rolex's , I see no point going backwards ! and while I lost money even on a 2nd hand Tudor, my 2 Rolex's have gone up £1k each !!!
can they go up VS Omega at the £3k price point, not imho.
Bit like buying into Skoda and not VW or Audi. If you cannot afford to buy one you buy the next brand down, It's the same with Tudor and that's the rub.
Any luxury brand is about that tier level you live on, like it or not.
But I think shoes show that more than anything, people try too hard to get into Rolex bling but forget the shoes they have on are Clarks not Loake/Barkers etc !!!
Last edited by Mrdemon; 13th September 2016 at 11:41.
Daniel Wellington has a completely different model - they sell cheap(ish) made in china in two styles to largely under-25s. Nobody buying a Daniel Wellington is concerned about resale or long-term value.
Perhaps that's actually the marketing strategy - use Tudor as a mechanism to persuade people to pay for Rolex? A bit like most restaurants putting their most profitable wine at the second or third cheapest on the wine list, knowing that most people will want to "upgrade" from the cheapest.
There is a setting in Tapatalk to turn that off, you know.
Tudor should be a gateway drug to Rolex for many but I'm not sure if this is the case, if I talk to non WIS friends about Tudor most have never heard of them, or think it's some old giffers brand.
I do like the Pelagos personally.
Most of what you say is worrying about other's perception though...
I agree that a VW has a genuine step in some quality above the Skoda based on the same platform (in the same way an Audi does over the same VW), but it's more complex than simply "You can't afford the better brand".
I, personally, would probably never buy a VW - I'm not sure why, but there's something about the brand that doesn't appeal to me. I had a Skoda (to me, those hated rear engined 'skips' were quirky, interesting cars, the Beetle, a hateful noisy, uncomfortable thing) and loved it - I kept it for 90K miles from new. I recently looked at VW Golf Rs - I know they're good cars, but I just can't see myself in a VW... Silly, I know, but it's not as simple as buying into a brand at a price point.
Similar with your quote about shoes, although in that case I just buy what I find comfortable. Expensive shoes wear out, maybe I don't know how to wear them properly or don't dedicate the care they need, but I'd rather spend less on shoes _I_ find comfortable than worry whether I'm wearing the 'right' brand to appeal to people who are obviously concerned about things I have no worries about.
Bringing this back to Tudor, if people like a Pelagos, what do they buy from Rolex? A Sub? A Seadweller? Or the cheapest Rolex available because it's a 'better' brand? To me, there's no sense in it that. You'd buy the Pelagos if you like it, because Rolex don't offer a watch that's similar enough to be a competitor... Even if they DID, you might still prefer something about the Pelagos or just find something about the Rolex brand unappealing...
M
Last edited by snowman; 13th September 2016 at 12:26.
I wonder if the general public would actually be aware of the Rolex connection. Most will see it as a nice new shiny brand.
The lady in Selfridges did her best to deny any connection so I think they are possibly being told to promote its independence.
Where I think they may have issues is with the Rolex President look-a-likes. I know they always used to replicate Rolex across a range of models but they may be better to stick to sports models
This was sort of my reasoning for buying a Tudor. The Rolex sports watches just have that middle aged man "jeans and sheuxsss" image. The Pelagos has a much more sporty modern look and feel than the sub or seadweller and the BB captures the appeal of the desirable vintage subs better that the slightly too flashy (IMHO) current offerings from Rolex.
I actually think that when you look at the 2 brands together the range is very well structured as Tudor seem to fill in the spaces that Rolex has vacated. I feel they should really cut down the offering from Tudor to a more focussed heritage with a modern twist type of range (where they have been going but without full commitment), drop all the glamour and dress stuff and get their marketing targeted at the right people with sponsorship of the right sort of events.
what watch do you wear ?
It was never a problem for smiths was it?
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Only if you're the kind of (sad) person who wants to be judged by what brands you own. Not everyone makes car purchasing decisions based only on how aspirational the brand is.
Owning mass produced "luxury" brands doesn't indicate pure wealth, it also indicates how much you're willing to spend on certain items. The majority of people could afford a Rolex if they really wanted one but most choose not to spend that kind of money on one watch. I do agree, however, that brand image / recognition will be a major factor in purchasing a luxury watch for a non watch enthusiast (and also many enthusiasts!).
The Tudor brand does sit in a difficult price band, above Tag but below Omega. It's difficult to see them being able to compete with Tags brand recognition with the man on the street and they're not at the same level of quality as Omega. I do hope they preserve though.
I've owned a handful of (older) Tudors and Rolex over the years but strangely they all left me feeling a bit cold. I loved the designs but I just felt they were lacking something and that there were better alternatives for the same money.
Last edited by watchcollector1; 13th September 2016 at 14:26.
A very challenged and a sorry point if view.
I agree but I'm afraid it's probably the point of view taken by the majority of nonWIS who fancy an expensive watch.
There's also a setting that will turn your text black... ;-)
Posting Permissions