Reply With QuoteThis.Originally Posted by DB9yeti
I am happy to educate you:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wh...UTF-8&hl=en-GB
When you are finished come back and educate everyone else in under 500 words.
Gray
This.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Praat jy Afrikaans??
Er...yes they do.
Why is an Audi seen as more sporty than a Volvo? Why do all those well-heeled mums all drive Land Rover Discoveries? Why does a can of coke costs 30% more than own brand?
Rolex have spent hundreds of millions of pounds convincing us all that their products are symbols of a successful life.
Yes, yes of course they are wonderful at what they do. But they also wonderful at selling what they do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it olazz? Having a good time boet?
If advertising was the main key to success then the firm that spent the most would sell the most, but it really is not like that. As you mention Coke, they spent tens of millions trying to convince punters to switch to 'new' Coke. Result, total flop. In all the cases you mention, people have very real reasons to buy these brands...and those reasons go far deeper than adverts.
IWC could spend ten times as much as Rolex, they still couldn't sell a fraction of the number sold by Rolex. The whole 'it's just about the advertising' line is a head-in-the-sand approach to a complex situation. In essence, the single greatest attribute is the old ' it does what it says on the tin' truth.
The great brands all combine a range of features...products which consumers actually want, great packaging, great stores to sell,them, great back-up, great prestige and then...if you get all that right...advertising can drive it home.
You have to get all the components right if you want real success in a cut-throat market.
Btw: Audis are more 'sporty' than Volvo. That's another feature of successful advertising...an underlying truth. Rolex, and Leica, are better made, Porsche make fast cars which don't fall to bits over the years, and so on. At the heart of all great brands is substance. Which is why I buy Heinz baked beans and Colemans mustard.
Last edited by paskinner; 21st February 2016 at 19:03.
Acutwat by any chance?
Frankly I'm surprised by the defensive responses, it does seem to go with the territory. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and quite possibly an (extremely) innocent one. There is probably more about Rolex on here than there ever has been, and it continues to increase, unless I'm just noticing it more.
People can be touchy if they think the subtext of a post is that people are buying the logo and don't know any better. But that's clearly not the case among a bunch of old hands. Over time they just come to realise that not only are certain models absolutely classic and often quite understated, but also that the right ones hold their value. Even vintage models are solid and reliable, and often have more charm than the new ones, and there are lots of options for quality servicing. They begin to appear like free watches, in fact some of the only free watches, and that's hard to resist. When the time comes to sell, nothing really sells better. Gradually preconceptions about the brand begin to disappear and they are seen for what they are - like them or not, a good solid choice who've made some lovely watches over the years.
Please make it stop.
Did I say "main key to success"? No I didn't. Nor did I imply it. You inferred it. What you said that consumers don't fall blindly for advertising. But they do. They swear blind they don't of course, just like you are, but they do nevertheless.
Levis, Nespresso, Montblanc, Rolex, yes…Porsche, Heinz (particularly Heinz), Fairy Liquid, Persil…and even Colman's Mustard have been built on the back of continued and unrelenting advertising and marketing. All are perfectly good products, true, but do really think in your wildest dreams that Nespresso…and idea that was so dead in the water for over a decade it had to be sold off…could be where it is today, opening vast luxury shops on Regent Street without advertising?? Dream on.
No you don't have to get all the components right, Apple rarely do and have to issue updates and fixes, but you have to elicit desire. And that means having something more that just being very good at what it does. As a matter of interest, Ronseal's sales sky-rocketed after they started their famous advertising. In the 60s there were dozens of watch brands that were very bit as good as Rolex. But none of them had the budget that Rolex had.
Has anyone mentioned Veblen yet?
Oh, wait...
I worked in national and international media all my adult life. There is disturbingly little. correlation between advertising spend and success. You might not like to believe that, but advertisers know it very well indeed. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Rolex had established a pre-eminent positions seventy years ago, when advertising was minimal. During that time numerous brands with heavy advertising have simply disappeared. British Leyland used to be the heaviest advertiser among car brands. Ferrari spent almost nothing.
Advertising is not the key to Rolex, it helps, but excellence is what Rolex seeks to sell. The day people think Rolex is failing to deliver excellence, no amount of advertising will save them. In the same way, Volkswagon's image sought to capitalise on images of reliability and conservative excellence. The advertising reinforced existing perceptions not created them. Now they have new issues which advertising can do little about.
In the same way, if customers did not prefer Colemans mustard, they wouldn't keep buying it.
Rolex is pre-eminent because it is pre-eminent. I would not buy their watches if they didn't consistently deliver more than rival brands.
As John Wanamaker said in the 19th century, but which is still true today, 'Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half'.
No, the single greatest attribute is that Rolex hit the nineteen seventies oil shock/ recession / quartz crisis in a completely different financial situation to every other Swiss high mass market manufacture. They were carrying not just zero debt, but a remarkable surplus, due to their unique constitution, lack of shareholders and post Wilsdorf adversity to risk.
As a result, while all of their competitors writhed and died as their markets mutated and dried up, Rolex were able to achieve the great move of carrying on producing the rock solid watches that they had been producing, in remarkably small numbers, since the thirties, while still having a proper advertising budget, not having to discount and not being saddled by vast debt trying to catch up with quartz. As a result, they came out of that period looking great.
Rolex were historically a niche manufacture who didn't make their millionth watch until well past the middle of the twentieth century. A feat Omega managed before Rolex existed. At the end of the sixties Rolex were still quite small and competing in a very full pond that the Japanese were already far too comfortable in.
To look at the standard Rolex handwind movement and a high mid range Seiko handwind movement from the late sixties can be an uncomfortable experience, especially as the Rolex movement wasn't actually phased out until some decades later. In the modern era, the argument about the difference between the 2892 or 2500 and the 3135 has been had to stalemate too many times. The key word is stalemate.
Rolex made and make great watches. So did many others. For a decade or two, there wasn't much Swiss manufacture competition and Rolex made hay. These days there is far more really fine competition, but the memory of the seventies will fade slowly.
Some people like the sound of their keyboards too much.
Do you think they are going to miss this oppurtunity to make their oft repeated arguments about Rolexand the marketing? They will make it again. And again and yet again. I don't which is more - the amount of money spent on marketing Rolex or the bandwidth wasted after arguing over Rolex marketing.
Well we all have an opinion and are entitled to express it. I was surprised that my question brought out the "your a troll brigade", somewhat akin to the oft used "your a racist" comment when individuals want to stifle debate, hoping it will shut people up and they'll slink away.
Giving you the benefit of doubt- I will make two points.
You are factually incorrect in saying 90% of threads are Rolex related.
There are plenty of Rolex threads just like there are plenty of threads not about Rolex.
Secondly, your observation is not original ( we hear some variation of it everyday ) nor was it made with any semblance of elegance. Your choice of words left you very open to charge of flaming.
You didn't exactly cover your self with glory either with your subsequent responses.
IMO, when you are beginning to engage on a public forum ( particularly if you intend to hang around, contribute and learn ), the way you presented your point is not exactly the way I would recommend going about it.
It is not a crime to criticse Rolex or not to like Rolex. Throwing flames as you did, however will be frowned upon no matter which forum you are on and no matter what the subject is.
Geeze, now that was a condescending reply. Now I'll give you, the benefit of the doubt and take it in the spirit I hope it was intended.
[QUOTE=olazz;3881337]Well we all have an opinion and are entitled to express it. I was surprised that my question brought out the "your a troll brigade", somewhat akin to the oft used "your a racist" comment when individuals want to stifle debate, hoping it will shut people up and they'll slink away.
[Feel free to educate me on why it should be Rolex, Rolex, Rolex.]
Maybe the tone of this thread is how your opening post came over to people. To me it just seemed a bit smug or condescending, especially the last bit. Sure it wasn't meant that why bit at the end of the day why should people have to or want to educate you?
If you just don't get it, you just don't get it
Perhaps you're right. On re-reading it in isolation it does sound condescending. Wasn't meant to be so apologies all round.
Did anyone mention Schicklgruber yet?
Rolex high end ??? Worn by bell ends
They know it so well they continue to spend billions on it every year. Come on…I worked in national and international media all my adult life. There is disturbingly little. correlation between advertising spend and success. You might not like to believe that, but advertisers know it very well indeed.
(Incidentally I too work in advertising and media.)
Not true. Rolex's preminent position wasn't established until the 1970's (see m4tt's correct post above). And they've consistently spent a ton of money on advertising, in all its forms, since then.Rolex had established a pre-eminent positions seventy years ago, when advertising was minimal.
So what? Once again, I never said all it takes it advertising. You claimed that consumers are not affected by advertising. My contention is that's naive horseshit.During that time numerous brands with heavy advertising have simply disappeared.
Apart from hundreds and hundreds of millions on motorsport!! Which, of course you'll know this being in international media, is advertising. Porsche only engaged in motorsport to sell their road cars, to deepen their sporting credentials. There was simply no other reason to do it. For fun? For the glory? That's for amateurs.Ferrari spent almost nothing.
I seem to be repeating myself so…once more…no, but's it one of them. Good advertising will make a bad product fail faster. But it can turn an average product into something huge. See Oreo. A bland product made with cheap ingredients that has become a global success largely on the belief, created by advertising, that it's a kid's cookie that you dip into milk. There's nothing, nothing at all, about the product that suggests either of those things. Both are a fiction created by marketing and advertising.Advertising is not the key to Rolex.
No, those values were created. By Bill Bernbach, Julian Koenig, Bob Gage and the rest specifically to be in direct contrast to the chest-thumping image put out by American cars. Up till that point it was a utility vehicle.In the same way, Volkswagon's image sought to capitalise on images of reliability and conservative excellence. The advertising reinforced existing perceptions not created them
Most people buy FMCG goods out of habit, and habits are hard to break. The job of the advertising is, usually, to keep it front of mind.In the same way, if customers did not prefer Colemans mustard, they wouldn't keep buying it.
Like many professions marketing is far more sophisticated than it was in the 19th century.
I am certain every CHF of Rolex marketing spend is effectively managed.
They are masters of the art ... don't forget that the marketing department are also specifying the product .... keep that in mind as most here cherish their watches ...
Marketing threads are not very welcome here.
If advertising doesn´t work, billions would not continue to be spent on it.
Ex Ad sales bod here also.
Too right, I'm using a Cherry red keys and they sound lovely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkbfAnYB3oE
They're not cheap, but it's worth every penny for the lovely ringing chatter and high typing speeds!
Nah, you don't really like your keyboard. You've just been taken in by all their fancy adverts.
Word of advice for the OP: Don't say anything disparaging or remotely negative about vintage Rolex Subs, Seadwellers or GMTs
Paul
cf:
...?
Oh dear!
Could, possibly, be interpreted as poster having a Rolex, but it is smaller than 44mm? Keeping an open mind.
OP could clarify matters for everybody by posting pics of his watches, including the Rolex.
Which fancy adverts? I first used these particular switches in 1987 and have held onto a keyboard with cherry switches ever since. It's only quite recently that they have become cool with gamers. I have two at the moment, a modern gaming one and one that came with a SUN 4/60 in about 1990. It's still going strong but it looks a teeny bit dated, I don't remember any adverts, just the need to run POP-11 fast at home (and play MUD on Janet).
Clarifying whether or not he owns any watches doesn't detract from the fact his posts are on the wind up!
I answered in good faith but the tone of his replies to others show his intent. He's on the wind up.
And we all keep posting... Achingly predictable posting from some who just can't wait to stick the knife in. At least they're consistent!
Read the post, I said I have never been a big fan because of the size... I didn't say I didn't already own one...and yes I would be quite interested in a 44mm Rolex, what's your point?
Correct
I have little intention of having to prove I own anything to anyone on this forum.
The tone of my replies only reflected the tone I received from this welcoming forum. simples !
Could not agree more with this. I mainly lurk on these forums but still see all the people who show up knocking Rolex and then a few months or so later they are asking for advice on buying one. Hell, I wasn't a fan of Rolex when I first came to this forum, probably because I didn't know enough about them, now I think that a Sub and a GMT (with all three bezels) could quite possibly be the only 2 watches I'd ever need if I could afford them both.
You came on acting like a c#nt, got treated like one, have been labelled permanently as one, and now are whining about it.
Fair enough, but we all like pics anyway and it might calm things down a bit.
OP, you have sinned.
No-one mentions the Rolex Worship and survives without at least 1000 posts (and even then, they're banned for ever from SC!)
Rolex are incredibly popular on watch forums and in the real world.
I'll concede I don't really understand the universal appeal (Outside a watch forum it's brand image to a great extent), but heh-hoh, the world turns and I just don't bother opening most threads about some person buying a current model Rolex and I can't get excited about another black dialed sub with different coloured words either.
If you're really interested, you'll find plenty of non-Rolex watches to read about here.
M.
Can we weave a Bremont discussion into this thread to really zazz it up?
My word that's noisey!
In the open plan office where my team work, that would heck of din
So you bought a Rolex even though it wasn't the right size for you?
Why did you bother buying it then? seems odd to me to buy something you're not keen on.
Oh and Rolex make 2 44mm watches, the DeepSea SeaDweller and Yachtmaster II
My correction included.Read the post, I said I have never been a big fan because of the size... I didn't say I didn't already own one...and yes I would be quite interested in a 44mm Rolex, what's your point?
Correct
I have little intention [of having to] prov[e]ing I own anything to anyone on this forum.
What you haven’t said and/or posted could form a whole new thread. However, reading through your posts your contribution to the forum is zero. I'd ask what is your point...but don't think I need to.
This thread was your 19th post and while a few of the early replies were sceptical about your motivation, all were polite and many were helpful, in terms of your initial question. Your replies, on the other hand, apart from one, were merely sardonic (at best). I can only believe that you’ve achieved your objective, which wasn’t anything to do with Rolex worship, and hope you enjoy the rest of your time on this forum.
If I'm wrong and you really are misunderstood...try being helpful and usefully communicative. A little giving might go a long way...
Last edited by PickleB; 22nd February 2016 at 11:13.
Are you serious??? That's just nasty and quite frankly, out of order. I for one, DO NOT subscribe to that with regards to the OP.
I didn't say I bought one, I said I own one... different things.
Thank you anyway for point out the 2 44mm watches.
Ahh I see, inherited or gifted, the sort of trinket you have to keep, even if you don't like it.
Or I suppose it you could have stolen or 'found' it ;)
I think you may well be in the minority then...
Happily mate.
Posting Permissions
