Reply With QuoteSo somebody will buy a watch they wouldn't have purchased because of a new brand ambassador?Originally Posted by mycroft
Sent from my Moto C Plus using Tapatalk
She certainly does.
Simon
Last edited by mycroft; 29th August 2017 at 11:26.
So somebody will buy a watch they wouldn't have purchased because of a new brand ambassador?
Sent from my Moto C Plus using Tapatalk
That's not what I said, was it?
Simon
I would think so, otherwise Tudor and other brands are wasting their money paying brand ambassadors.
It is an amazingly incongruous image, presumably the idea is that only GaGa would dare to wear something quite so out of place. It does make me wonder if the strategy will really work though. While the fashion oriented can appreciate out and out luxury, and hipsters appreciate vintage, somehow the 'heritage' black bay isn't quite either. While it's clearly supposed to be the younger, more affordable but more trendy Rolex, it looks terribly fusty in the context of this picture. I can't quite believe in the idea of GaGa or Beckham as potential owners, in the way that Clooney looks plausible sporting an Omega. Obviously the point is to appeal to Tag owners who might actually look up to them, but will they really accept Tudor, with it's frankly awful Henry VIII themed brand name, as the fashionable choice that they should aspire to? Probably they would just want a Rolex like everyone else given the choice. Being the younger and more trendy version of a Rolex may not actually make Tudor young and trendy.
Looks like your average Tudor owner to me!
Last edited by Itsguy; 29th August 2017 at 12:37.
Potentially. Yes.
Ambassadors exist to pique interest. Take the gaga image as an example. Striking wherever you like her or not. Somebody who perhaps doesn't know about Tudor could see it, then see the watch, like it and be prompted to look into the brand.
They're just the hook to reel people in.
No guarantee that they'll force a purchase but they certainly have the power to open doors to new custom.
(And thank you for the kind words cold, beech and mycroft)
I like her performances and enjoyed watching her in American Horror but this just seems a very odd fit to me....I don't see the synergy between the brand and the ambassador. It looks cynical, as marketing and advertising often can be of course, but to me this looks forced almost shoe horning a square peg into a round hole.
Last edited by Passenger; 29th August 2017 at 11:52.
I have to add to the ambassador naysayers that as much as we all like to reassure ourselves that marketing makes no difference, it does.
This forum is a good example of knock on effect. It's how "forum darling" watches come to existence.
One of the crowd gets one. Reviews it positively.
Some of the readers respond with that looks great, I'll have to take a closer look.
Closer look evolves into "next on the list"
Followed by incoming and praise.
More people.
More lists.
More buys.
In recent memory this has happened with the black bay on release, the aquanaut and the bulova moonwatch and seiko turtle/padi.
The forum is just a microcosm with a niche readership but make no mistake, there are ambassadors within it.
Spot on and Becks and Gaga are significant look to people of a certain style / demographic that will have and spend dosh on a whim
Ha! Ha! Great marketing by Tudor. Seems like they want to broaden their appeal beyond stuffy old gits on watch forums!
Agree with some of this Verv but I think you may be comparing apples and avocados somewhat when trying to extrapolate behaviors on a special interest watch forum to model the behavior of the wider society of potential watch purchasers. Though humans have a tendency to be herding creatures.
Just seemed an odd choice by Tudor to me is all. Good luck to them and it won't stop me being an admirer of Ms Gaga.
Hehehe, quite so.
Beckham and Gaga are interesting choices. Oldies like many of us here might think that these two representatives are intended to attract "the young" but, as far as I can tell, it's slightly more complex than that. The target age group for these two particular reps seems to me to be a late 20s and 30s age group, not an especially young age group.
I don't think anybody from the forum is more likely to buy Tudor because of Beckham/Gaga.
I don't think current or potential Tudor owners will be significantly bothered. Some 'maybe' potential buyers might be dissuaded but unlikely.
What these ambassadors do is increase the awareness in another sector of potential buyers.
No need to read more into it.
Tudor does make some cracking watches and apart from a few losers/ignoramuses, they are no longer regarded as poor man's Rolex. Inspite of that, its work in a crowded market is cut out for it. With the sales declining in the East, it is going to be an uphill battle.
If Tudor eventually are successful, it will be mainly due to their watches,may be helped by marketing.
If they fai, it won't be because they used these brand ambassadors.
I think they're targeting the 30-50 age group. The members of this group are more likely to have built careers or businesses and have a little cash to throw at a nice watch.
No one wants to associate themselves with an age group older than themselves.
Rolex are so "common". A fashion item. I much prefer the understatedness of a Tudor.
I think that they chose Gaga because first, she has proven staying power (still famous after a decade), second, strong image identification for women of a range of ages. The age range of her appeal isn't as limited as you guess. Last time I was at a Gaga concert (Monster tour), there were numerous family groups made up of three generations of women.
Pretty incredible how they've been in fashion for over a hundred years, then.
Some fashions last longer than others. i.e. Scotsmen wearing skirts.
I think if a Tudor PR person was to read his thread they'd be loving the attention it is recieving.
Gaga is not a run of the mill pop star. So they could be saying a Tudor is not a run of the mill luxury watch.
Ach, that's nae a fashion! Ventilation for ye boaby and baws is strrrrrrictly function.
Rolex might be the more 'obvious' choice but cannot be considered 'fashion'.
Rolex need no justification or defense.
It is not Tudor vs Rolex but Tudor has to compete with all the brands in the mid price range.
On basis of its watches, it should do well. But it is rarely about just the product.
On the basis that I bought both a Bulova Moonwatch and a Seiko PADI Turtle last year, I'd certainly have to agree with this!
Simon
So which brands are in the market space Tudor is gunning for?
Would someone buying a watch based on an endorsement by, say, Clooney also be swayed by Beckham or Gaga?
Omega,Tag,Breitling,Longines to name a few.
As said before, brand ambassadors create awareness. They don't necessarily sell watches.
#borntodare wtf does that even mean, it's a mid range swiss luxury watch lol, would the safe choice be an omega aqua terra?
Sent from my Moto C Plus using Tapatalk
I agree, some watches are fashionable, but they are not fashion as such. And the ones that are fashion are not that fashionable.
As for brand ambassadors, they certainly do work, and they do sell watches. The most successful brand ambassador was probably Neil Armstrong, famous for that hugely expensive marketing stunt when Omega landed a man on the moon just to promote their watches. Or it may have been James Bond, who has sold a huge number of Rolex and Omega, and possibly even the odd Seiko, despite being an entirely fictional alcoholic serial killer.
What it means I believe, is dare to wear something that's not made by Tag or even Armani / Diesel / Kors / Casio, or dare to try wearing a watch at all. We have to remember that to the audience they are courting, Tudor is a complete unknown, and their strategy of producing retro-modern makeovers of watches they've never heard of is most likely a compete mystery. The trick is to convince the high street audience that they're like Rolex but more affordable, cooler, fresher and more youthful, as opposed to like Rolex but not as good. GaGa and Beckham are a reasonable stab at communicating this, even if GaGa and Tudor look pretty odd together. It puts some clear air between Rolex with their pursuit of success, mastery, and let's face it wealth, and Tudor who are supposed to be younger and cooler. Though I'm not entirely convinced that many of the designs fit this message, which is why it's so hard to imagine GaGa picking out a Black Bay in reality, and the only obvious explanation for her wearing one is that she's nuts and has also been known to wear fresh meat.
Last edited by Itsguy; 29th August 2017 at 16:55.
^
Good point. Once you actually handle a Tudor in comparison to a mass-market TAG Heuer model or something from one of the pure fashion brands, I'd expect that their quality advantage would be self-evident.
The name still does kinda suck, though. They probably rely heavily on sales folks pointing out the Rolex connection to mitigate that handicap. :P
Last edited by Belligero; 29th August 2017 at 17:04.
Why do you think the name sucks?
Is it the connection with the Tudor dynasty?
Being related to Rolex is a benifit and a handicap.
It's origin as an affordable Rolex line is definitely an issue.
The products themselves are often brilliant- a Pelagos or a Black Bay Black will give any Rolex a run for the money.
For me one of the most important attributes of a watch is the crown action and Tudor has the same reassuring, classy crown action as Rolex. Nothing in it's price bracket matches it even if Omega ( more expensive ) do come close.
The screw down pushers on its new Chronograph are the best in business - as good as Daytona. Add to this inhouse movements and exceptional case quality.
Sure, the designs may not be for everyone as you illustrated with the Style model yesterday.
It is disappointing to see it get the short end of the stick from some.
Obviously, to be really successful it has to find the right message and marketing.
Last edited by RAJEN; 29th August 2017 at 18:31.
^
Why is it a sucky name?
Well yes, primarily because the name is inextricably associated with a possibly-syphilitic despot who had a thing for beheading his wives, but also because it sounds totally lame-o when you actually say it. "Tooder" isn't exactly the most pleasant or refined of words to the ear.
Other than that, it's fine.
Does anyone say "Tooder"?^
Why is it a sucky name?
Well yes, primarily because the name is inextricably associated with a possibly-syphilitic despot who had a thing for beheading his wives, but also because it sounds totally lame-o when you actually say it. "Tooder" isn't exactly the most pleasant-sounding of words.
Other than that, it's fine.
Most North Americans certainly do. Though "tew-dur" is also pretty far from being sonorous. :P
Last edited by Belligero; 29th August 2017 at 17:34.
Yup, the Rolex link is a blessing and a curse, they have to occupy the underdog position and sometimes it feels that the designers are working hard to avoid the watches looking too expensive, which is an unfortunate constraint. They are also very much defined by their heritage, as are many brands, but this won't mean much to the mass market who have never seen the watches they are referencing - though this applies to many other brands too of course. The name, they are simply stuck with. It's not the best, the Tudors may be interesting to historians but there's nothing stylish about them. It's just not a mental image that can help. There you are trying to convince your audience to think about Lady GaGa and Mr Beckham, and somewhere in the background you can see Henry VIII and famous fashion icon Thomas Cromwell. As a word, it doesn't even sound cool. But as you say, the right products and marketing can overcome these challenges.
^ DNFTFY
Haha^ DNFTFY
On the whole "Tudor" as a problematic name thing... I just don't see the link to historical line of royalty as having any relevance or connotation to the brand at all. What I do think might trip some people's subconscious and certainly is an unfortunate connotation would be its echo of "mock Tudor", though thankfully limited to their UK market.
And anyone with half an ounce of sense will rather rapidly get past either the monarchs or the dodgy aspirational 80s building fad....
Last edited by JGJG; 29th August 2017 at 18:42.
So far, I've owned maybe 10 different watch brands. I have no clue who the 'ambassadors' for any of them are. Why is it so important to some of you who 'represents' a certain brand? What am I missing?
The same ones who say "Jagwaar" Ha Hah Hah Hah! Always cracks me up!
Well there's irony for you.
SGR
Or Beckham if you prefer.
Doesn't worry me, never had to pronounce a watch brand.
You might have to buy the whole company for that particular benefit.
Must be something to do with... da da daaa! "BRAND SNOBBERY"
If this means some of you would like to throw away your Chewders in disgust, then great! Throw 'em my way.
Really? Isn't it simply interesting how watches are marketed, particularly in this instance?
What if Jimmy Saville or Gary Glitter had been known for always wearing a gold Submariner?
(not endorsing, just known for wearing one)
I thought that as well.
Round these parts we say chew-der, but then again, speaking Boltonese wouldn't be a good selling point. That's why Peter Kay and Paddy Mcguiness aren't brand ambassadors for any luxury products.
I was unaware she could really sing, until I had the pleasure of hearing Lady Gaga sing the star spangled banner at Superbowl 50.
Terrific to have her as an ambassador. Either way, won't make a blind bit of difference to me personally, as I already love the brand.
Ambassadors are a funny thing. I'm perhaps a bit old for her ladyship, less so Mr Beckham but I have a degree of respect for both, particularly gaga for her work around equality. I don't necessarily identify with someone who partakes in the ultra exclusive pastimes of competitive horse dancing, sailing, etc. It's nice to see a departure from these areas. I also far prefer Tudors favoured sport (Rugby) than I ever will tennisball, golf or horse racing. They seem to be putting themselves a bit more blue collar, which is absolutely fine with me and a bloody clever strategy by the rolex group. Covering all bases.
Tudor is a Welsh name, originally spelt "Tudur" and so presumably pronounced "Tiddirr"?
I'm in no doubt that she is very successful and this is a cracking watch, but I'm kind of stuck at just seeing a woman wearing a man's watch.
Perhaps I should try harder to decode the message and the appeal. Perhaps in this instance the advertiser is trying too hard.
I'am one of those people that would never sign up to anything on the phone or doorstep and dont get taken in by celeb/sports stars sponsorship on products.. but as far as adverts go, the above Rolex ad would get me interested, Rolex have always been very good with target market for specific watches..It was an ad in the Reader's Digest featuring Reinhold Messner in the late 70s that lead to me buying my first Rolex.
I can see what Tudor are doing, but surely an ad based on the watches providence is more appropriate - Pelagos = water/diving??
Posting Permissions
