Had a little end-of-week livener, have you? To answer your question, I refuse to subscribe to a jingoistic sense of identity. Bremont marketing panders to those who do and to Top Gun/Bear Grylls fetishists.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Hi Chris, it’s still late afternoon here. I don’t like their marketing. It’s contrived. Their watches are too large for me. When people take straw man positions in response to my posts, I reserve the right to respond accordingly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You may not, others are not bothered. Breitling are no different, neither are Omega in certain aspects.
Because forum posts are like texts (linear and faceless for most) they often provoke responses that are not warranted or appropriate. Watch Talk was never like this and it should not be a place for some of what I have read - all IMHO of course.
For the record I like some of their range, have owned a P51 in the past and currently own none - I do not own any Rolex anymore (not likely to change anytime soon).
I would own another Bremont, but the bashing needs to be equitable across the other brands - It's rarely that.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
It’s certainly true that a lot of watch marketing is contrived and that some brands get away with it more than others.
In regard to this thread, perhaps the way that the OP was structured set the subsequent posts up for a wider range of discussion than intended. Or not?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right. Hence the decor in their Mayfair shop. You’re right, nobody cares about marketing. Companies love throwing money away, the more the merrier.
Keep telling yourself your choices are made based on your own needs and tastes, and are not affected by what the brand’s choice of projection. You’ll probably believe it.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I didn’t say that. I said no one cares about the brand name. Do you check the back history of Lidl, or Aldi, or perhaps you look up the history behind the Omega name? You obviously don’t like Bremont, in an almost weird obsessive way which is fine. I don’t mind their marketing though it hasn’t influenced me to buy one of their watches. I only own one and that had nothing to do with marketing...if you look at the watch I’ve got that will be obvious. That said, I like the vibe and the decor and all the rest of it. I don’t like lots of brands...do I obsessively research and critique their brand names and marketing decisions...no...because I couldn’t care less as those brands of no interest to me. Each to their own I suppose.
I only care about the name because they used the storyline. Neither Lidl nor Omega did.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I could create a brand called Saint-Just. Doesn’t mean I need to wheel you out in front of the cameras and have a Wikipedia page for you.
What if Mr Bremont or his family didn’t want the exposure?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting POV S-J.
I often think that companies do throw money away with their advertising as, from personal experience, I specifically avoid products where I find the ads OTT, silly or clearly aimed at the impressionable, (gullible?) - which IMO comprises most ads. But it clearly works, or they wouldn't do it, (unless the marketeers are better at marketing themselves to senior management than the product they are trying to sell to the public).
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
They are usually good at marketing themselves, undoubtedly.
online shopping allow a very precise measure of any marketing campaign; and ad on TV, or on the radio, a page advert in a magazine, a banner on some websites, an Adwords campaign...
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
the OP was intentionally vague, as i wanted to get the feeing of the brand perception in the forum and compare it to mine.
i guess i achieved my goal, albeit i wouldn't want to draw any conclusion on the perception i have of the brand
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The brothers also operate quite a successful vintage plane restoration business (the aviation connection is real enough)
So it is also perfectly possible that he shop fit accessories, including ejection seats as well as other bits of planes came to the company considerably cheaper than they might to other mere mortals not in the game.
So the marketing budget for the boutique shop fit may surprise you for being less than you might believe.
D
Apart from being interested in planes and watches, there is no link worthy of trying to pretend they are anywhere near Omega or IWC.
They are pretenders.
It is like having been to Le Mans each year, been to the Grand Prix and having had some sports cars I could create a ‘motorsport’ brand. I hope these guys well but let’s not suggest they have any serious links or serious heritage. It’s all false, and they are just starting to create it.
Last edited by TAFKARM; 12th January 2020 at 16:27.
Ten pages since I last checked this thread - I don't need to read it all to conclude that the brand polarises. My take on it is that it's easy to dismiss marketing as irrelevant fluff, but it may be more realistic to see both the marketing and the history of the brand as part of the whole proposition, as the marketing and history inevitably colour your perception of the physical object. For this reason people are justifiably sniffy about the idea of inventing history. New brands know they need history and a brand story, so why not just make it up? But if that story is part of how we perceive the watch, then a fake story means a fake watch.
Now, I don't want to get into an argument about how 'made up' the Bremont marketing is, but there's certainly the feeling of invented history to the brand story, even if they’re pretty open about it. It’s not necessarily wrong, you could say it's a modern phenomenon to embrace the creative freedom of inventing a brand with its own aesthetic and history out of thin air, and why shouldn't you. Victoria's Secret invented an ideal customer called Victoria. But it's harder with watches, as we tend to value the genuine history of ancient watch brands and their historical achievements and faded glamour, as wearing mechanical watches is a fundamentally nostalgic pastime. It's a little unfair, as only brands with that genuine history can authentically play that nostalgia card, but that's just how it is.
It's the same with faux aged lume - we may love faded lume the colour of Earl Grey tea, but modern lume tinted just the same colour makes us feel uncomfortable. A modern yet nostalgic brand feels the same, you can't fool yourself in the end. On the one hand, I'd defend the creative freedom to make and wear watches with any aesthetic you please, but faux nostalgia will never have quite the same flavour as the real thing.
Last edited by Itsguy; 12th January 2020 at 17:31.
They seat is to promote the Martin Baker tie up, to promote their most successful piece, it’s absolutely appropriate to have in a boutique and is a valid marketing technique, since testing of the watch involved testing its endurance against the forces of being shot out of a plane!
In terms of Omega, there’s a valid argument as to whether that’s as toe curling as the landing ship that the anniversary piece comes attached to........
Personally, I like both and see the fun in the experience of buying a watch, if it was just the watch, it would be pretty boring all round
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let’s get it straight.
Omega and IWC have a REAL history with the British Armed Forces.
Omega only supplied Allies in WW2 and has supplied tens of thousands of watches to the MOD.
Also just check out the models IWC have supplied and both are in the Dirty Dozen.
That’s real history, with real servicemen in real wars.
These Bremont guys are trying to hang onto these companies and build a business on the back of them.
This is nothing to do with Bond etc, but even so at least British service personal have been issued with an Omega and not just though some modern marketing ploy but when it mattered.
You mercenary!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Is there any suggestion that they have any 'serious links' or 'serious heritage'? They're a company that is less than 20 years old making (very good) watches. They're not trying to be anything else. The founders have an interest in vintage vehicles, both planes and cars and that's where the designs of the watches come from. Nothing more complicated than that.
I’m going to order the new Bremont RAF ‘wings’ watch that they are about to make.
On completion of flying training and award of Wings most people used to buy Breitling Aerospace from Andrew Michaels, doesn’t seem to be that popular any more now they are £3750!!
Obviously you can only buy this if you are serving aircrew and it has your service number on the back.
When I bought my Royal Navy Medical Services Bremont Alt-1c I got around 50% discount compared to the standard Alt-1c. I thought that was pretty cool, watch was too big for me though...
The brothers E. have told us:
"It transpired their host had flown aircraft during the war, as well as being a gifted engineer."
https://www.bremont.com/pages/about-bremont
Met them at Fairford in their early days. As memory serves their narrative about their offerings sounded a bit cringey then.
How many are wearing an MB that haven't had that experience, doesn't it feel a bit cringey, a bit false, a bit Walter Mitty?
I like some of their designs but I choose not to fund their lifestyle or perpetuate their brand on cringey pseudo history(that'll show 'em ;-)).
If you wear a watch that celebrates a personal achievement or part of your own military history then fair enough but the brand itself I find quite false and to be using manufactured associations to create wealth.
All of the below apply.
"over priced military limited editions"
"faux heritage branding"
"irrelevant tie-ins"
"marketing bull and it is a bit cringe"
"false representation of historical glories. Added to this that Bremont had no relationship with this past"
"cheating about their in house movement BS..."
"they just come across as businessmen who saw a gap in the market and an opportunity to make some serious money"
"I feel their fake heritage switches my interest right off"
"Another vote for the dislike of fake heritage."
"Bremont portrays itself as an integral part of British military equipment both in the past and today. It transpires that this assertion is, in fact, bollocks"
"the whole British Armed Forces association has always been obviously phoney and a bit embarrassing, bordering on naff."
"If they wanted to play on ‘British Military history’ then they should have resurrected a brand that has that history. Instead it sounds like some fake French ale made up by some snowflakes."
"The history of apparent dishonesty and silly gimmicks dissuades me from Bremont."