Spotted this on WUS. Interesting read so I thought I would post a link on here for those who never look at the other place;
https://www.ft.com/content/eabf51ad-...3-068451fc75f4
Good article, thanks for posting.
Next steps from Seiko will be interesting as I think their assessment of the brand perceptions of Seiko & Grand Seiko is spot on.
Possibly the greatest watch maker of all time, but, they don't have a moon watch to milk.
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Thanks for sharing. I had no idea that Omega has more than twice the turn over of the whole Seiko group! Seiko has such a broad set of offering, it make it harder for them to appeal to a specific market segment.
At least he realises the issue, it’s been said on here numerous times before.
Having core collections and doing away with collections within collections, as well as having some clarity on pricing structure will help (i.e. prospex models being more expensive than GS or GS movements used in Prospex for example)
Good article. He's right. Seiko are - and have almost always been - hopelessly over-diversified, lacking clear brand stratification, and far too often drawn to the safest, dullest designs.
The only Seiko I own is my 1970s schoolboy watch - and even then it's not at-all what I would have chosen for myself.
The modern watches - to my eye - somehow always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory designwise, by incorporating at least one jarring feature - the 'snipped-off' end of the hour hand on a number of recent GS is an example.
If I was Akio San, I'd bin GS altogether (it was always the wrong branding outside of Japan) and put all my efforts into promoting Credor for the high-end stuff, Seiko midfield dress and crossover, Orient for sports, Lorus budget, reinvent Pulsar as Seiko's tech-led equivalent (but no clone) of G-Shock, and bin Alba.
Thanks for the link, it is interesting, indeed.
He's aware there's a 140-year old solid foundation, so that's something. Other than that, my first impression (subject to change) is that he presents an unfortunate mix of 'new brush sweeps clean' and a marketing/BS-focused mentality, probably his US-based background coming through.
I honestly hope people will have and share more optimistic takes on it than I do, though.
Not a moon watch exactly, but the Pogue has been to SkyLab. If Seiko remade this I'd bite their hand off!Originally Posted by JayGee
But the dullest watches is what GS does best. If I were them I’d keep the value proposition rather than trying to creep up the prices, I think they will struggle charging Rolex prices for their autos/SDs and Omega prices for quartz watches.
And then I would increase the average sell price by introducing a line of PM watches. A SBGW231 in gold for 10k would be a great value proposition and it’s like 5k pure profit for Seiko over the steel one.
Edit. They also need better branding of the lines, you need names like submariner, seamaster, navitimer rather than reference numbers even enthusiasts struggle with.
Last edited by jonasy; 3rd October 2021 at 12:06.
I think one of the main problems with Seiko is they have tried to be all things to all men rather than target a specific market, there marketing has just never been as good as Rolex and Omega.
Every man and his dog has a Rolex or an Omega because its the "safer" option, more recognizable than the Seiko which could actually be better, but at the end of the day "oh a Seiko, good watches but......" :)
The 60s and 70s was the golden era IMO for Seiko.
Thanks for the link. Interested read. For better or worse, I think we all agree that the brand needed a shake up. Will be interesting to see where it leads to over the coming years.
“Need to rebrand”. Translation “How to gouge customers more”
Grand Seiko we’re popular because they were about a third cheaper than many Swiss brands for comparative quality. They opened up to the European and US market and gouged accordingly.
Seiko 5 and the 007 have been revamped and double the price now they are wondering why nobody is falling over themselves to buy. Dozens of “limited edition” watches churned out every month and prices all over the place.
He doesn’t like Seiko have a perception in the west as a cheap high street brand? Maybe someone should tell him that’s Seiko bread and butter. If he wants to get rid of that and concentrate on GS and Credor the “Rolex of Japan” Well….good luck with that one
None of the iconic Seikos were GS they were tough, well made, good value reliable watches that’s what people bought them for. Sounds like Seiko are after the Swiss cash cow. Seiko trying to chase the “High end Swiss market” would be financial suicide.
Seiko were well known for their inexpensive good watches. Now their divers etc have increased in price by so much and people like Steeldive are knocking out cheap copies from China that end of the business is obviously being hurt.
With their premium stuff as expensive as Omega and Rolex but without the equivalent residuals, again puts them at a disadvantage. Some of their styling is very often jarring too.
Also as already mentioned, while Rolex and Omega etc have their iconic classics, Seiko have far too many models at pricing all over the place and no clear hierarchy.
It's all rather messy TBH.
Cheers,
Neil.
As a huge seiko fan, I must admit I haven’t been interested in any of the new watches since around 2017/8. They now seem to churn out a lot of rehashed special editions and don’t have a clear model line up. I really don’t know how they can fix it.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
And it has been so throughout my whole life and I don't see them ever changing. They are always looking at whatever everybody else is doing and try to do it better or cheaper or both but always in reference to somebody else. Seiko is a tank that is impossible to steer. These days they are so compartmentalized they are practically in the fifth dimension. I would love them to be the ultimate destination of the WIS community but they are too unreliable for that.
It sounds like he’s on the right track. There isn’t really a need for a lot of Seiko’s collection, it’s just noise that drags down the brand. No one really needs a cheapish reasonably good watch from an all purpose brand, young people have phones and apple watches, it’s not necessary to have an entry level watch to tell the time. A watch is a bit pointless if it isn’t truly desirable and doesn’t enhance the wearer’s style. If you want to spend under a grand then you’d be better off with something from a micro-brand that is actually interesting and personal. I’d get rid of anything that isn’t a design classic or isn’t attempting to be. Even a few that are iconic are a bit weird and have probably had their day.
He’s also right to look back to the brand’s origins, they made so many wonderful, perfect watches in the 60s. If they did nothing other than make them again, I’d love the brand. It won’t be so easy to start over though, to stop the production lines and say, ‘We don’t do that any more’. The price point is also tricky, they’ve revived a few classics but the prices have been pretty aggressive, encroaching on GS territory, or at least what used to be their territory. It sounds like he’s thinking about a high end brand and a solid mid level one, and that may well be the answer.
GS are still a work in progress I think, though with a good brand story and some lovely designs. But the thinner movements need to find their way into more models and there’s room for a different take on the divers and chronos. My only concern from the article is that reading between the lines, it sounds like he thinks the product is there but they need a lot of ad spend on brand perception. That may be so, but they still need to focus on the product, until the whole range speaks for itself.
When Seiko abruptly canned their one truly iconic watch of modern times — the perennially best-selling SKX007/9 — they demonstrated they have no idea.
This pretty much sums it up
Yup.
I’m a huge Seiko fan but value for money is (was) a key component of their brand identity. Nothing wrong with that, they should embrace it.
Seiko want to push their entry level stuff upmarket to differentiate themselves from microbrands but they’re unwilling to improve the quality of their watches. So they now sell an inferior product at a higher price.
They also want to push up GS, losing their biggest selling point which was value.
I still have an SKX and love it. I’d consider some of the newer lines but there’s a lot of other stuff out there that you can buy with £1200 for a Seiko diver.
It’s good that they’re willing to innovate and shake things up, I’m not sure I quite see a clear strategy in the article, I guess it’s just an acknowledgement of a problem.
Honestly the only thing going for SKX watches is nostalgia. Chinese micro brands do it better at lower price point.
SKX models were capable dive watches at affordable price back in the days. Seiko have a lot going for them but too many models, too many reissues dilutes the appeal. They have the watches and the models to make a push but need a cohesive strategy. Trying to appeal to everyone helps them sell more watches but denies them an identity. May be that is what he is after.
Thought they have done it already, rebrand GS and put X on the dial of absolutely everything elsejob done!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m probably being unfair here, I’ve never handled a GS, but I simply can’t get my head around paying those prices for a watch with Seiko on the dial. I’ve worked on several of the cheap Seikos, I think they’re excellent value and the movements are very robust, but I always equate Seiko with the Seiko 5 I bought for £35 in the Canary Isles in 2004 or the cheap (but worthy) quartz models that were available everywhere.
The craze for modifying cheaper models doesn’t exactly strengthen the brand image either, with after - market dials stuck in with double sided tape......all a bit tacky.
Akio Naito? I hope Seiko offer some mil spec nylon watch straps named after him . . . .
Must say I agree with this! I’m keen to get a seiko but can’t understand GS pricing but for the mid range models there are so many I get lost and then confused with what I want….
The finishing on the dial, hands, case punch above its weight vs similar Swiss. Movement is about on par and it’s in house. Bracelet usually underwhelming. Overall designs can be hit or miss but with huge variety so can always find a winner and GS is a strong value proposition vs Swiss. I don’t think it is fair to anchor to lower price bracket Seikos.
Or Snow Flake, 62MAS, Arnie, Pogue etc etc :)
Nobody can argue with that and it is more of an obliteration as well. It's sad to say especially when you've been a Seiko fanatic for 40 years.
Last edited by j111dja; 6th October 2021 at 09:22.
I bought my first Grand Seiko in 2010. It was my daily watch for a few years. It is still running at 0 seconds per day when worn on the wrist. I took it off my wrist and put it on a timegrapher, expecting to see issues, but it had perfect flat trace running at 0 seconds per day dial up and +2 in both crown down and crown up positions. Amplitude was 308.
I've never had a Swiss watch run this long or be as accurate - they've all had or developed faults. I have new Swiss chronometer rated watches that perform worse than my GS does after 11 years.
Then there's the superior quality of the case, dial and hands. They also manufacture the product themselves, unlike the Swiss who outsource a significant number of components.
The brand name has never bothered me. My GS doesn't share any components with the £30 Seikos you mention.
Though I am less keen on the tarted-up 7S26 calibre variants that appear in the Seiko Pressage and Prospex lines, for the money I'd buy a Longines instead.
Last edited by AKM; 5th October 2021 at 07:38.
Unfortunately it will always be harder to differentiate the Grand Seiko brand from Seiko than it is to differentiate Rolex from say, Casio. The message is gradually cutting through though, and on the plus side it’s very easy to differentiate Japanese watches and culture from absolutely everything Swiss. It’s hard to change people’s minds though, some still demand the right to think in pounds and ounces. But others can adapt to new information, I believe it’s called ‘neuroplasticity’, and it’s worth cultivating, as the alternative is living in the past.
Surely it’s worth handling them before coming to a conclusion, but even without that, it should be fairly obvious that the watch below doesn’t have great deal in common with your mate’s calculator watch when you were 15. Though I’m not denying that memory is unhelpful, branding is about everything you think about when you see that logo, and if it’s that old LCD digital watch from the 80s, it’s hard to completely delete that. The logical move for Seiko is to stop selling anything that cheapens the brand, and over time they can just about manage to have two levels, in the same way that Tudor isn’t undermining Rolex.
Last edited by Itsguy; 5th October 2021 at 11:23.
I've never seen those names on a dial.
They are just made up names by Seiko fans precisely because of Seiko's long winded numbering system.
Cheers,
Neil.
Seiko do have a problem IMHO. Taking their cheaper end models, ideally they want to carve out a position where Seiko is seen as desirable, and thus worth a little more than competitors. But as many companies in many industries have found out, this isn't easy, and you always risk being undercut by cheaper models which do 99% of what your product does (especially as almost anything can be made for very little in China or elsewhere in the Far East). And with the collapse in watch wearing by the general public, they are on a losing streak anyway. The only things that sell to the public are stuffed full of clever electronics, either a smart watches or fitness watches. So the temptation for Seiko is to try and go a bit further upmarket, but this means going into the £300-£500 bracket, and the vast majority of the general public think that paying that much for a watch is certifiable insanity, and in any rational sense, they are right! So maybe not a way for massive market share.
On the other hand, I don't think Seiko have the brand Kudos to make Grand Seiko a brand worth Rolex/Omega/etc prices. If I were ever to splash out on a stupidly expensive watch, it might possibly be the 'R' brand, but I doubt if it'd be a GS.
btw I used to be a Seiko fan (at the cheap end of the market), but I find myself buying rather more Citizens these days. They seem to have cracked the secret of making a range of cheap watches, that also include pricier models into the £500 bracket that actually seem desirable.
My old Seiko 5 7S26, bought in 2004, is languishing in a drawer and not getting used. I wore it as a beater for a few years so it's got a few battle scars, but it could be refinished easily. If I ever find the time I’ll restore it and upgrade the movement to the later spec which can be hand- wound, I’ve got the parts kicking around to do this. I even gave a new replacement bracelet I picked up cheaply. It would be a challenge to get it running to COSC spec ( max 10 secs variation in rate between 5 positions) but I reckon I could do it. I think the glass can be replaced with sapphire too.
That would be a grand Seiko in my opinion!
We do have the "Marinemaster", the "Professional" :)I've never seen those names on a dial
They are just made up names by Seiko fans precisely because of Seiko's long winded numbering system.
On the dials.
And usually in a typeface that matches nothing else on them.
The Marinemaster name worked well and differentiated the premium divers but now the generic X on everything despite many collector’s saying they don’t like it, blurs the models.
I agree that Seiko numbering system leaves a lot to be desired but the names of a lot of the watches aren't made up, they're mentioned in the design and detail of the watch. The 'Birch' or the 'Snowflake' are both mentioned by name on the Grand Seiko website. There are others of course although I doubt that 'Arnie' gets a mention.
That's the biggest problem right there. I can only imagine that what the bosses at Seiko wanted was to create a luxury element to the company but not to lose sight of the fact that they're still Seiko. The problem with that is when customers don't see the company the way that the bosses want them to. The motor trade learned that and hence why Lexus are luxury Toyota, Infinity are luxury Nissan. The only option in creating a luxury brand is to give it a new name. The Volkswagen group learned that the hard way with the Phaeton.
If you've not handled a Grand Seiko, I suggest that you do. It really is an eye opener. The 'Birch' (SLGH005) is really punching above its weight and it's not a cheap watch but everything about it both on paper and in 'feel' are easily comparable to its competition.
In an ideal world people would judge watches for what they are, not for what the brand is but unfortunately we are in a world where more people care about the brand than what's behind it. Superficiality over substance.
The amount of responses and heartfelt input just shows how much built up loyalty and passion there is for Seiko which bodes well if they get the next bit right..
However they have the unenviable task of deciding just who is their target client and how to best appeal to them and where they Seiko fit into the sector and dominate a particular segment of the pie….
As many have said and they seem to acknowledge they have tried the scattergun to get into all segments but in doing so had limited success and lost a bit of identity on the way..
If they go volume & value they will be competing with Apple and many now quality Chinese brands and lose brand value and possibly get a kicking..
If they decide to put big distance between themselves and the bottom end (value market) by going upmarket they might end up going head to head with Omega / IWC etc and get 2nd prize..such is the pull of ‘names’.
Might be better to focus on one segment bloody good dive and Sports watches and dominate it starting just above the ‘value’ offerings pulling aspirational market from them and upto and just enough below the entry level ‘swiss brands’. …pulling share from the knowledgeable who respect their build quality..
Stick to what you do best and own that sector…..agree with above re motor manufacturers we learned the hard way where each sits and flourishes and how perilous over diversified line ups and wandering into others specialisms could cost….
My first proper watch was a Seiko i loved that watch many clearly feel the same way but once you start venturing into bigger money GS although clearly exceptional pieces still say Seiko on the dial which cant compete with well built up swiss brand names
and like everything find their true market value second hand….
Last edited by TKH; 6th October 2021 at 07:04.
This is so true whether it be watches, clothes or fishing kit etc.
It's funny, reading this thread how there are so many different perceptions of the brand(s) and this is perhaps a problem they have created. I personally am a huge fan of Seiko in all guises and have always thought they are one of the most respected, well known and innovative watchmakers in the industry. However, with regards to the Seiko brand itself, I have to admit that it has become clear they have started to take a 'hit and hope' attitude to changing the brand image. One day they are simply placing the Prospex 'X' on the dial of one (or indeed many) of their sports watches and hoping that it elevates a watch beyond its previously accepted price level, the next they appear to adopt the approach that Omega use by launching multiple 'limited editions' per year and even subsequently adding to these supposedly limited edition ranges.
I was very pleasantly surprised recently when I bought a Presage Mockingbird from SC to discover what a fantastic job they can do with a budget end dress watch. The dial was captivating in the way it caught the light and there was obviously no bezel they could misalign. It came on a pleasant leather strap with a deployant clasp and all for an RRP of just £400 (less if you shop around). Research the Presage line though and you discover it ranges from a few hundred pounds to a few thousand and is also sub-divided into several Presage model ranges. It's OK for those of us who understand watchmaking and why a Presage with an intricate enamel dial and an upmarket movement might command perhaps £3k if we are of the mindset that we buy what we appreciate but, try telling that to a non-WIS who wishes to splash a few thousand on one 'nice' watch and it simply won't wash. I therefore believe they should concentrate their efforts on how they market the core brand in order to find their way once more.
With regards to the two current upper market brands, I don't believe they need to do much other than to create awareness of the brand histories which are fascinating in themselves. For those that think that offering two high-level brands in GS and Credor is overkill, remember that in the 50s, 60s and 70s, they had multiple high-level brands in Marvel, Lord Marvel, King Seiko, Grand Seiko and Credor etc. I think if anything, with more awareness of the level of watchmaking in these brands, GS will naturally find a higher-level price point as the finishing is already above the accepted Swiss brands. The Presage I mentioned earlier simply re-invigorated my long-held desire to purchase a Grand Seiko after falling into YouTube rabbit holes on Presage and then GS. I thought I'd always wanted a Spring Drive GS or a Hi-Beat auto but, after studying many videos, I found myself wanting a 9F HAQ movement as I'd never realised the level of thought and craftsmanship that goes into the movement - growing their own quartz crystals, hand finishing the movements, building in a 'double-tick' hi-torque feature that allows the movement to drive a heavier hand-finished hand, thermo-compensation and an accuracy guaranteed to be within 10 seconds per year. I then found out about the GS44 case and Zaratsu polishing so decided on an SBGP001 (there's a sexy name for you) with the champagne dial that evidently requires more finishing procedures than even their intricate snowflakes etc. I ordered one in April and set it - it's currently at -2 seconds after six months and hardly being worn. I love how they thought to encase the movement so that servicing is required at around 50 years (I don't know how they can know that yet) and that the battery is positioned outside of the case to make battery changes easy and cheap for GS to perform every three years or so. After hard negotiation, I managed to buy the watch for around £2.5k against a retail of £2,850 and I can't believe the level of satisfaction it gives me for the price and would happily have paid more should the price have 20% higher, for instance. In time, I can see me adding a Hi-Beat or a Spring Drive to the collection as well as I'm so impressed.
Someone mentioned the famous Seiko bezel issue. When you have one of your ADs on their webpage telling customers not to expect Swiss levels with regards to aligned bezel, sorting that out would probably be a bit of a priority
They could probably carve out a good niche as the maker of high quality quartz watches.
Not everyone wants an Apple Watch that needs updating every fortnight or a Casio that makes you look like a 12 year old (I know they make some more mature looking watches, before you all jump in).
Few (none?) of the 'big names' make high end quartz watches nowadays, but most people probably like the convenience of a quartz watch over a mechanical one.
Just a thought.
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
I thought Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet and Omega amongst others still do?
Citizen have the chronomaster which has the same polishing as the GS and the benefit of a perpetual calendar which the GS doesnt have (its also cheaper)
“Our objective is how we can create something other than function — an emotional value or social value,” Naito says. “If we have to invest into something to create that value, then the price will have to be set accordingly.”
Oh Dear.
I don’t know how old I was when I first became aware of the brand Seiko (maybe it was “One Day All Watches Will Be Made This Way”), but I seem to have grown up considering it favourably and wore my first Seiko throughout my adolescence. When I began buying watches as a hobbyist some twenty years later, Seiko was my first port of call and I have spent more on this brand than any other.
Just as one should never attempt to justify watch expenditure, I’m minded to avoid any attempt at defining the appeal of Seiko in particular and watches in general for I suspect it might evaporate under scrutiny.
But, off the top of my head, I do associate Seiko with people who quietly go about their business of creating, making or doing worthwhile things, who seek and offer value and who measure their success in those outcomes, not the opinions of others.
Ok, that may seem ridiculously simplistic and naïve, but it kind of works for me. I do however now wonder if such an ethic has any place in modern corporate culture.
Very well said, I share this sentiment as well.
I would like a Chronomaster but they are almost impossible to buy. Of course you can get them from ebay and Japanese auction sites but it would be nice if they offered them over here in the UK.
No matter how good they are though they will never seem as cool as Seiko's to me ..People go on about negative associations with the Seiko brand but the name Citizen just seems too tame and bland imo..
People like this?
Cheers,
Neil.
Ha - well they do like they’re about to go about their business of creating...People like this?
People like this?
Chortle...Like I said, I wore a Seiko throughout my adolescence.
Last edited by forpetesake; 8th October 2021 at 06:43.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote