Cousins taking on Swatch Group

[forpetesake]

Some of Steve's comments could be construed as patronising; when lawyers communicate with each other (and the rest of us) this is often the case. Maybe the forum should cut him some slack on this point.

Paul

Agreed and far preferable than mere PR polish.
I won't pretend to be following the legal argument with rigour, but welcome Steve's input and wish he and Cousins every success with this case for the benefit of perhaps not all, but surely the majority of us.

[TKH]

Guys I think Steve has a certain 'phraseology' which goes with the territory when you are elbows deep in the detail of this crap and he is clearly very immersed in his subject

having been a representative on behalf of GM Dealers when BE Block Exemption was 1st created and reading phone directories of legals and caveats from Mario Montes office, we all got a bit that way at times its all consuming as it could have meant the end of us if it went wrong so makes you very focused.

Steve tried to explain a point to me using 'Fred Flintstone' I took no offence he was trying to convert legal position to something my small brain could take in......haha.

I have a good working knowledge of the system from a Motor Trade point of view and how 'Selective Distribution' works for motor retail which is not dissimilar in many ways to watch retail and repair and our agreements are constantly getting amended even now many years on and each time you need to read to ensure you aren't getting shafted.

I also spent a lot of time on Anti Competitive practices which Manufacturers are genuinely terrified of falling foul of the fines are eye watering as VW found out in the not too distant past.

Motor Trade we have

AD = Authorised Distributors
AR = Authorised Repairers (genuine parts and can do warranty repairs and re charge to MFR)
&
Independent Repairers ( who can buy genuine manufacturer parts or Pattern parts)

where there seems to be a big difference is that the watch manufacturers have decided to go AD / AR (themselves) and nothing else i.e. no supply outside of themselves or appointed representatives

As mentioned before I think the best way forward should the action not get the required result i.e. = unrestricted Supply

then plan B would be to follow the Aston Martin Heritage dealer business model = whereby a group of highly skilled Aston Repairers such as Aston Engineering in Derby and others approached AM and were granted Heritage Authorised Repairer status - effectively making them part of the AM network and giving them supply of both genuine parts (inc EPC) and technical bulletins and access to factory records.

It works harmoniously and whilst they keep DB (4/5/6) 80's V8's etc in good fettle the rest of the network concentrates on the newer and in warranty cars.

I hope that some mutually acceptable solution is found - that said I do think that Swatch will exhaust all avenues before any concession.

Bon Chance.

Steve : have you read Bravatus case ?

[deepreddave]

I've found Steve's input informative and the tone fine. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out and what Swatch's reaction is if they lose as I suspect they will look to achieve their goals by other methods.

[stevendomb]

Guys I think Steve has a certain 'phraseology' which goes with the territory when you are elbows deep in the detail of this crap and he is clearly very immersed in his subject

having been a representative on behalf of GM Dealers when BE Block Exemption was 1st created and reading phone directories of legals and caveats from Mario Montes office, we all got a bit that way at times its all consuming as it could have meant the end of us if it went wrong so makes you very focused.

Steve tried to explain a point to me using 'Fred Flintstone' I took no offence he was trying to convert legal position to something my small brain could take in......haha.

I have a good working knowledge of the system from a Motor Trade point of view and how 'Selective Distribution' works for motor retail which is not dissimilar in many ways to watch retail and repair and our agreements are constantly getting amended even now many years on and each time you need to read to ensure you aren't getting shafted.

I also spent a lot of time on Anti Competitive practices which Manufacturers are genuinely terrified of falling foul of the fines are eye watering as VW found out in the not too distant past.

Motor Trade we have

AD = Authorised Distributors
AR = Authorised Repairers (genuine parts and can do warranty repairs and re charge to MFR)
&
Independent Repairers ( who can buy genuine manufacturer parts or Pattern parts)

where there seems to be a big difference is that the watch manufacturers have decided to go AD / AR (themselves) and nothing else i.e. no supply outside of themselves or appointed representatives

As mentioned before I think the best way forward should the action not get the required result i.e. = unrestricted Supply

then plan B would be to follow the Aston Martin Heritage dealer business model = whereby a group of highly skilled Aston Repairers such as Aston Engineering in Derby and others approached AM and were granted Heritage Authorised Repairer status - effectively making them part of the AM network and giving them supply of both genuine parts (inc EPC) and technical bulletins and access to factory records.

It works harmoniously and whilst they keep DB (4/5/6) 80's V8's etc in good fettle the rest of the network concentrates on the newer and in warranty cars.

I hope that some mutually acceptable solution is found - that said I do think that Swatch will exhaust all avenues before any concession.

Bon Chance.

Steve : have you read Bravatus case ?

One of the hazards of working in the watch repair world is that too many people 'look for the catch' when you offer to help, can't believe that anyone would act because they genuinely care about preserving a 400 year old trade, and think it is OK to respond to anyone they consider 'suspicious' with abuse, especially if they can associate that person with anyone they feel has wronged them in the past. I have developed a much thicker skin to deal with this nonsense, but I do feel it emanates from an attitude that they only knowledge a watch repairer needs is technical, and that some how there is no need to be equally educated in the general rules of how to best protect a business.

I am privileged to be a member of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers, who were originally a trade association established by charter from Charles the First more than 360 years ago. If you look at the reasons why the Company was founded, and just as particularly the people who founded it, you discover that this was a group of businessmen who worked in the clockmaking trade, who needed to protect their home market from the dumping of mass produced cheap foreign clocks. In other words, they organised themselves to deal with a situation that would in today's world be covered by Competition Law. It seems to me that the market problems are the same as they have always been, but what has changed is the lack of business knowledge within the industry, and the understanding of the need for a properly supported co-operative approach to adverse external influences.

Like everyone else, I could go on at length about why our trade associations have not acted effectively against the current situation, but it would just be wasting words and time. The issue is to get support rallied around those who are fighting directly, and for all of us to become educated as to how best to achieve this.

TKH, you clearly have a great deal of experience of the same fight in a different industry. I find your input incredibly helpful as it highlights why the Swiss controls just do not comply with the law. As I have said previously, if the brands operated the same structure as the motor trade, we would not be having this conversation. The Car companies are only allowed to operate their dealer schemes because the existence of the independent repairers ensures consumers have a choice at which level they have their servicing and repair done, and because there are no artificial barriers to anyone wishing to become a repairer from doing so. All this is because the Car brands are required to maintain open supply of spares on a fair pricing basis.

The motor trade benefits hugely from well organised and properly funded trade associations, who do not hesitate to act for their members if they sense any manufacturer pushing the boundaries too far. The VW scandal shows just how far over the legal line dominant undertakings can go if they are not held in check, and the dealers understand the value they get from using part of their profits in a pool with their competitors in order to ensure a fair competitive environment for all. We have got one hell of a hard task ahead to get that message into the watch repairers.

I can only reinforce your remark about "concessions" from Swatch by pointing out that any sort of compromise is only possible if both sides see a value in it. At the moment, Swatch do not, and the only tool we have to make them see a value is the correct application of the law. Hence Cousins and my efforts to do just this.

I was not aware of the Bravatus case but on your advice have done some reading. If I have understood correctly, this is about operating fair distribution schemes in the primary sales market, rather than about supply of spares for service and repair. Sorry if I begin to sound like a lawyer, but the root of EU case law on this issue is an old case of "Leclerc v. Yves Saint Laurent" where a French discount supermarket took action when it was refused supply of a luxury perfume. This is when the rules on to what extent a brand can control the customer experience at an authorised dealer were first established. I have no doubt that these rules are being broken in the watch retail market, and included the Leclerc case in a talk I gave at this years Retail Jewellery show in Birmingham. However for the moment our resources are stretched far enough just dealing with the spare parts issue, so for the most part I have parked this problem for the time being.

Regards

Steve

[Webwatchmaker]

One of the hazards of working in the watch repair world is that too many people 'look for the catch' when you offer to help, can't believe that anyone would act because they genuinely care about preserving a 400 year old trade, and think it is OK to respond to anyone they consider 'suspicious' with abuse, especially if they can associate that person with anyone they feel has wronged them in the past. I have developed a much thicker skin to deal with this nonsense, but I do feel it emanates from an attitude that they only knowledge a watch repairer needs is technical, and that some how there is no need to be equally educated in the general rules of how to best protect a business.

I am privileged to be a member of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers, who were originally a trade association established by charter from Charles the First more than 360 years ago. If you look at the reasons why the Company was founded, and just as particularly the people who founded it, you discover that this was a group of businessmen who worked in the clockmaking trade, who needed to protect their home market from the dumping of mass produced cheap foreign clocks. In other words, they organised themselves to deal with a situation that would in today's world be covered by Competition Law. It seems to me that the market problems are the same as they have always been, but what has changed is the lack of business knowledge within the industry, and the understanding of the need for a properly supported co-operative approach to adverse external influences.

Like everyone else, I could go on at length about why our trade associations have not acted effectively against the current situation, but it would just be wasting words and time. The issue is to get support rallied around those who are fighting directly, and for all of us to become educated as to how best to achieve this.

TKH, you clearly have a great deal of experience of the same fight in a different industry. I find your input incredibly helpful as it highlights why the Swiss controls just do not comply with the law. As I have said previously, if the brands operated the same structure as the motor trade, we would not be having this conversation. The Car companies are only allowed to operate their dealer schemes because the existence of the independent repairers ensures consumers have a choice at which level they have their servicing and repair done, and because there are no artificial barriers to anyone wishing to become a repairer from doing so. All this is because the Car brands are required to maintain open supply of spares on a fair pricing basis.

The motor trade benefits hugely from well organised and properly funded trade associations, who do not hesitate to act for their members if they sense any manufacturer pushing the boundaries too far. The VW scandal shows just how far over the legal line dominant undertakings can go if they are not held in check, and the dealers understand the value they get from using part of their profits in a pool with their competitors in order to ensure a fair competitive environment for all. We have got one hell of a hard task ahead to get that message into the watch repairers.

I can only reinforce your remark about "concessions" from Swatch by pointing out that any sort of compromise is only possible if both sides see a value in it. At the moment, Swatch do not, and the only tool we have to make them see a value is the correct application of the law. Hence Cousins and my efforts to do just this.

I was not aware of the Bravatus case but on your advice have done some reading. If I have understood correctly, this is about operating fair distribution schemes in the primary sales market, rather than about supply of spares for service and repair. Sorry if I begin to sound like a lawyer, but the root of EU case law on this issue is an old case of "Leclerc v. Yves Saint Laurent" where a French discount supermarket took action when it was refused supply of a luxury perfume. This is when the rules on to what extent a brand can control the customer experience at an authorised dealer were first established. I have no doubt that these rules are being broken in the watch retail market, and included the Leclerc case in a talk I gave at this years Retail Jewellery show in Birmingham. However for the moment our resources are stretched far enough just dealing with the spare parts issue, so for the most part I have parked this problem for the time being.

Regards

Steve

Your undertaking of this case does in my opinion offer a very good chance that Cousins action against Swatch will do more than shake their branches.
Independent watch repairers are by the nature of this work mostly introverted and solitary characters.
Their numbers are small and getting smaller to a great extent because of continuing Swiss policies which for years have tried to monopolise repairs in order to keep prices high and unemployment low.
As far as I know there has never been an effective Watchmakers Union because relative to the motor repair industry we are a tiny bunch.
Further, since a motor car is perhaps considered a much more essential daily need than a watch, and the far higher number of people employed in this trade and in our domain, attempts to control parts and repairs has until now been fought much more ferociously than in the watch trade.
I worked in the watch industry in Switzerland for a number of years and their continued attempts to monopolise the repair side was seen by most Companies there to be their God given right in order to keep their unemployment levels low and their profits as high as possible.
I can only offer yourself and Mr Anthony Cousins my greatest respect and support because you may well turn out to be the people who save this ancient trade with many historical innovations and inventions not down to the Swiss but to a number of purely genius English watch and clockmakers such as Thomas Mudge (inventor of the lever escapement) and John Harrison (inventor of the marine chronometer) in the first instance, when the Swiss were still and until relatively recently continued to, turn out very poor quality timekeepers indeed.
Brendan.

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

[TKH]

Sorry Steve

Got spelling wrong but think you found it anyway.

Case was Batavus similar occurrence as L'Oreal what interesting is that the 30% market share applied.
..............
Suppliers have also referred to their criteria to try to demonstrate that potential distributors were validly excluded from the selective distribution system because they did not fulfil the criteria. For example, a bicycle manufacturer, Batavus, refused to admit Vriend (who had previously been a distributor of Batavus bicycles for 35 years) into its new selective distribution network on the grounds that it did not fulfil one of the qualitative selection criteria. Batavus argued that Vriend had behaved in a way that was harmful to Batavus and its products, causing a breach of trust. Although refraining from concluding whether this refusal contravened the national competition law, the Court did conclude that Batavus wrongfully denied Vriend access to its selective distribution network [19].
................

Agree you need the collective voice of your industry and not just a few disgruntled individuals ideally you need your European counterparts onboard and to make it a GLO of some sort with a fighting fund.

Brendan agree with your assessment basically they are a Creating a cartel of 1 who will attempt to wipe out all competition to themselves and in doing so take a wrecking ball to your industry and end up in a position where they can raise repair prices to whatever they like as they have dominated the market not good for watch repairers or owners.

And let's not forget : George Daniels.

[Webwatchmaker]

Not just Europeans TKH. This matter is affecting the global watch repair industry !

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Webwatchmaker]

Yes, Daniels too. Inventor of the co-axial escapement. Many other contributors to the improvement of timekeeping none of whom were Swiss !

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

[stevendomb]

Your undertaking of this case does in my opinion offer a very good chance that Cousins action against Swatch will do more than shake their branches.
Independent watch repairers are by the nature of this work mostly introverted and solitary characters.
Their numbers are small and getting smaller to a great extent because of continuing Swiss policies which for years have tried to monopolise repairs in order to keep prices high and unemployment low.
As far as I know there has never been an effective Watchmakers Union because relative to the motor repair industry we are a tiny bunch.
Further, since a motor car is perhaps considered a much more essential daily need than a watch, and the far higher number of people employed in this trade and in our domain, attempts to control parts and repairs has until now been fought much more ferociously than in the watch trade.
I worked in the watch industry in Switzerland for a number of years and their continued attempts to monopolise the repair side was seen by most Companies there to be their God given right in order to keep their unemployment levels low and their profits as high as possible.
I can only offer yourself and Mr Anthony Cousins my greatest respect and support because you may well turn out to be the people who save this ancient trade with many historical innovations and inventions not down to the Swiss but to a number of purely genius English watch and clockmakers such as Thomas Mudge (inventor of the lever escapement) and John Harrison (inventor of the marine chronometer) in the first instance, when the Swiss were still and until relatively recently continued to, turn out very poor quality timekeepers indeed.
Brendan.

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

Hi Webwatchmaker,

I'm very flattered, although I do think putting my name alongside Harrison, Mudge and Daniels is probably going a bit OTT. I worked with Roger Smith on an education idea a while back and spent a couple of days at his workshop writing a document (he wouldn't let me play with one of his watches). I had the privilege of sitting at George Daniels bench while I was there, and I learned a good lesson when I looked at his hand tools. I'm only an amateur, but I reckon much of my kit was of a similar standard. It made me realise that watchmaking is a craft where solitary individuals with little initial capital can go on to achieve incredible things if they stay focussed and dedicated. Almost all of the requirements for watch repairers to join the Swiss supply agreements are really not necessary and are just an artificial restraint on talent.

I agree we will never be the size of the Motor trade, but there are more watch repairers out there than most would believe, there has to be. If you consider that £1,000 million pounds worth of Swiss watches alone are sold every year in the UK, then the maths suggest that is probably around 250,000 units. If you average the life of a good watch to just 40 years, then there must be well over 10 million watches in circulation that need working on say every 5 years. That is 2 million watches being serviced or repaired every year, and if the average charge is as little as £250, that is a half a billion pound market every year, not including the strap and battery changes on all the cheap watches out there.

If repairers were to put just one fifth of one per cent of that turnover into a trade association we would have a one million pound per annum funded body to protect us. The problem is not the size of the trade, the issue is how to persuade people of the value of good business practice, and why they need to put their hands in their pockets for some cash.

The idea of a European or global body is a good one, but it struggles because of language issues and nationalistic (in a nice way) pride. Every country has a history in watchmaking and is always wary of that being lost inside a multi country organisation. It is an issue that we will need to address one day, but I'll stick with the parts fight for now.

Thanks again

Steve

[Webwatchmaker]

Hi Steve,
putting your name next to those guys wasn't my intention. Still no harm done !
I have just spoken to an old pal in CH who sells watch parts.
He tells me that like here the independents have to buy around Chf60,000 of tools to gain access to Rolex, IWC or Omega spare parts. Plus do courses and allow inspectors to check that they have bought the approved equipment.
Older watch repairers are furious since they have been repairing these brands all their lives.
My pal was not aware of the current action by Cousins and will now be following it with great interest.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[messym]

Hi,

I can only speculate as to why the brands are doing this, but as a purely personal opinion I think that in the first instance they are trying to clean up all the revenue from the repair market and radically increase repair charges (and therefore profits). Secondly I think they are trying to make high end watches into an expensive disposable item, so that they can make more units. I think they have seen how Apple have been able to persuade consumers that it is perfectly sensible to buy a £1,500 laptop, or a £800 tablet, or a £700 phone, and then chuck it out in favour of the new model in 12 months time. By hyping up the service charges and repair times, or not being able to repair 'older' watches they can make it more attractive to buy new instead. Just speculation on my part, but either way trying to control who buys spares and who does repairs is a breach of EU law, and the Spanish NCA agrees.

Steve

I'm convinced Apple has some form of "planned obsolence" built in to their business model. As totally unnecessary "updates" come out they require more processing power, which makes older models slower to the point of not being usable. What's to stop Swatch Group doing the same? "Let's replace with cheaper quality parts, no one will know... it will mean it will fail, out of warranty, sooner..

[me32dc]

Hi Steve,
putting your name next to those guys wasn't my intention. Still no harm done !
I have just spoken to an old pal in CH who sells watch parts.
He tells me that like here the independents have to buy around Chf60,000 of tools to gain access to Rolex, IWC or Omega spare parts. Plus do courses and allow inspectors to check that they have bought the approved equipment.
Older watch repairers are furious since they have been repairing these brands all their lives.
My pal was not aware of the current action by Cousins and will now be following it with great interest.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Last person I know who tried to open a Rolex parts account spent nearly £60,000 on tools and doing up the workshop. Rolex then turned around before completion and said it wasn't up to scratch as it needed better air filtration/control as the workshop was near a busy road. It would have cost another £20-30,0000 to do this, so they gave up.

[topcat666]

This thread has been most informative and propelled me into joining the forum.
Thanks to all contributors and especially stevendomb for some detailed input to the discussion.
I have never dealt with Cousins but he has my great respect for taking on a major Swiss corporation in their homeland even if an unlooked for precursor to litigation in London.
Swatch are no strangers to litigation in the watch world it seems.
I am willing to be corrected but their approach will have great impact on independent watch repairers on a progressive basis.
Years ago,when I was young.there seemed to be watch and clock repairers in every town and city but quartz probably killed off many.
For myself,I would like to support good independents and judging from some threads on here,not everyone is pleased by manufacturer's service centres viz. both quality of service and cost.
If supply of movements and parts goes the Swatch way then would I be influenced to buy Sellita,Seiko or Citizen mechanical watches?
Would those other movement/watch manufacturers not simply follow Swatch and increase prices? When I was in a shop last weekend I was told Grand Seiko's marketing strategy was to brand their watches clearly as Grand Seiko rather than Seiko and,by the way,increase prices as a Rolex competitor.
Maybe I should stick to quartz in the future?
I have never been told by any watch seller,unless asked,what servicing intervals and costs were involved in owning a mechanical watch.Even recently in two shops in the same group I was given different views on that topic for the omega co-axial movement.
It seems odd that the Swiss ratchet up their prices on what appears to be old stock (although that could be due to the contract AD's have with them ,I do not know) and on two recent occasions I have been approached outside the shop by sales staff to try to actively sell.Is this arecent thing because I can't remember it happening a few years ago. Maybe it's just local to me.
Sorry about the rant!
Good luck to Mr. Cousins.
The EU competition authority is hopefully like the mills of God:they grind slowly but exceedingly fine.

[2kilo]

I’m impartial on the subject of the legal case, I can see the positive and negatives on both sides, however I find some of Steve’s comments to be conjecture and antidotal…


Steve has stood up for Cousins’ business practises as a wholesaler but refuses to debate it. I feel obliged to question this, as I believe Swatch will argue it is one example why they wish to halt supply. As others have said, the good cannot be split from the bad until it is rectified (if they deem it necessary) IMHO…


In my experience Cousins did not act as a responsible “trade only” business:
-They did not ask for proof of business / premisses .
-No proof in the form of references, certificates, etc.
-A single tick box was all that was required as proof.
-It appeared the “general public” could purchase easily.


Their pricing did not seem wholesale, trade:
-As a retailer you may expect to put a 2.2 - 2.7 margin (gross generalisation).
-In my case (Omega strap & buckle) it was above retail from Cousins.
-Their price was double that of going direct to the manufacturer’s boutique (not even trade).


The stock:
-They import Asian "clones" of swiss ETA movements.
-They supply “generic parts” e.g. rolex bezels.


The situation may have changed since but that was my experience - people can draw their own conclusions…

[Dave+63]

I’m impartial on the subject of the legal case, I can see the positive and negatives on both sides, however I find some of Steve’s comments to be conjecture and antidotal…


Steve has stood up for Cousins’ business practises as a wholesaler but refuses to debate it. I feel obliged to question this, as I believe Swatch will argue it is one example why they wish to halt supply. As others have said, the good cannot be split from the bad until it is rectified (if they deem it necessary) IMHO…


In my experience Cousins did not act as a responsible “trade only” business:
-They did not ask for proof of business / premisses .
-No proof in the form of references, certificates, etc.
-A single tick box was all that was required as proof.
-It appeared the “general public” could purchase easily.


Their pricing did not seem wholesale, trade:
-As a retailer you may expect to put a 2.2 - 2.7 margin (gross generalisation).
-In my case (Omega strap & buckle) it was above retail from Cousins.
-Their price was double that of going direct to the manufacturer’s boutique (not even trade).


The stock:
-They import Asian "clones" of swiss ETA movements.
-They supply “generic parts” e.g. rolex bezels.


The situation may have changed since but that was my experience - people can draw their own conclusions…

I haven't used Cousins and can't comment on their business practices but IMHO the two things are separate. The court case has no bearing on the business practices of any company who may benefit from the outcome of the case.

Wrt the issues you have had with them; it's not their responsibility to ensure that you as a customer are honest. They ask the question and you should give an honest answer.

We have no way of knowing what their margins are and, to be honest, it's non of our business. Suffice to say when I was a retailer my margins were considerably less than you're suggesting and wholesale margins were smaller still. It is also quite common for products to be available retail for less than the price the wholesaler pays from his supplier. It does happen!

Finally, why would you have a problem with them stocking Asian "clone" movements or genetic components? There are no laws being broken here and they are legitimate business lines.

[2kilo]

I haven't used Cousins and can't comment on their business practices but IMHO the two things are separate. The court case has no bearing on the business practices of any company who may benefit from the outcome of the case.

People should be informed on the character of those they may wish to support...?

Wrt the issues you have had with them; it's not their responsibility to ensure that you as a customer are honest. They ask the question and you should give an honest answer.

Certain manufacturers and other more responsible wholesalers would disagree...? It protects the retailers market...

We have no way of knowing what their margins are and, to be honest, it's non of our business. Suffice to say when I was a retailer my margins were considerably less than you're suggesting and wholesale margins were smaller still. It is also quite common for products to be available retail for less than the price the wholesaler pays from his supplier. It does happen!

I am a retailer, so fully aware, they are our margins, and not usually by over double...

Finally, why would you have a problem with them stocking Asian "clone" movements or genetic components? There are no laws being broken here and they are legitimate business lines.

The clones are the same as used in fakes, which enables people to repair them...? Maybe but it is an erosion of brand quality...?

[Dave+63]

No, this case stands and falls on it's own merits regardless of who brings the case. Would it be more valid if, for example, Eddie was bringing the case?

You are a retailer; how would you respond if your primary wholesaler decided that, illegally, he wasn't going to supply you and someone told you that you couldn't sue them?
When you asked why not his response was " because we don't like who you sell to, you don't make enough checks. Also you seem to be making too much profit on some of the things you sell, some of which we don't think you should be selling anyway!"

[stevendomb]

I’m impartial on the subject of the legal case, I can see the positive and negatives on both sides, however I find some of Steve’s comments to be conjecture and antidotal…


Steve has stood up for Cousins’ business practises as a wholesaler but refuses to debate it. I feel obliged to question this, as I believe Swatch will argue it is one example why they wish to halt supply. As others have said, the good cannot be split from the bad until it is rectified (if they deem it necessary) IMHO…


In my experience Cousins did not act as a responsible “trade only” business:
-They did not ask for proof of business / premisses .
-No proof in the form of references, certificates, etc.
-A single tick box was all that was required as proof.
-It appeared the “general public” could purchase easily.


Their pricing did not seem wholesale, trade:
-As a retailer you may expect to put a 2.2 - 2.7 margin (gross generalisation).
-In my case (Omega strap & buckle) it was above retail from Cousins.
-Their price was double that of going direct to the manufacturer’s boutique (not even trade).


The stock:
-They import Asian "clones" of swiss ETA movements.
-They supply “generic parts” e.g. rolex bezels.


The situation may have changed since but that was my experience - people can draw their own conclusions…

Dear 2kilo,

I repeat what I said in a previous post. If you want to discuss Cousin's trading practices, then email Anthony. His address is all over their website. Why do you want my view when you can talk to the source direct?

Steve

[walkerwek1958]

When Swatch Group restricted supply of Omega parts, rightly or wrongly Cousins hiked up their prices by around 30%. I was annoyed at the time but I can understand why they deemed it necessary. Had the prices remained at 2013/14 levels people would've bought up stock to sell on at a premium when supplies started to dry up. By taking this action Cousins have actually prolonged the availability of parts, albeit at higher prices.

It's easy to base negative comments on your own limited experience with stuff like straps or bracelet links which can be sourced from ADs; faced with a movement repair which needs a vital part someone like me sees the issue from a wider perspective.

Paul

[2kilo]

No, this case stands and falls on it's own merits regardless of who brings the case. Would it be more valid if, for example, Eddie was bringing the case?

If Steve / Cousins wish to discuss the legal detail then a legal forum would serve better. I suggest they have come here to inform, generate public interest and support (of 11k people) in the hope of influencing the bureaucracy and courts...? I prefer to understand the motivations and character of those I wish to support regardless of their current legal rights. If it was Eddie than I would more likely contribute to his "anti-competiton" petitions, fundraiser, etc...

You are a retailer; how would you respond if your primary wholesaler decided that, illegally, he wasn't going to supply you and someone told you that you couldn't sue them?
When you asked why not his response was " because we don't like who you sell to, you don't make enough checks. Also you seem to be making too much profit on some of the things you sell, some of which we don't think you should be selling anyway!"

If I was given notice - years in advance that I would no longer be supplied - then I would adapt my business accordingly. And yes, IMHO a manufacturer should not be forced to sell to a wholesaler it deems in competition with it retailers, is inflating prices, and participates in suppling unaccredited repairers, eroding brand quality, in their opinion...

[2kilo]

Dear 2kilo,

I repeat what I said in a previous post. If you want to discuss Cousin's trading practices, then email Anthony. His address is all over their website. Why do you want my view when you can talk to the source direct?

Steve

If you wish to talks specifically about legal matters then a legal forum would suit better...? As I have suggested, you are here to inform, gather interest, and support to help your case - to think otherwise would be naive. I would not support a cause without knowing the motivation and character behind it...

[2kilo]

When Swatch Group restricted supply of Omega parts, rightly or wrongly Cousins hiked up their prices by around 30%. I was annoyed at the time but I can understand why they deemed it necessary. Had the prices remained at 2013/14 levels people would've bought up stock to sell on at a premium when supplies started to dry up. By taking this action Cousins have actually prolonged the availability of parts, albeit at higher prices.

It's easy to base negative comments on your own limited experience with stuff like straps or bracelet links which can be sourced from ADs; faced with a movement repair which needs a vital part someone like me sees the issue from a wider perspective.

Paul

Sure you do but I remember an older post where a recently accredited Omega outfit stated - it was easy, they had most the equipment already, and were pleasantly surprised at the lower cost of parts by going direct....?
I've always said this debate needs clarification of the facts...?

[stevendomb]

2kilo,

The contradictions in what you write are just staggering, but you have successfully demonstrated why the independent watch repair industry is in such a precarious state.

On the one hand, you ask for "clarification of the facts" on this forum, whilst at the same time saying that facts about how the law applies to our industry should be publicised elsewhere. Had those people who aggrandised themselves in the past as being the 'leaders' of our industry actually bothered to educate themselves in Competition law, and then used their resources to ensure the law was applied, we wouldn't be in this state now. You seem to want to live in a state of wilful ignorance, whilst at the same time promoting your (not so humble) opinion without offering any of the 'facts' you crave to support it.

You are correct that I am here to inform, and yet you imply that there is some sinister motive behind this. If you think for one moment that any court would be even slightly influenced by a discussion on an internet forum, then it is you who is being naïve. Who exactly are this "bureaucracy" that you refer to? What do they do? Where do we find them? What rules do they operate to? How do we engage with them? What powers do they have? How long do they take to act? Please give us all these facts so we can compare your arguments and actions with mine...

Who has the rights over a product? Is it the person who owns it, or the company that sold it to them? The law is very specific that the rights of the consumer to have choice in a competitive market are way in excess of any rights a company may have to protect its' brand. And yet you continue to argue the contrary. Why?

You probably drive a car. Imagine a circumstance where, having bought a brand new car you leave the AD and go to fill up with fuel only to be told that if you open the filler cap and buy fuel from anyone other than a main dealer, then your entire warranty is void. But to get fuel from an AD takes 16 weeks and costs £20 per litre. That would be outrageous, but yet you see no issue with watch owners being told that their entire warranty is void if they have a battery change done outside the dealer network, and that £80 plus for a 50p battery is the charge they must pay, whilst waiting months for their watch to be returned.

Your only approach is to malign the character of an organisation that has had the guts to stand up for what is right, whilst at the same time refusing to contact them directly with your issues, hiding behind internet anonymity, and demanding that I join in your pointless speculation about them. The one opinion I will give you is this:-

I find it ridiculous that we have a competition regulatory system that is built around the idea that small businesses understand these laws and how they are enforced. Unfortunately, that IS the structure of the law, so I have gone out of my way to understand the law, understand the process, work to have the law applied properly, and try my best to spread what I have learned to everyone I can, so that they can use that knowledge to protect themselves and their customers. If you do not want that knowledge, that is up to you, but without it I am certain that any enterprise you run or rely on will ultimately die from ignorance.

If you find our efforts to respond to this situation with self education and effective action to be unworthy of your support, well that is your prerogative.

Steve

[Saint-Just]

I don't think your frankly disingenuous analogies do you any favours

[Webwatchmaker]

I don't think your frankly disingenuous analogies do you any favours

Explain....!!

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

[stevendomb]

I don't think your frankly disingenuous analogies do you any favours

disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/

adjective: disingenuous

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.


In what way am I pretending to know less about this issue than I do?

I am not a politician. I have not asked anyone on this forum or elsewhere for any form of authority over them, and yet some still feel that they have a right to malign my motives and morality because they wish to make unsubstantiated remarks about someone I work with, without having the decency to present those allegations to him themselves. When I started working on the parts issue nearly three years ago, I openly campaigned for an end to the habit within the trade of disrespect for rivals, and I also campaigned for a unified approach. It seems to me that the majority of those who have participated in this thread are of a similar mind to me on this issue, and are like me fed up with personal attacks and character assassination being used to obstruct proper informed discussion.

There is nothing disingenuous about my analogies, they are perfectly valid and based on supported published fact. Not one of the negative responses to my posts in this thread has quoted from any factual and referenced source to rebut any of the arguments I have made. If someone has better verifiable information than me about the legal position that Cousins has taken, then I am happy to learn from them, but I am done with spending time on personal gripes from people who don't want others to have access to knowledge. It is just plain disrespectful.

Steve

[Saint-Just]

The analogy with petrol is a straw man unless Swatch Group decides only they can set your watch on time and the winding has to be done at an AD. Had you chosen changing the starter motor for example you would have a point. As you would have had if your battery analogy was with an oil filter. And lastly I believe that you must service your car within a main dealer network if you want the guarantee to be upheld.
The fact that you proclaim that your analogies are perfectly valid and based on supported published fact(s) make you appear a pompous so and so, analogies are just that, analogies.

The thing is, I respect Cousins for taking on this fight. I also agree with most of the points you're making. But you also have to live with the fact that this is not a court of law, nor is it a conference you've called where people will religiously listen to what you have to say, ask the questions you want them to ask and shut up when you tell them you don't like their question or you consider it to be off topic.
This is a watch forum, where not everyone has a relevant law degree or experience in the matter. Most however have an interest in horology and therefore with the issue of this case, but may have experiences with Cousins that change their perspective a bit.

[Tomaitch]

Thinking on this topic , what would Cousins hope to get out of this case ? if they were successful I am sure the brands would organise distribution of parts through their own well established departments. no need to offer to third party re sellers . That way they would guarantee supply to bona fide watchmakers who are in business legitimately not hobbyists who are forced to tell a white lie and click a box that possible removes them from any come back of faulty or wrong parts being supplied .
Obviously the watchmaking Industry would benefit and the brands would loose some of their hold over after sales income .
Its just a shame the BHI and other Industry groups are not behind this action . And its a brave man that listens to people on law matters who have zero study training and experience especially when they are paying for the pleasure . Good lawyers can run rings around the ill informed and inexperienced.

[744ER]

You probably drive a car. Imagine a circumstance where, having bought a brand new car you leave the AD and go to fill up with fuel only to be told that if you open the filler cap and buy fuel from anyone other than a main dealer, then your entire warranty is void. But to get fuel from an AD takes 16 weeks and costs £20 per litre. That would be outrageous, but yet you see no issue with watch owners being told that their entire warranty is void if they have a battery change done outside the dealer network, and that £80 plus for a 50p battery is the charge they must pay, whilst waiting months for their watch to be returned.

This is absolute nonsense, I'm afraid. If this is your perception of reality then prepare to be blindsided by the courts ruling.

[stevendomb]

The analogy with petrol is a straw man unless Swatch Group decides only they can set your watch on time and the winding has to be done at an AD. Had you chosen changing the starter motor for example you would have a point. As you would have had if your battery analogy was with an oil filter. And lastly I believe that you must service your car within a main dealer network if you want the guarantee to be upheld.
The fact that you proclaim that your analogies are perfectly valid and based on supported published fact(s) make you appear a pompous so and so, analogies are just that, analogies.

The thing is, I respect Cousins for taking on this fight. I also agree with most of the points you're making. But you also have to live with the fact that this is not a court of law, nor is it a conference you've called where people will religiously listen to what you have to say, ask the questions you want them to ask and shut up when you tell them you don't like their question or you consider it to be off topic.
This is a watch forum, where not everyone has a relevant law degree or experience in the matter. Most however have an interest in horology and therefore with the issue of this case, but may have experiences with Cousins that change their perspective a bit.

The energy for a car comes from fuel. The energy for a quartz watch comes from a battery. I would say my analogy is spot on.

Car manufacturers are not allowed to void your warranty if you go elsewhere for service. Providing the work has been done to the correct standard and that manufacturers original parts have been used, then your warranty remains. Furthermore, if you chose to use other parts, then the only bit of your warranty that is invalid is in relation to that work, not the entire vehicle.

I make the point about the need for mutual respect, but you call me "pompous", you belittle my efforts to organise a conference, mock what took place, and claim I improperly controlled the questions asked and the answers given, without providing any evidence. Thank you for proving my point about the need to eliminate these disrespectful attitudes from our industry.

Steve

[Saint-Just]

You are dissing and disrespecting every opinion here that doesn't suit your agenda. I call you pompous because you use words and sentences that are just that without much substance as to the facts behind them. Please note that I am talking about the way you handle the things you don't like, not what you may say about the case itself. We are not here to provide you with any evidence. You came here when we did not call you and you are antagonising someone who was prior to your intervention very much in favour of the action. I do not know what this seems to prove for you but if you've just spent the last 3 years working on this I respectfully suggest you work harder on different skills.

[stevendomb]

Thinking on this topic , what would Cousins hope to get out of this case ? if they were successful I am sure the brands would organise distribution of parts through their own well established departments. no need to offer to third party re sellers . That way they would guarantee supply to bona fide watchmakers who are in business legitimately not hobbyists who are forced to tell a white lie and click a box that possible removes them from any come back of faulty or wrong parts being supplied .
Obviously the watchmaking Industry would benefit and the brands would loose some of their hold over after sales income .
Its just a shame the BHI and other Industry groups are not behind this action . And its a brave man that listens to people on law matters who have zero study training and experience especially when they are paying for the pleasure . Good lawyers can run rings around the ill informed and inexperienced.

Good points Tomaitch, my reply is as follows:-

Competition Law requires dominant undertakings to supply all parties on fair and equal terms. What that means is someone buying in volume would be entitled to a better price than someone buying single items, but two wholesalers buying equal quantities must be offered equal pricing and equal terms. The brands would not be able to side-line the wholesalers by only selling direct to repairers. What wholesalers do is offer the repairers a one stop shop for all their parts, tools and consumables. That makes the repairers life easier because it massively reduces the number of accounts they need to open, orders they need to place, and stock they need to hold, and it is that benefit that justifies the margins that wholesalers make.

If the brands were to set up their own wholesale operation, they would face a regulatory nightmare trying to ensure that everyone got equal terms, and they would also have problems ensuring that their organisation was not abusing a privileged position and manipulating the wholesale market.

I quite agree your caution about listening to untrained people on law matters, which is why everything I write is based on what I have learned from eminently qualified lawyers, and why I frequently check with them before I act. My role is to try and take that knowledge and pass it on to non legal people in a form they can digest and discuss.

Regards

Steve

[Tomaitch]

Good points Tomaitch, my reply is as follows:-

Competition Law requires dominant undertakings to supply all parties on fair and equal terms. What that means is someone buying in volume would be entitled to a better price than someone buying single items, but two wholesalers buying equal quantities must be offered equal pricing and equal terms. The brands would not be able to side-line the wholesalers by only selling direct to repairers. What wholesalers do is offer the repairers a one stop shop for all their parts, tools and consumables. That makes the repairers life easier because it massively reduces the number of accounts they need to open, orders they need to place, and stock they need to hold, and it is that benefit that justifies the margins that wholesalers make.

If the brands were to set up their own wholesale operation, they would face a regulatory nightmare trying to ensure that everyone got equal terms, and they would also have problems ensuring that their organisation was not abusing a privileged position and manipulating the wholesale market.

I quite agree your caution about listening to untrained people on law matters, which is why everything I write is based on what I have learned from eminently qualified lawyers, and why I frequently check with them before I act. My role is to try and take that knowledge and pass it on to non legal people in a form they can digest and discuss.

Regards

Steve

Who mentioned wholesalers ?!
The brand would be under no pressure to set up this method of trading . My point was in supplying watchmakers only and not re sellers. Watchmakers wouldn't have a need to buy in bulk generally I assume and would order parts as and when jobs determine the spare parts needed .
It would be a far fairer market to operate in this way rather than dealing with cut throat wholesalers .

[topcat666]

Just to add to the mix as I am not sure it's been posted a link to what the Swatch Group is about and how ineffective attempts ave been to stop it:http://www.ourplanet.com/swisswatche...ical-power.pdf

[stevendomb]

Just to add to the mix as I am not sure it's been posted a link to what the Swatch Group is about and how ineffective attempts ave been to stop it:http://www.ourplanet.com/swisswatche...ical-power.pdf

Hi Topcat666,

That is a stunningly good contribution to the cause. Thank you very much.

Well referenced publications by eminent authors are an important part of the expert evidence needed in court cases. To find something written in English by two Swiss University Doctors is very rare. It appears to paint a damning picture of how the Swatch group has manipulated the Swiss political and legal system.

Excellent material. Thanks again.

Steve

[Webwatchmaker]

Hi Topcat666,

That is a stunningly good contribution to the cause. Thank you very much.

Well referenced publications by eminent authors are an important part of the expert evidence needed in court cases. To find something written in English by two Swiss University Doctors is very rare. It appears to paint a damning picture of how the Swatch group has manipulated the Swiss political and legal system.

Excellent material. Thanks again.

Steve

Having lived in CH I have to say that some areas of their business and political practices really stink !
I won't go into potentially libellous details but suffice to say that people have been found dead for upsetting the self assured apple cart.
Thank goodness for the bravery of whistle blowers.
At the moment Swiss independents are very upset that the supply of parts is now being restricted to them.
"I have been fixing watches here for over 45 years with no problems. Why are they suddenly stopping me from working ".
One good friend in CH has told me.

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Yorkshiremadmick]

I'm not disinterested, nor am I in denial - I've accepted Swatch's position. It's their choice to do whatever they want with their business. Such is life :)

Everyone will be working through the change curve, some get to the end quicker than others:

I find this thread, slightly odd, I can understand the ramifications to industry as a whole if Swatch's claims are upheld. But and it's a big but I thought they were always intended to be throw away watches, the early ones you could not replace the battery.



Why would you try to repair a swatch? Not even for sentimental value, surely!

Moving on indeed ;-)

[ktmog6uk]

Google swatch group chap and see who they own.,..

I find this thread, slightly odd, I can understand the ramifications to industry as a whole if Swatch's claims are upheld. But and it's a big but I thought they were always intended to be throw away watches, the early ones you could not replace the battery.



Why would you try to repair a swatch? Not even for sentimental value, surely!

Moving on indeed ;-)

[Saint-Just]

I find this thread, slightly odd, I can understand the ramifications to industry as a whole if Swatch's claims are upheld. But and it's a big but I thought they were always intended to be throw away watches, the early ones you could not replace the battery.



Why would you try to repair a swatch? Not even for sentimental value, surely!

Moving on indeed ;-)

Laugh of the day. Well played!

[Yorkshiremadmick]

Clearly I'm not a WIS as I did not know the other brands they have acquired. Fortunately I've never owned a Swatch. Though I do admire some of the Omega range.

Have a laugh on my naivety



Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[forpetesake]

Having lived in CH I have to say that some areas of their business and political practices really stink !
I won't go into potentially libellous details but suffice to say that people have been found dead for upsetting the self assured apple cart.

Now I understand this photo.

http://www.watchpro.com/hot-100-2014...ns-cousins-uk/

[Webwatchmaker]

Now I understand this photo.

http://www.watchpro.com/hot-100-2014...ns-cousins-uk/

It's probably loaded too....

Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

[Carlton-Browne]

It still doesn't explain the camouflage pyjama bottoms.

[PickleB]

A court in Bern has declared that the claim Swatch brought against Cousins is inadmissible under Swiss Law, and has dismissed the case. But Swatch Group still has the chance to appeal, if it chooses.
The case, which dates back over two years, concerns a parts embargo issued by Swatch Group that prevents Cousins distributing its parts to independent watch repair shops in the UK.
In a statement from Anthony Cousins (pictured), managing director, the British firm said that Cousins had originally given Swatch three weeks to resupply spares, or face legal action to be brought by it in the High Court in London. Swatch’s response was to bring a pre-emptive Negative Declaratory Action against Cousins in the Berne Court. Swatch asked that a Swiss judge should rule that it had done nothing wrong under British and European law, and that they were not obliged to resupply Cousins.
The statement, issued to WatchPro this afternoon, reads: “Clearly, the best place to determine what British law requires is in a British court, so it was immediately apparent to us that the Swatch claim in Bern was a blatant attempt to waste time, and avoid facing the consequences of their unlawful parts embargo on the independent repair trade.
“As we have explained in previous news releases, it is a requirement of Swiss law that anyone bringing a Negative Declaratory Action must firstly show that there was little prospect of their opponent bringing the matter before the courts in their own right. As the action that triggered Swatch to make this claim was Cousins letter declaring its intention to bring an action in the High Court, this requirement was not met, and it is for this reason that Swatch’s case has been thrown out by the Bern Court.”

http://www.watchpro.com/breaking-new...avour-cousins/


(Just to be clear this is a ruling about which court has authority and not a judgement on supplying of parts.

[demonloop]

I wonder who Swatch will select as their UK distributor(s) for spare parts, assuming this decision is upheld and Cousins win the case?

Big opportunity for someone I would have thought.

Edit- what are those trousers about?

[stevendomb]

I wonder who Swatch will select as their UK distributor(s) for spare parts, assuming this decision is upheld and Cousins win the case?

Big opportunity for someone I would have thought.

Edit- what are those trousers about?

Because they are market dominant, the brands would not be allowed to "select" distributors. They would have to set reasonable qualitative requirements (x amount of stock held, y amount of purchases each year, etc.) and anyone meeting those requirements would be entitled to supply.

I do understand that at first sight it seems odd that a company would be obliged to supply anyone, but the rules are different for companies that are market dominant, and designed to stop them from controlling the market and ultimately abusing the end consumer.

Regards

Steve

[ibby7]

What does it ultimately mean for the prices of omega parts? Cheaper or does cousins off set the cost of the legal fees by increasing prices, I already have seen the 'card few added with no explanation. What next. Online Sales Charge?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[stevendomb]

What does it ultimately mean for the prices of omega parts? Cheaper or does cousins off set the cost of the legal fees by increasing prices, I already have seen the 'card few added with no explanation. What next. Online Sales Charge?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I really find the thinking behind this unfathomable. Cousins is the only organisation anywhere in the world fighting for your right to access parts on fair terms, and the best you can come up with is unsubstantiated slap downs about what might happen in the future.

Cousins is fighting for an open and competitive market. The price of the parts will be set in the first instance by the prices charged by the brands, and if those are not "reasonable" by the requisite legal definition, then we will be off to the regulator to have them sort it out. Cousins will not have any monopoly, it will not be able to artificially inflate prices, and will have to earn back the money it is spending on fighting this cause from regular profits, not special charges or other means. I expect prices will fall and availability will rise, but that having been said, don't you think that Cousins deserves a few extra pennies from each of its customers for having the guts to stand and fight on their behalf?

You need to get out of the Cousins bashing mind-set. It is been looking really foolish for some time now. Who else is championing your cause?

[ibby7]

I'm against the unexplained card fee, btw I have spent thousands upon thousands on the cousins site either through my job or my personal account. Call it constructive feedback. Fear not Steve... I'll still using cousins for a long time to come.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Padders]

I really find the thinking behind this unfathomable. Cousins is the only organisation anywhere in the world fighting for your right to access parts on fair terms, and the best you can come up with is unsubstantiated slap downs about what might happen in the future.

Cousins is fighting for an open and competitive market. The price of the parts will be set in the first instance by the prices charged by the brands, and if those are not "reasonable" by the requisite legal definition, then we will be off to the regulator to have them sort it out. Cousins will not have any monopoly, it will not be able to artificially inflate prices, and will have to earn back the money it is spending on fighting this cause from regular profits, not special charges or other means. I expect prices will fall and availability will rise, but that having been said, don't you think that Cousins deserves a few extra pennies from each of its customers for having the guts to stand and fight on their behalf?

You need to get out of the Cousins bashing mind-set. It is been looking really foolish for some time now. Who else is championing your cause?

Steve I am sure this all sounds reasonable and peachy in your head but doesn't change the fact that many of us feel very little goodwill towards Cousins. Suggesting that they are a white knight and that all suggestions to the contrary are 'foolish' just makes you look arrogant and out of touch. If Omega are made to see sense then hooray for that, but some of your cheerleading seems rather incompatible with the widespread opinion that Cousins treat customers with contempt.