Reply With QuoteAt least it is not Richemont.
https://www.lvmhluxuryventures.com/projects-en/
Long suspected but now official.
At least it is not Richemont.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
Will see if new ownership effects impartiality. May be mistaken but do seem to see the Watchfinder videos developing a certain leaning.
Last edited by mylofitz; 9th November 2020 at 11:23.
In the modern world of big companies and mergers, how come I am not surprised? Maybe it is their internet base that is attractive.
Wait, do you actually think they are impartial right now???Originally Posted by mylofitz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've been slightly skeptical ever since they launched the Hodinkee shop. I still really enjoy their content though and I usually search for reviews and content on a watch that I already like and am 'researching'. Same is true of Watchbox.
Hodinkee are a classic example of a startup focusing on growing their base and dominating their specific industry - all while being pumped with Venture Capital money. And so no surprise a corporate venture such as LMVH have a stake in the business. Hodinkee need to leverage this and make money. Hence why the 'Shop' has become so prominent.
What Hodinkee have at least done is consider those two things as separate businesses to try and preserve some journalistic integrity. If their 'industry authority' diminishes, then they're finished.
I can’t imagine that it will affect their content much. It’s not like they’ll start gushing about TAGs and Zeniths whilst putting down other brands, that would be pretty obvious.
Having said that, they are increasingly morphing into a shop that does reviews and op eds, rather than a blog. Everyone has to make money but I’m increasingly skeptical about the objectivity of their reviews of products they also sell.
I guess the same could be said about W&W, Fratello, revolution and others though...
Looks like there may be a gap opening for a ‘real’ impartial review site? Time for one of the smaller sites to step up?
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Unless they buy their own watches (prohibitively expensive for most sites) - how?
Indeed, plus at some point the site needs to make money to stay viable. Tbh, a lot of Youtubers are doing an ok job with reviewing watches so that part is alive and kicking.
Agreed, just the fawning over their sponsors watches is a little tiresome....but obviously understandable!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I'm going to take this as proof that LVMH had nothing to do with Hodinkee previously, there's no way they'd have allowed That Clock.
This is the big issue. I have a friend who does watch reviews etc on YouTube. There is only so far the videos can go when filming your own collection.
He's bought a few cheap pieces to get more content and encourage subscribers who are either anti Rolex or prefer the lower end of the scale. He asked me to borrow some of mine before which I politely declined but he's borrowed watches from two of our mutual friends as well as a few others which I don't know.
He's also tried buying some watches to keep for a few weeks just to review but there is only so much milage in this. HODINKEE have the kind of access everyone else can only dream of.
It's pretty much the same in all fandoms - you play ball or you get cut-off - it's why there is such much soft soap.
Hodinkee are best when they’re writing about something non partisan, like balance springs or the history of the bezel. For me they have never had any journalistic integrity when writing about actual watches. It’s just gush, fawn, spruke and arselick. Or is that the name of their lawyers?
Anyway, they have some talented writers, and I hope they keep the more recherchée side of their journalism.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I enjoy much of the Hodinkee writing, but I don’t recognise “journalistic integrity” there. For example, when they make an error I’ve seen it changed in the text without any explanatory note regarding the original assertion, the change and the context that brought it about. That’s something I think many would expect of journalism.
LOL. Its long past the time I saw them having any of that...
...or that....If their 'industry authority' diminishes...
This is not good, Hodinkee is fundamentally an advertisement for them now.
Car manufacturers are happy to have their cars reviewed and support motor journalists. Why should the watch industry be any different?
I don’t recall ever reading any critical reviews on there (or positive reviews with a critical note) and stopped visiting.
Perhaps my choice of articles on their site but they seem to be very enthusiastic about everything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is not necessarily true. There are many things to consider including whether LVMH have a Board Seat and the conditions on their investment. I fully expect Hodinkee to have ensured LVMH cannot exert the sort of influence we think they can. You see this in other industries, say finance where a major bank has an investment in a smaller fintech startup.
Personally I see this as LVMH's way of keeping tabs on the wider community and as a good investment in an industry they understand. It could also be a route to building a stake for an eventual acquisition of Hodinkee. No doubt the smaller investors would like that, this is their most realistic route to an exit.
Yes Hodinkee will leverage for their shop, but they already had the access they needed for journalistic purposes. I believe Hodinkee are very conscience on needing to keep the Shop and Journalism separate. As I said before, if they don't then they're finished. That would very much be a problem if LVMH did fully acquire Hodinkee.
Sorry did I miss us knowing how much they own? How do we not know it's wholly owned?
Not proof of anything but I've noticed carwow offers on Mercedes have dropped down to 10% from 15% max since Daimler AG invested £25m in 2019. With investment comes influence, if nothing else.
The investment is made via LVMH's investment arm. From their site "LVMH Luxury Ventures is an investment entity operating within the LVMH Group. We target minority investments in emerging luxury brands with strong growth potential."
I would again stress we don't know the extent of the influence. And as above this is part of their venture arm, not LVMH directly and so very different philosophy which is more aligned with a more modern startup/VC relationship. Again, from their site "The brands we invest in operate autonomously. We encourage entrepreneurs to stay true to their vision, preserving the authenticity and uniqueness of their brands in the long run."
I can appreciate the suspicions most have, but having some experience in this area it probably isn't as invasive as you think - especially in the next 12 months or so. Even with a Board Seat, they're still constrained. Maybe over time if there has been some soft intent that eventually LVMH Group will acquire the brand then yes, but again we are unlikely to see much changes in the short term. Even more so because LVMH Ventures doesn't seem to make many investment and so they're probably figuring out their own strategy for working with their portfolio brands.
I read and enjoy their site without feeling like I have to make purchases based on their articles. I enjoy the enthusiasm, photography and articles which are helping the watch industry gain more exposure and allowing me to indulge a little more in my interest. I don't care at all who they are owned by - as a reader - and find it a bit odd that anyone would, in all honesty.
I get your point and I'm not saying it's something one way or the other, especially in this case, but having worked in startups and seen the before/after of investment things change depending on who invests. Sometimes the investors don't ask for anything but it changes nonetheless.
I can't imagine working at HODINKEE and writing a terrible review on a watch made a LVMH brand, different arm or not. I wouldn't risk my job and therefore my mortgage. I doubt they would either. It's understandable and could be totally innocent but it stinks.
An investor always changes the dynamic. However it takes a little time, hence my 12 month caveat.
Also one thing not mentioned so far - hodinkee burn through a lot of money per month. Be interesting if they cost cut or can maintain revenue growth.
On reviews - not just LVMH. Imagine writing a bad Patek review and being blacklisted from all their watches. I think the key is to not be overtly negative. Just lukewarm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasn't Chris Harris banned from Ferrari review/press cars once before for absolutely trashing a car in a review and saying it was beyond poo?An investor always changes the dynamic. However it takes a little time, hence my 12 month caveat.
Also one thing not mentioned so far - hodinkee burn through a lot of money per month. Be interesting if they cost cut or can maintain revenue growth.
On reviews - not just LVMH. Imagine writing a bad Patek review and being blacklisted from all their watches. I think the key is to not be overtly negative. Just lukewarm
There are a long list of tech journalists and reviewers who have been cut off by Apple and lost access to review units. Their reviews are now only done by waiting for the release and buying the units instead which obviously had an impact on readership/views and as a consequence ad revenue.
No review is 100% honest which is a shame.
Maybe HODINKEE will hire Archie Luxury with their new found cash. I'd pay money to watch him host some "a week on the wrist" videos.
What bothers me most is that there are clear guidelines around transparency, conflict of interests and influence. The UK ASA is pretty clear what it considers to be an advert, but hardly anyone I know in the watch influencer world follows it. Even when gently nudged in the right direction, most just go back to what they were previously doing. What we need is for the regulators to start enforcing their rules; if they don't, it'll continue to be a race to the bottom. Most other industries have worked out how to do this - watches shouldn't be any different. Perhaps we just need a case to be brought against an influencer and the brand involved, pour encourager les autres.
Entirely believable - reviews are only ever honest if purchased with ones own cash. Ming (of watch fame) was rather infamous for his photography reviews because he only reviewed cameras and lenses he bought and was brutally honest. I'm sure lots of brands tried to get him to review stuff due to his reach in the community, but I think they'd balk due to the fact the review just wouldn't be all nice.
Hodinkee try now to add a lot of style to their reviews and features - sell the idea and romantic vision. The actual review then isn't that important.
But Hodinkee are very clear - anything 'in partnership' is clearly labelled, and why they keep the 'Shop' and 'Journalism' separate. The rules are strict in the US. You cannot however slam a reviewer for not being negative about a watch.
They have some great photography, but the articles have always been overly positive in my book.
My issue with the LVMH stake is that it’s not really been made particularly transparent.
The rules may be strict, but if you receive anything - be it gifts, flights, accommodation or other non-monetary items - the UK regs require you to disclose. And nobody does. Literally none of them disclose those items nor mark them as adverts. Perhaps we should ask the CMA what they think?
Last edited by Broussard; 10th November 2020 at 22:08. Reason: Spelling
There is quite some discussion of Hodinkee's various issues over at Watchlords:
https://watchlords.com/viewforum.php?f=194
As usual Broussard is on the money -- which he follows to its logical conclusion.
That is so funny. Thanks.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
Some very funny posts over there, Hoodwinkee and the Donkeys would be a cracking name for a band!
Posting Permissions
