Reply With Quotei thought everyone took it as they were making the watches but why should they over produce to dilute their brand.
Had a quick search but couldn't see this mentioned anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.
This is a statement from Rolex:
To address a story published in Yahoo Finance on September 7, 2021, Montres Rolex states the following:
"The scarcity of our products is not a strategy on our part. Our current production cannot meet the existing demand in an exhaustive way, at least not without reducing the quality of our watches something we refuse to do as the quality of our products must never be compromised. This level of excellence requires time, and as we have always done, we will continue to take the necessary time to ensure that all our watches not only comply with our standards of excellence, but also meet the expectations of our customers in terms of quality, reliability and robustness. Rolex does not compromise on what it takes to produce exceptional watches.
All Rolex watches are developed and produced in-house at our four sites in Switzerland. They are assembled by hand, with extreme care, to meet the brand's unique and high-quality standards of quality, performance and aesthetics. Understandably, this naturally restricts our production capacities which we continue to increase as much as possible and always according to our quality criteria.
Finally, it should be noted that Rolex watches are available exclusively from official retailers, who independently manage the allocation of watches to customers."
Thoughts? Believe them? Lies?
I've not seen the Yahoo article myself so not sure what exactly it alleges.
i thought everyone took it as they were making the watches but why should they over produce to dilute their brand.
The Sept. 7th Yahoo Finance article:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/wh...144250922.html
______
Jim.
The bit I’ve always struggled to understand is why they can’t divert some effort from making eg datejusts to sports models when they broadly run the same movements and are made of the same materials. Admittedly of late they have all become hard to find, but ever since I can remember the DJ was in every AD window and the sports models weren’t. Maybe they were more popular but that’s not the impression I have ever got during my years on the forum. I’m not interested in entering an argument over Rolex specifically, it just strikes me as a bit odd for a manufacturer to seemingly lack the ability to switch production from one line to another dependent upon demand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems to me like complete flannel.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
A friend of mine is looking for an OP for his wife. He went into M&W in Cambridge, no 31mm or34mm OP's in store and he was told to expect a wait of 3 months for the 31mm, and 5 months for the 34mm. I can't believe these are incredibly sought after watches and I told him to email/ring a few shops in London and have a few days in the Smoke. If they aren't available in the country's capital, it's a sad state of affairs.
Haywood posted some figures once which showed that they sold about 20 times more DJs than sports models back when they were all freely available.Originally Posted by RobDad
I would also presume that the margins on DJs is higher than the sports models so why would they want to change anything?
They’re more likely to be available in small provincial towns than the big cities IMO.
This.
But let's look at what Rolex said:
"The scarcity of our products is not a strategy on our part."
Technically true. Demand is beyond their control.
"Our current production cannot meet the existing demand in an exhaustive way"
Two qualifiers. So "we can't meet ALL the current demand." Could they meet more of it?
Then blah blah blah about how they are handmade, exclusive etc. as if each one is a George Smith or Roger Daniels. They have a vertically integrated factory. They make hundreds of thousands of watches a year, maybe even a million. But I think they can -- and do -- make as many as they want. I think they like things the way they are. Keep the consumer hungry. Well good luck to them and the people on the waiting list.
I tend to believe that they are operating at capacity, and I’m sure that they are knocking out more watches now than they ever have before. What we are seeing is a result of a very clever marketing strategy. In 2015 we know from COSC records that Rolex produced around 800k watches. After 2015 COSC were forced by major users of the service, ie Rolex, to stop publishing the numbers of movements certified per manufacturer, although they still publish the total number of movements certified.
What happened next is interesting. In 2016 the total number of movements certified dropped and it was about then that previously readily available sports models became waiting list pieces. People want what they can’t have and so certain models became must have pieces. Ever since then the number of movements certified by COSC has gone through the roof. Taking 2019, rather than covid hit 2020, COSC certified around half a million more mechanical movements than it did in 2015. It doesn’t take a genius to work out who is making the vast majority of these movements, there just aren’t the other brands that have increased production and many have actually cut it. My best guess is that Rolex are now producing somewhere between 1.2 and 1.3 million watches a year.
The marketing strategy is also why they won’t increase production of sports watches to meet demand. How many sales of unpopular watches are made to people who don’t really want the watch but are desperate to climb the list on the piece they really want? And how many on the waiting list for a Sub or Daytona would actually complete the purchase if they were in all the windows and worth 40% less as soon as they walked out the door?
Sounds like he's going to have to tell the missus she's going to have to wait then.
Who’d thought we’d see Rolex and fuel shortages at the same time …
Last edited by jonasy; 23rd September 2021 at 22:48.
No chance in London.
When looking for an OP26 I emailed every main dealer in the city and most said lists were closed and a few said 2+ years.
I called an AD in Norwich and managed to get one on the spot. I also asked about a matching men's OP41 and was told 2-3 years and they put my name on the list.
I think these are extremely desirable at the moment as they are the most discrete and least vulgar watches out there from Rolex. When I was buying my wife's, every woman under 50 was looking for exactly the same thing and being disappointed by the wait times. The woman next to us was being pushed a DJ instead to avoid the wait and was describing it as 'absolutely horrid' as it was a TT one, possibly with mop or diamonds. Everyone seems happy to wait for something more discrete.
Yep. And if she gets one in that time I think she will be lucky.
Last edited by jmitch; 24th September 2021 at 09:20.
Is it still the case that their Trust / Foundation means that production ceases around this time of year ?
The original Rolex statement is flannel, as it doesn't actually say that they're going to do anything in particular.
Also, they love to give the impression that each Rolex is individually made from scratch by a proper watchmaker, but my understanding is that they are churned out on a production line!
I agree with Danstone's post above. Rolex are very opaque and secretive. Randomised serial numbers means the quantities produced can't be calculated and it's widely assumed the were behind COSC's decision to stop publishing figures for individual brands. They don't have a museum, there's no way to contact them easily, no extracts from the archives service, etc etc. The website and socials are VERY slick but pretty vacuous. They're really just a Veblen jewellery brand now, a form of currency. My impression of them as watches (i.e. horologically) is that they are decent enough but not really high end. Solid, robust, etc but taht's another way of saying workhorse.
I really don't like them as a company.
However, back to the OP: I do wonder whether the scarcity is becoming counter productive and generating increasing ill-will from (potential) customers. Their social media feed is full of people complaining and sniping and walking away. Maybe Rolex are a victim of their own success. Maybe their cynical market manipulation has backfired. I can't see it being a long term strategy anyway: people get tired of the BS and give up. Yes, they are the one and only almost mythical ROLEX but if they act like some aloof deity who only grants audiences to those who have waited and made sacrifices then they can't complain if the people look elsewhere.
I’m surprised Rolex even responded. Do we know it’s 100% legitimate?
A bit of Rolex Gaslighting - everyone else is to blame, including the greedy public snapping up the thousands of SS sports being offered. The whole situation is absurd, a 4 - 8 year wait for the dainty Daytona or pay £25,000-30,000 for one on the used market. I will continue to call the Emperor's new clothes on the ceramic Daytona.
Yep, I tried and asked about the new Explorer 36mm. No lists to avoid disappointment. Couldn’t quite figure hat one.
If the supply and demand isn’t there ‘fault’ there Serra only not showing any interest in expanding and building another manufacturing facility to meet greater demand.
I guess there happy with things as they are and we just have to dream of a purchase at RRP.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like them or loathe them, you have to admit their business model has been nothing short of genius to this point.
IMHO it's a clear strategy.
Just surprised they aren't saying so in an era of improved corporate transparency.
Thanks for the above, I'll pass that on to him. I may suggest he tries Norwich (is that Winsor Bishop?) as we are fairly local.
Yahoo finance reported it originally. Multiple outlets have followed up since.
Seems like there is plenty of demand so they could expand production and be able to sell all they can produce.
Rolex & its subsidiaries aren't 'traded' companies. They're run by Rolex SA, which is wholly owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, which, in turn, is a private family trust.
Rolex doesn't need (or seem to want) to be transparent. It's their choice.
______
Jim.
It would need to be a monumental ramp up in production and that would come with risk… more tooling to buy, more people to hire, more QC concerns etc. Being privately owned means they don’t need to keep shareholders happy so they can operate at their chosen size and pace. I can see why they aren’t rushing to meet demand, although equally I’m as frustrated as most as the watch I really want I can’t buy (for a sensible price)
Yes I know they're not listed.
Talking in general (as I have no idea about this company specifically) - there is a push towards transparency because it looks bad when there's a disconnect between comms and actions cf. when corporate documents are left on the train by mistake or when ex-employees speak out.
Last edited by AlphaOmega; 24th September 2021 at 16:47.
I just returned from AD after confirming a new watch.
Exhibition pieces in the window include:
A sub date
A Seadweller
A rootbeer GMt
A day just azure 41
Etc
Shop told me some would-be customers are getting very pissed off with the things you can’t buy display.
I put my name down for one of the above when the ‘exhibition’ ends.
Will be picking up a snazzy new GMT Red/Blue next week. I knew doing the ADs kids homework would pay off.
Similar situation at the AD local to me. A single "high" end watch dealer in my city and by Christ is it a frustrating experience trying to buy in there.
I'm not even a Rolex fan, but, they are also the only Tudor, Omega and Breitling dealer local to me (Patek too, but far out of my price range).
They honestly seem to expect supplicants rather than customers across their entire range.
On the Rolex issue itself? I don't have much to say other than they really do a great job of managing their output. All models are easily available at grey and inflated prices and RRP is a myth for all but the patient or the lucky.
Sent from my Redmi K30 Pro using Tapatalk
Deleted
Last edited by joe narvey; 25th September 2021 at 04:05.
I work with an ex-Rolex employee, worked 4 years in their supply chain. The shortage is 100% a long term strategy and fully intended.
The strategy statement seems honest. But they fail to mention their customer 'supply' strategy, which shows lots of OP41s on chrono 24 at up to 300 percent markup yet none available in store. Their new supply policy - mentioned in Paul Thorpe's YouTube shows that they are making a supply bottleneck via a selection process that would be deemed unfair in any other situation.
I'd tend to agree but as long as Rolex have a surfeit of customers seeking their wares, it will long continue IMO.
I think it was a thread here recently where an AD wanted to prescreen customers with an application process? If memory serves a letter as to why you wanted your Rolex was part and parcel of it?
It's not for me, not a process I want to engage in but I can see why it works for them and why they do it, even the basic waiting list system.
I can live with constrained supply, but having to fit a Rolex ADs box and obstacle course for the privilege of dropping my hard earned?
I'd rather spend elsewhere, be it grey if I went with Rolex, or alternative brands.
I have AP, Sinn, Tudor and a couple of others in my watch box none of whom did anything other than take my money and thank me for my custom.
Sent from my Redmi K30 Pro using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions