Go for the name change? the swishy/swooshy logo is now on most of the watches (and in the right place on the dial) and CW's name has been moved to the caseback. Its seems obvious to me that they want to move away from it but cant work out the best way to do it.

golfjunky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:20 pm …but cant work out the best way to do it.

And therein lies the rub. How do you do it?

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:29 pm

golfjunky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:20 pm …but cant work out the best way to do it.

And therein lies the rub. How do you do it?

The same way you would pull off a band-aid?

golfjunky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:38 pm

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:29 pm

golfjunky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:20 pm …but cant work out the best way to do it.

And therein lies the rub. How do you do it?

The same way you would pull off a band-aid?

Haha! True!

There are many watch brands with a name that is not connected to the current owners of the brand.

I don’t see a problem with keeping the name. It is part of the journey. In time there will come a point when none of the present owners are involved.

Neil

It's not without precedent - Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC, Starbucks was originally Starbucks Coffee, Snickers used to be called Marathon in the UK!

I'm one of those awful people that was initially put off by the brand name 'Christopher Ward' - not because I don't want another mans name on my wrist (never understood that argument), but because it seems (if you'll forgive me) like a bit of a dull name. I think a gradual move away from it to something simpler could be a positive move, the question is to what?

CW? Ward? (I rather like that...) +:: (it worked for Prince!)

Just use the shorthand CW we all use and be done with it!

There are many watch brands with a name that is not connected to the current owners of the brand.

I don’t see a problem with keeping the name. It is part of the journey. In time there will come a point when none of the present owners are involved.

I quite agree. I cannot understand the fascination on the forum with "changing the name" - although I suppose it's a topic to discuss. There are very many companies with names linked to founders who no longer have any involvement in the business, nor do their descendants. The McDonald brothers haven't been running the eponymous fast food chain for over half a century and the company seems to be coping with retaining their name.

exHowfener wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:01 pm

There are many watch brands with a name that is not connected to the current owners of the brand.

I don’t see a problem with keeping the name. It is part of the journey. In time there will come a point when none of the present owners are involved.

I quite agree. I cannot understand the fascination on the forum with "changing the name" - although I suppose it's a topic to discuss. There are very many companies with names linked to founders who no longer have any involvement in the business, nor do their descendants. The McDonald brothers haven't been running the eponymous fast food chain for over half a century and the company seems to be coping with retaining their name.

But McDonalds have never tried to hide/remove the name have they.

I don’t think it’s ever been the name that’s troubled them. Sure there are a few that just didn’t think Christopher Ward was a ‘good’ name for a watch brand. But What seemed to irk people most was the logo - not settling on one, choosing a font that many didn’t like, or putting the name mark at nine o’ clock. It became an easy meme on watch forums for people who hadn’t paid closer attention (or any at all), to diss the company. You really couldn’t read a review of the watches without having to have a discussion about the logo and that must have been a real monkey on the back, I think CW have moved things to a good place now, though they’re the ones with the sales figures that might show that.

But McDonalds have never tried to hide/remove the name have they

Hmm... McDonalds give a lot of prominence to the 'Golden Arches' logo - look at their website. When I see the adverts every fortnight in "Private Eye" magazine, and look at the website, I don't get the impression that CW are "hiding the name" It looks to me that they are changing the logo to tidy up the appearance of the watch face. Just my opinion.

golfjunky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:07 pm

exHowfener wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:01 pm

There are many watch brands with a name that is not connected to the current owners of the brand.

I don’t see a problem with keeping the name. It is part of the journey. In time there will come a point when none of the present owners are involved.

I quite agree. I cannot understand the fascination on the forum with "changing the name" - although I suppose it's a topic to discuss. There are very many companies with names linked to founders who no longer have any involvement in the business, nor do their descendants. The McDonald brothers haven't been running the eponymous fast food chain for over half a century and the company seems to be coping with retaining their name.

But McDonalds have never tried to hide/remove the name have they.

Point out the brand name in this image, please...

ajax87 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:46 pm

golfjunky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:07 pm

exHowfener wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:01 pm

I quite agree. I cannot understand the fascination on the forum with "changing the name" - although I suppose it's a topic to discuss. There are very many companies with names linked to founders who no longer have any involvement in the business, nor do their descendants. The McDonald brothers haven't been running the eponymous fast food chain for over half a century and the company seems to be coping with retaining their name.

But McDonalds have never tried to hide/remove the name have they.

Point out the brand name in this image, please...


M packaging.jpeg

They dont have to anymore, CW are not even near and never will be at the same level.

So you are saying that CW should not be using the "Swish" only on the dial or as a corporate symbol with the company name elsewhere until they have built a 50 year heritage or just change the company name to "Swish" or ..

I think the swish is ok but i think moving the CW to the caseback is just the first step, as mentioned above maybe they could just be known as CW watches. Maybe they want to change the name, I obvs dont know im just thinking out loud.