British Shooter Amber Hill has been signed into the CW Challenger program.

Stay tuned....

Just in time for the London 2016 Olympics

Thanks Kip...interesting signing by CW to highlight the Women's line to a younger demographic.

Viognier wrote:Thanks Kip...interesting signing by CW to highlight the Women's line to a younger demographic.

I thought the women's line was being phased out and they were concentrating on the smaller unisex models.

World Cup Gold Medalist and the BBC's Young Sports Personality of the Year, I'm thinking CW have done very well in supporting Amber in what is a minority support. My 19 year old daughter gets a lot of compliments re her blue W61 as it's so different from the designer bling stuff that comes from the likes of Michael Kors and Fossil.

While I applaud Amber for getting the support, I can't help but think that CW is starting to play a little fast and loose with the "no celebrity endorsements" line. While she may not be a "big" celebrity, if she is being paid to wear the product, then it is an endorsement, despite marketing bunk to the contrary. Add to this the Bluebird project, Mt. Christopher Ward expedition, and Sam Brearey, and CW is no longer free of "high profile sponsorships and celebrity endorsements". As the website says, Mr. Pitt may be paying for his own watch, but clearly other people are not. How about some honesty instead of the same drivel we see from the big brands

Time to remove this from the website Chris:
Our competitors spend millions in the creation of “brand halos” around their watches through multi-national advertising campaigns, high profile sponsorships and celebrity endorsements. Marketing is, of course, an important part of any business but when the cost of marketing runs to many times the cost of the product, as is often the case in the luxury watch industry, it seemed to us, to quote the bard, that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Our marketing spend as a percentage of the watch price is a fraction of our competitors and we may not, therefore, reach as many people as quickly as our competitors, but when we do we seem to delight more often than not - and if you do see Brad Pitt wearing a Christopher Ward watch at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing he paid for it himself!

I've always suspected the "no celebrities" thing would fade away as CW got more successful.

Well, this was one celebrity I had to google!

Lavaine wrote:Time to remove this from the website Chris:
Our competitors spend millions in the creation of “brand halos” around their watches through multi-national advertising campaigns, high profile sponsorships and celebrity endorsements. Marketing is, of course, an important part of any business but when the cost of marketing runs to many times the cost of the product, as is often the case in the luxury watch industry, it seemed to us, to quote the bard, that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Our marketing spend as a percentage of the watch price is a fraction of our competitors and we may not, therefore, reach as many people as quickly as our competitors, but when we do we seem to delight more often than not - and if you do see Brad Pitt wearing a Christopher Ward watch at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing he paid for it himself!

I am not sure that I see them doing anything to contradict this are they?
- They are not saying that they won't sponsor / get people to promote their brand
- They are saying that they DO have a marketing spend
- They are saying that the CWL marketing spend will be a different / lower proportion in comparison to competitors.

It would be suicidal to not have a marketing spend for their business - yet so often on here people seem to criticise any marketing spend at all

The difference for (e.g.) Rolex et al is that their spend is to do more than promote the item - but to promote the brand and push it up market - so the large cost of sponsoring Nadal / Pitt / Woods / etc. is because it allows them to increase the price of the watch out of proportion to its actual value - it is that magnification effect they are paying for - and which CWL do not buy into with their sponsorship / marketing...

At the CWL level the marketing should sell more and therefore pay for itself - the implication in the CWL statement on their website is that for other brands they are spending more than the cost of making the watch itself - but CWL are spending considerably less...

So it is not a case of no celeb. endorsement / sponsorship... but the balance of the cost
I think that this niche sponsorship in carefully selected sports which fit with the CWL brand image is a good move

Alasdair

A minor improvement on the yacht sail, would be if it said under the CWL logo

WATCHES

In bloomin' big letters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

akirk wrote:

Lavaine wrote:Time to remove this from the website Chris:
Our competitors spend millions in the creation of “brand halos” around their watches through multi-national advertising campaigns, high profile sponsorships and celebrity endorsements. Marketing is, of course, an important part of any business but when the cost of marketing runs to many times the cost of the product, as is often the case in the luxury watch industry, it seemed to us, to quote the bard, that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Our marketing spend as a percentage of the watch price is a fraction of our competitors and we may not, therefore, reach as many people as quickly as our competitors, but when we do we seem to delight more often than not - and if you do see Brad Pitt wearing a Christopher Ward watch at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing he paid for it himself!

It would be suicidal to not have a marketing spend for their business - yet so often on here people seem to criticise any marketing spend at all

Alasdair

As it happens, I don't think endorsing/sponsoring people like Amber Hill is a bad idea at all.

I don't think people criticise the CWL spend on marketing, more the pretty lame way it's often spent. 'Eat your heart out Rolex' ring any bells, or the sometimes bizarre tweets? Also, how much does it cost to email everybody your latest sale details?

Personally, I don't think any watch company manages to spike me so much with their marketing as CWL.

But, I do like a lot of the watches, so I forgive them!

I do wonder who CWL are targeting with their marketing sometimes, the answer would appear to be just about anybody at some point in time.

Helix Von Smelix wrote:A minor improvement on the yacht sail, would be if it said under the CWL logo

WATCHES

In bloomin' big letters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahhh yes - how to market your brand before it is known what it is
I don't think that Rolex have that issue!
Alasdair

The more marketing exposure will definitely enhance the CWL brand. Further, with success in the marketplace the more funds will be available to develop and market need products that we all will be able to enjoy.;

Alisdair,

I would agree that CW are not lying, as they do not outright say they don't sponsor anyone, but I would say the ever increasing sponsorship goes against the spirit of the statement. Like Tooks, I don't necessarily think the sponsorship is a bad thing. I just feel that as CW evolve and begin to spend more dollars on sponsorships, they need to update the ad copy to be a little more honest. Something to the effect of "we don't spend millions paying celebrities to wear our watches, but we do sponsor independent expeditions and up-and-coming athletes that share the same values that CW was built on."
Why not be up front and honest instead of hiding behind a statement that, while technically accurate, is a bit disingenuous at best?