Interesting point (and overall discussion). I think you may undervalue the brand value of not going down that route. I rather admire the early mission of providing quality at the lowest possible price, and get the impression that others do too. It feels like I'm avoiding some of the aspects of the watch market that i find distasteful ('limited' editions of several thousand, snobbery as a marketing tool, paying extra because celeb X has the same model), so am simply paying for quality and nothing more.Jimleymurmer wrote:Hate to say it but...CW are trying to build brand without celeb endorsement and high street presence. Noble idea but misses the big point; that is everything beyond the cheapest of the cheap quartz is not a need but a 'want' and everything we 'want' needs suitably influenced. The glamour of some jewellers would help, the cachet of some celeb endorsement would too. But it's hard to create an emotional response in all but the most eager watch buyers on the Internet and nowhere else. And the company will be forced to rethink its strategy as it has to start making money. No business however noble the motive will survive with growing losses and stretched cash flow. As a keen buyer of CW watches, inc C900 MP, I really want it to succeed but at what point are you forced by investors/bank to do what's needed to survive? I think they will be forced to consider celeb endorsement. Will this push prices up? Not necessarily if the volume grows sufficiently.
To my mind, some of the more recent models move away from that early mission statement, and although I like them, I'm unlikely to buy one. I suppose it does at least feel like the man at the top is making the watches he wants to make, and there's something to admire in that, and indeed that is another aspect of CW that is different to most other manufacturers.