I can understand that point of view, but to my mind the warranty retention & stickers thing is geared towards hindering speculators who only want the watch to immediately re-sell for profit, and trying to keep watches for those genuine customers who actually value the physical thing enough to keep it.Amor Vincit Omnia wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:37 pm It isn't "sexy" (to my way of thinking at least) to **** about with people's aspirations and expectations (not to mention their hard-earned and then imposing ridiculous conditions re. warranty cards and stickers &c.) in order to create an aura of ultra-exclusivity.
I don’t think that’s messing with people’s aspirations, so much as an extreme response to an equally extreme situation.
As to the wider business approach of Rolex, in terms of engineered scarcity etc., of course they’re playing a strategic game, but so does any successful business.
Patek Phillipe’s Thierry Stern came out with some utter nonsense recently about 10-year production lead times & watchmaker training as to why the company doesn’t churn out more Stainless Steel Nautilus, when the simple reason is they’re playing the same game.
And why not. Businesses exist to make money (despite Rolex’s nebulous Charitable status).
It’s annoyingly, yes (though personally I think it’s totally overblown when there’s so many wonderful watches out there), but the interesting thing is that for every potential customer it irritates & dissuades, there will be 10 more only too happy to play their game, and 10 other existing Rolex owners very happy about the halo effect of such brand management, as their own watches continue to escalate in value & desirability.
Rolex is like that other hot topic dominating the news at the moment - the argument goes endlessly round & around, and most never change their opinion, despite all the hot air expended.