According To Ariel: Watch Brands Would Be Wise To Boast Of Historic Credit Less Often
The watch industry faces significant consumer backlash when brands make unsubstantiated claims about their historical achievements or innovations. Many luxury brands often assert they are the sole makers of their watch components and boast about their historical firsts, despite the lack of solid documentation. However, after two decades of collecting watches, it becomes clear that consumers care more about the honesty and value of brands today rather than their past. By focusing on questionable historical claims, brands risk alienating buyers who may perceive these exaggerations as deceptive. Moreover, while narratives about vintage watches can occasionally enhance their value, most consumers remain skeptical of the embellished stories that often accompany them. In today's market, many watchmakers adopt a boastful approach to their history, which can lead to distrust among collectors and enthusiasts. The practice of claiming full in-house production is also scrutinized, particularly when many brands rely on external suppliers. Companies like Omega illustrate how complicated the truth can be; despite its iconic status associated with space exploration, the details of its history often become muddled. Ultimately, the focus should shift to the quality and functionality of the watches themselves, rather than the embellished historical narratives that brands use to market their products. Consumers should prioritize their personal connections to the designs and features of the watches over the often dubious claims made by brands.
