A little over a week ago, Ariel Adams of aBlogtoWatch posted an excellent opinion piece titled, “Truth In Watch Movement Advertising And Defining Watch Caliber Origins Once And For All.” He managed to pull together a number of the issues and elements involved around the in-house movement “debacle”, and develop a potential solution. It’s funny, 20 years ago this topic wouldn’t have been on anyone’s radar, but since high-end watches have seen a surge in popularity, many collectors have placed a higher importance on where movements are conceived and manufactured. Without rehashing everything Ariel wrote, I’ll cut to the core of the issue (TRANSPARENCY!), followed by how it might be solved.
I deal with the issue of transparency on a daily basis. For my day job, I help my clients navigate large-scale IT procurement negotiations. This means our clients have to negotiate multi-million dollar deals with companies like SAP, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and the list goes on. They take marketing fluff to a completely different level, masking the costs of their products and services. That’s part of the reason why we’re there, to cut through the bullshit and get to the meat of their proposals and solutions in order for the client to make a smart decision with their money.
So, what does this have to do with watches? We’re seeing the same marketing fluff with the watch industry as the IT industry, and probably every other industry out there. I don’t want to risk dipping my feet too far into pseudo-psychology waters, but I think consumers today want to trust that companies are selling what they say they’re selling. If that’s true, then watch brands have taken advantage, knowing full well that the vast majority of consumers will take marketing babble as gospel. That is, until recently, when a number of cases have popped up with consumers questioning the origin of so-called “in-house” movements.
Business end of the Wright Flyer
Since the WIS-radar has been pinging, we’ve seen brands handle the situation differently. Funnily enough, two practically opposite reactions came out of the same country: the UK. As we are all very aware, Bremont announced their in-house movement in the limited edition Wright Flyer, only to later backpedal on the claim when various watch forum members grew suspicious. Almost literally down the road, Christopher Ward announced their new caliber as a highly collaborative effort between them and strategic partners. They went as far as purchasing the movement manufacturer who helped design the movement, which helped the validity of using “in-house” in the marketing. The level of transparency Christopher Ward provided was received much better than Bremont’s release, despite the grey area of CW’s in-house claim. This example highlights the major shift in what watch lovers are looking for from watch brands.
Bremont isn’t alone in their use of unclear marketing campaigns. In fact, looking across the industry, it’s tough to come up with even a handful of brands that give useful details on movement origins. This needs to change. I don’t know if Ariel’s list of defined terms will have an impact, but his article in general is an excellent start. As consumers and watch lovers, it’s up to us to keep pressure on watch brands. If transparency is something we value, we must reward brands that provide it, and call out brands that don’t. Use comment sections, forums, watch events, and any other venue where you have a brand’s ear. I’m not saying we need to band together with pitchforks and torches, ready to riot in Switzerland, but demanding the truth is completely reasonable.
Nothing is going to change so long as the disgruntled stay quiet. “We”, as in, we the consumers, WIS, and journalists, must stay vigilant. Compared to the majority of buyers (who we may label as uninformed), our voice is rather small, which is why we need to be extra loud. I can promise you that we’ll do our part here at W4L (despite not having impact of an ABTW or Hodinkee), and we’re looking to all of you to do the same. Business is business, and the brands will try to get away with as much as possible while still turning out big profits. The combination of losing less passionate customers to smart watches, and the more passionate expressing their disappointment should perk their ears as profits decrease. Who knows, maybe I’m just an optimist, but it can’t hurt to try.
What do you all think? Let us know in the comments.
by 
Matt
Bremont made a big mistake with that release, akin to the Tag-Seiko 1887 movement, only I think people are even more astute now and forums more active. I do however appreciate that one of the English brothers openly apologised on Hodinkee.
You are right that transparency is key and it would be wonderful if companies took up Ariel’s system of definitions.
The silly thing is Joe Public does not care about the movement in his watch, he just wants a watch that looks nice and he can show off, he probably doesn’t know what in-house means and he probably doesn’t care. Therefore the only people that get pissed off by the lack of transparency is watch people and we are also the only people that are going to find them out, because we are obsessed… So why do they do it?! They gain nothing from pretending the movement is in house because the average customer doesn’t care and the enthusiast will research and find the bulls***t.
I like Bremont, a lot. I hope they have learned their lesson.
Shane Griffin
Agreed all around, Matt. I would imagine Bremont has learned a lesson, and hopefully we don’t see anything like that from them again. We’re big fans of their tool watches (we have a Terra Nova review coming soon), and we’d like to see them continue to focus more on those as opposed to the special editions that have been so frequent.
Eric
I understand the value of transparency, as all business owners should accurately present their products too consumers. I do not how ever understand the value consumers put on In-House movements. All an In-House movement really does is show case a watch companies ability to create the movements. So what? That doesn’t mean the movement is reliable or proven, Put it up against an ETA and see how it does.
A great comparison would be the car industry. You can have the same motor that is in Chevy Impala then in a Cadillac CTS, The added value is in the looks and added features not the motor itself. Roll Royce has been using GM transmissions for years. The car industry celebrates collaboration, and because of it they do things that people would not even dream!
I can appreciate the art of watchmaking, and the complexity involved with developing and manufacturing your own movement. But the selling point should be reliability, not who made it.
Shane Griffin
Eric,
First off, thanks for taking the time to put together a well thought out comment. I can’t say I disagree with any of your points. I think the thing I’d stress again is the transparency. If a watchmaker advertises itself as one thing, but the true story happens to be completely different, that’s where consumers should have a problem. ETA movements or otherwise, I’d like to know that I’m getting the truth. We can argue back and forth all day about the ins and outs of in-house vs outsourced, but the story stays the same when it comes to honesty in doing business.
Cheers,
Shane
Chris
I think the in-house hype has been built up by people getting into watch collecting/buying and picking up their information from the Internet. They latch on to the idea that in-house is good because the concept is simple and easy to understand. Other folks reinforce that bias and watch companies trade on that as well, marking their watches with in-house movements well above the price the watch previously had with an ETA movement.
It’s like the Panerai collectors’ obsession with serial numbers or the Rolex collectors’ love of minute variations of writing on Submariner dials. When luxury becomes commodity, folks will attempt to find differentiating characteristics to make the object again feel special.