Yes, that’s right. I’m calling myself out for writing a “hot take”. I know this article may not end up providing a ton of value to the watch industry, but I don’t care, because frankly, neither does 90% of the stuff you see filling up the Watchville feed. My thoughts on this topic have been building up for a while, but what I’ve been reading from SIHH 2016 has sort of pushed me over the edge.
Let’s get to the core of what bothers me. This actually goes back to one of the primary reasons I started Wound For Life, which was the bored feeling I got from a lot of the copy being put out across the watch blogosphere. I didn’t think that I could do better than everyone; I really had no idea. Hell, my expectations on traffic and traction were very, very low (and they still are). What I did know was I’d be able to write my honest opinions about watches, as well as things I considered “fun reads”. In essence, W4L would be putting out articles I felt I’d enjoy reading. Because, let’s face it, I (or anyone else, for that matter) don’t need to read multiple 300-word press release regurgitations about an oversized, overpriced watch that has a new dial color.
Now, before this take gets even hotter, there are a couple of things I want to be clear about. First is that I know we’re not completely innocent of shallow content. We try to avoid it, but feeling the pressure of publishing something, we’ve pushed some weak stuff. Next, I’m not trying to say everything you read outside of the W4L URL is useless crap. In fact, far from it. For example, Hodinkee’s Reference Points pieces are invaluable to the vintage community, just like many of Fratello’s articles on some of the more obscure vintage references. Worn & Wound provides a great service to buyers in the lower end of the market for writing up very in-depth reviews on watches you typically can’t handle in person before buying. There are many more, but those are the types of articles that are important to the community, and we love reading them.
I find that for every great piece posted, I sift through a handful of articles about a 45mm Panerai that looks exactly like the last one, or an IWC Le Petit Prince Pilot article that follows a non-Le Petit Prince Pilot article (SPOILER ALERT: IT HAS A BLUE DIAL!). Of course, we all should know about new watches. However, we don’t need 3-5 separate articles on the same watch, especially when they all say nearly the exact same thing. I don’t think specification lists need to be put into paragraph form. Where are the opinions? Tell me what you think about the watches! Tell me you hate the vintage lume! Tell me you hate how they increased the size! And if you really want to get crazy, tell me these brands have no idea what the hell to put out! All these articles become are extensions of the brands’ marketing departments.
This is where I get to SIHH, the perfect storm of marketing bullshit. Firstly, SIHH is an invite-only event. Now, stretch the capacities of your logic and imagine to whom they might send invitations. If I had to throw out a guess, I’d say folks that are friendly to the Richemont brands. However, as an exercise, let’s say a few daredevils slip through the cracks, and they decide to write some critical (but honest) articles about what was released. Do you think they’ll be invited back next year? I’m really stretching my logical capacities here, but I’d say they would not. And what does that create? The echo chamber of sterile press releases and glowing Instagram posts we’ve seen this week. I feel like I’m watching an interview with a North Korean official talking about how great everyday life is under the Dear Leader. Let’s put it this way, if the attending media isn’t being paid to say these things, they should be.
To some degree, this kind of content will be seen during Baselworld, but it’s not quite as bad as SIHH. I still think there’s a deficiency of criticism at Baselworld, but since everyone’s there on his or her own dime, it doesn’t come off quite so much like a Scientologist talking about the benefits of Dianetics. I’m holding my breath that this year will be different.
In hopes I haven’t completely alienated myself, I’ll stop the rant here. W4L isn’t some beacon of truth in the watch blogosphere; I don’t have a “holier than thou” attitude towards everyone. Not in the least. I’m just annoyed, and it’s probably mostly towards the system in which we operate. I realize a big part of the problem is access, and how much of it the brands will allow. I’m sure I speak for most of the watch journalists out there when I say that being invited to events and reviewing expensive watches – for free – is pretty awesome, and it’s hard to knowingly jeopardize those kinds of benefits. Who knows, maybe if we collectively decide to be a bit freer with our thoughts, they won’t be able block everyone out. That’s all I have to say for now. Thanks for taking a timeout. Now, back to your regularly scheduled SIHH programming.
by 
Erik Dasque
Great article, Shane.
Rant on.
I would (as you know) love to see more opinionated content throughout the watch blogosphere. Articles are many, opinions are few (which is odd since every asshole should have an opinion – did I get this right?). I want to read about how the Saint-Exupéry family is betraying its namesake memory by letting IWC, an has been brand who traded identity for marketing & focus groups, release one boring Le Petit Prince watch after an other. I want to read about brands like Ward, Montblanc & others can’t come up with an original thought. How brands like Moser and Halios (at very different ends of the spectrum) are really innovating with new designs that are compatible with the real world. That’s what I want to read, for the rest, I’ll just go to the brands web site and digest their marketing from the source.
Rant off.
I look forward to more of that type of content here and in other blogs.
Shane Griffin
Thanks for the reply, Erik. I’m going to try to make sure this article keeps me honest going forward — more so than usual.
-Shane
Ken
Shane,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I and some of my colleagues even reached out to some of the more well-known feeds in Horology that are attending the event to see if they had any critical (hopefully constructive) comment of any of the brands that they follow. The response? Crickets….and more Crickets…. All of these feeds are now basically just paid forums by these watch companies as advertising. Especially that Guy Craniotes/RedBar crew who have yet to write anything constructive but somehow have parleyed this into paid trips to events….although i can’t fault them for that…it’s pretty cool…However, we here in the community don’t take anything that most of these feeds post seriously anymore.
Keep up the Good Work!
Ken in San Diego
John
Love it. Looking through my Instagram feed the last couple days has been the equivalent of a Richemont circle jerk. The prime example, in my opinion, are the uninspiring IWC Pilots that look like most of their other Pilots, but have people glowing with excitement for some reason.
I wish someone influential had the cojones to risk their invite next year and just say “You know what? These are pretty boring.”…Maybe next year.
Ed Estlow
Shane,
Major props to you – this piece is spot-on. In fact, it may be your/W4L’s seminal piece. You’ve demonstrated the courage to say what many of us are thinking but haven’t had the guts to say (except in hushed tones, writer-to-writer in a coffee shop somewhere).
I’ve long thought the watch world needs a watchdog (no pun) press holding it accountable in the same way the mainstream press needs to hold society and government accountable. It would go a long way toward seeing watches the general public actually would like to wear, as well as (hopefully) reducing the “blue-dial syndrome.”
But you’re right. Those who would write such stuff would be ostracized by the brands (no more free trips – and I’ve been on a few, the memories of which I cherish for multiple reasons), and access would be limited to walking into the friendly neighborhood jewelry store (not always possible with many brands – they’re just not carried by the stores out here in fly-over country).
The trouble is, at the risk of stating the obvious, much of the mainstream watch press has been seduced by trips and swag. The brands know that. And it is damn seductive… you and I know that.
For my part, I say keep up the independent commentary! I’d gladly join you. My only caveat/ excuse for my writing is that I tend to follow the rule of not saying anything if I can’t say anything nice. Thus, I’ve turned down a lot of opportunities to write about what I think are marginal watches (my own little bias creeps in…).
But frankly, when a new release is ridiculous or hideous – or even awesome, someone somewhere with courage and a voice needs to tell people the thing is ridiculous or hideous – or awesome.
Keep up the good work, Shane.
Shane Griffin
Thanks for the comment, Ed. For the most part, I agree with you about saying nice things or saying nothing at all. As a natural contrarian, my instincts push me to expressing my harsh opinion, but I will do my best to reserve that for only the most deserving watches, like ones with “blue dials”.
Waikato7
Having attended SIHH and checked out the IWC Pilots collection first hand, I have to disagree. There was much to like in the new collection. I may be a little biased but still.
Shane Griffin
So, you disagree with the article because you liked the Pilot watches? There was a lot more to it than that. Regarding your bias, that’s also kind of the point of the article.
Shane
Waikato7
No, I pretty much agree with the article. But I do like the new IWC pilots line. I disagree that they are boring and uninspiring. But that’s just my opinion. I think people who attend in a professional capacity should be free to give honest opinions without fear of being black listed. Good or bad. It’s a no brainer really.
Jarrod
The Inspector
I plan to take aim at this very problem!
Great Read!
@RealWatchReviews on insta
Tom Joy
I think a lot of us share your opinion, and your complaints about how SIHH is essentially a marketing machine are completely valid. To an even greater extent, it shows us about the world of watch collecting, watch marketing, and a total lack of unbiased journalism within the hobby.
I know that along with your typical lip-service doling watch press, SIHH was filled with popular collectors whose words hold weight with the general watch enthusiast, and with SIHH being an invite only event, it speaks volumes to Richemont’s intentions when you take a look at who was there. It’s not all that hard for a handful of popular collectors on Instagram to all pump the same thing into becoming the next “it” watch (I’m looking at you, Tudor Black Bay Black). The free trips, the bragging rights, etc. that go along with being an attendee to events like these all add to how disingenuous the whole thing feels.
And with a handful of exceptions, there were a lot of boring re-hashes and minor variants on the same old thing. Some brands at SIHH have become pretty stale and it’s reflecting in their sales, like IWC’s pair(!) of recent price drops, which makes the marketing push on their part this year even more obvious.
I guess I’ll just stick with vintage watches. I have a feeling a lot of other collectors are beginning to share the sentiment.
Shane Griffin
It’s interesting to see the impact of IG on SIHH, specifically with who they invite. Seemed like the plan was to invite the biggest brand whores possible.
I’ll be sticking with vintage as well.
Josh Shanks
Oh yea?
Shane Griffin
Yea.
Josh Shanks
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mohon724
Great article Shane! I think you said what most of us were already thinking. This is what we need, honesty, transparancy and less of the marketing bs.
the #watchnerd
You raise some interesting points, but one that I’d like to pick up on is the potential for conflicts of interest within watch writing. I try to make it clear in both my Disclosure Policy, and individual Disclosures on ‘blog posts, if there is a potential (or indeed actual) conflict of interest. For example, if I write about an event to which I received a Press Pass, I’ll make sure readers know. If I attend an event where alcohol was served, or gifts presented, I’ll let people know. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority and Office for Fair Trading guidelines on advertising / ‘blogging are pretty clear, but tend to cover “paid” content, or content where the writer has received “payment in kind”. Unfortunately, many ‘blog pieces do not fall under this banner, and it is therefore up to the ‘blog to tell consumers of any potential conflicts of interest. There’s no requirement to do this, but it is good, if not best, practice. http://www.disclosurepolicy.org leads the way on this and I’d encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to visit the ‘site and create their own Disclosure Policy. Conflicts may arise in many areas of our lives. I believe I have a duty to anybody who chooses to read my ‘blog to disclose these.
Michael Vinovich
Jack Forster skirted the edges of this issue in his Forbes piece a few years ago (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackforster/2013/05/14/the-good-the-bad-and-the-inexcusable-on-writing-about-watches/#7e01e44e7042). I say skirted because he wouldn’t name names and thought the emergence of an adequate critical vocabulary and educated buying community would address the issue of objective, independent, watch journalism eventually. This will help, but it won’t happen until the dysfunctional relationship between the brands and writers changes. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon because of the radical shift in publishing’s business model. The columnists I know who write for the major papers here in Canada are not employees, they are independent contractors who must rely on their relationships with famous brands to generate content for the newspapers they have to pitch stories to. Even slightly negative criticism can jeopardize their livelihood.
Vintage watches will not be a refuge: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/fashion/at-watch-auctions-vintage-and-prime-to-be-most-prized-qualities.html?_r=0&referer=
It is simply the next territory to be conquered…
Stephen Scharf
I fully agree with everything you’re saying Shane, and on the whole, I really like Wound for Life’s sensibilities, but I would like to see more content that just a Market Watching once a week.
Shane Griffin
Thanks, Stephen. I would like to see more content posted as well. Alas, we are a small staff that’s currently got a lot going on at each individual level. Isaac’s a full time student, Neil’s just completing his masters while working as a full-time Air Force captain, Dean’s a full-time doctor with a newborn baby, and I work full-time as a dealer and going through the time-consuming process of buying and selling a home (as well as living a life outside of watches — the nerve of me!). I appreciate your readership, and I hope to provide more consistent content in the near future. Oh, and remember, after the summertime and before SIHH, the watch world is pretty boring. A lot of the content you’ll see is filler and quite dull. There’s a gem here and there, yes, but developing content this time of year can be difficult.
All the best,
Shane
WOHW
I kind of am in love with this right now. I mean, like, I want to marry it.