|
Post by Houston on Nov 8, 2007 9:11:50 GMT -5
Hey Guys
As you know, Omega's price rises really haven't been exorbitant and when they have upped the figures on those hang tags by greater than the cost of inflation, you can expect that there have been significant changes to the watch as in the case of the Bond 300m SMP for instance or the Speedmaster Broad Arrow or indeed the Speedmaster Date. Take the Speedmaster Date for instance. Yes, the increase is $600 on the MSRP which represents a rise of just under 30% but in exchange, we have a new movement that is COSC-certified, new larger case, revised dial and new ergonomic bracelet. In any event, I'm sure none of us pay MSRP anyway. Usually the price rise is kept to well within 10%, unless of course a major change in the watch is in the offing.
I was wondering therefore what form of price increase would make us reconsider the notion of buying new and go pre-loved instead or perhaps even look at the possibility of other brands.
Talk soon pals and y'all be well now ZIN Not usually shaken nor stirred ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott D on Nov 8, 2007 10:40:07 GMT -5
Well for me it's not so much how much it's different, but what am I getting for that difference. In the example you used, those are improvements to me but are those $600 upgrades. Maybe for the bracelet, larger size & date combined. Take the bracelet out & no way (mind you I haven't seen the new bracelet so I'm assuming it's actually better than the old). As to the movement, you're getting a COSC & newer movement, but the reliability of Omega's non-COSC current movement is already very good, so is that really a true benefit or just bragging rights? I think that the Speedmaster Date is probably a better value in the increased cost vs. say the 300M. The 300M Bond went from $2150 to $3,050, an increase of $900 and 42% increase. What do you get for that increase? Font & color changes on the dial and an applied marker, plus the Co-Axial. Is that worth 42% more? Personally, no. Why? Because to me the Co-Axial isn't worth that difference. Is it more accurate? Maybe, but the old 1120 is extremely accurate too, so what's the real difference in accuracy there? Is it less maintenance? Only time will tell, but as of now no (my opinion). The 'scheduled' maintenance is less frequent, but that's only a benefit if you follow the manufactures schedule, which I don't. I service as needed and to date have never serviced an automatic watch (outside of a warranty issue), so I haven't saved anything yet from less service as I haven't spent anything yet. So I don't think the new 300M is as good a value as the old. So if the tangible upgrades are there, such as the date, larger case size, newer bracelet, etc. than I feel that I'm getting something for my extra money. But if there's no tangible benefit, than I don't think it's worth the extra money being asked for and either won't buy that model, will look for one at a higher discount, or would check others brands... See you around pal!
|
|
|
Post by MacDaddy on Nov 8, 2007 11:05:23 GMT -5
@scott D,
You're right on target. A 42% increase on a watch's movement is a bit steep. The consumer didn't ask for a new movement that they're touting will require less service. Who knows, this movement might prove to be garbage over the long haul. I think it's Omega's way of getting rid of the standard ETA's and making the co-axial a selling point to up their cost.
|
|
|
Post by Scott D on Nov 8, 2007 11:23:08 GMT -5
Is this 42% price increase also the case in €, or is the lower $ in play as well... Anyone an idea... I'm only able to tell by the listed MSRP's for the 2 in USD.. Does anyone have the MSRP's in Euro's? I'd assume it's relatively similar....
|
|
|
Post by Houston on Nov 8, 2007 11:35:00 GMT -5
It's a 39% increase in GBP Pals. However if you look at what you get in terms of the asking price, it's still relatively underpriced by comparison to its' perceived main rival for instance. At $3,050 it compared very well against a Submariner which is priced at $4,525. The Sub is not $1525 better than a 300M Bond. It doesn't help a consumer to have to splash out a larger sum for a Co-Axial shod SMP than the old 2531.80 but looking at the wider picture, it is still underpriced by comparison and what you get is state of the art. One may say the Co-Axial is unproven but remember that it has been around and continuously honed since 1999. If it was to fail miserably, I would have thought it would have done so by now. Y'all have a nice day now ZIN Not usually shaken nor stirred ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott D on Nov 8, 2007 11:48:24 GMT -5
It's a 39% increase in GBP Pals. However if you look at what you get in terms of the asking price, it's still relatively underpriced by comparison to its' perceived main rival for instance. At $3,050 it compared very well against a Submariner which is priced at $4,525. The Sub is not $1525 better than a 300M Bond. It doesn't help a consumer to have to splash out a larger sum for a Co-Axial shod SMP than the old 2531.80 but looking at the wider picture, it is still underpriced by comparison and what you get is state of the art. One may say the Co-Axial is unproven but remember that it has been around and continuously honed since 1999. If it was to fail miserably, I would have thought it would have done so by now. Y'all have a nice day now ZIN Not usually shaken nor stirred ;D ;D ;D Well now you've changed the question pal. The original question (as I read it) wasn't comparing the prices from Omega to Rolex, but from one Omega model to another Omega upgraded model. In that case, which is the better deal? I'm sure I can guess the answer to the which Brand is a better deal if it's asked in this forum or the different answer if it's asked in another forum.. I'm sure they wouldn't match and I shall not share my opinion as I'm sure I'd end up banned for life.... ;D But back to the original question, I don't think it's worth the increased amount in the case of the 300M. And while I agree the CA would have failed by now if it was going to in masses, the question does still remains if it's truely a better movement from a standard consumer point of view, thus to me it's still not worth the $900... Talk to you later... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Houston on Nov 8, 2007 12:02:37 GMT -5
If a watch is underpriced and the manufacturer puts up the price to bring it in line with comparable brands but to make it worthwhile from the consumer's point of view, they add a new state of the art movement and cosmetic changes, what is wrong with that? The manufacturer is offering something for the increased price after years of under-pricing. What I am saying is that in respect of what you pay, Omega had been amazing value and the price increase which is offset by the changes to the watch still makes it great value. I think you have to consider the aspect of value. $3,050 while not chicken feed is nevertheless pretty good value when you consider what it could buy you if you wanted that level of quality and prestige. A 2531.80 was 1/2 the price of a Sub. I think most would agree that the old price was undervaluing the 2531.80. A Co-Axial Bond at $3,050 is still great value when you consider what you would have to pay if you looked at another brand. Be well pal ZIN Not usually shaken nor stirred ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott D on Nov 8, 2007 12:14:32 GMT -5
Well again, I was just answering the original question, which was do I think the additional cost is worth the upgrades you get for that model's increase, or if not would you look at possibly other brands. Comparing Omega to Omega. I've answered that.... Now, if you're going to ask me if after the price increases is that model still a good comparable value compared to comparable competitor brands, my answer is maybe but not as much of a good deal anymore. I think there are comparable brands that are just as good of a deal & give a similar level of prestige (though maybe not "street recognition" by the masses) & quality for the same or even several hundred dollars less cost. And while the CA may be state of the art, to 95% of people who buy it (maybe even more), I bet they couldn't even tell you what's different or tell any level of accuracy difference in the CA vs. previous models. That is NOT a slam on the CA but instead a testament to the quality of the previous movements. Enjoy the rest of the day bud....
|
|
|
Post by timefinder on Nov 8, 2007 20:35:57 GMT -5
I never seen so much discussion without a vote. Just like what happens in Congress!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by fergie on Nov 8, 2007 21:10:03 GMT -5
The price should only be an issue if you really cannot afford the watch. There is absolutely no point in putting yourself out for a watch or any other material item for that matter.
I heard an early morning DJ on BBC Radio2 say "food shouldn't cost more than clothes, clothes shouldn't cost more than jewellery, jewellery shouldn't cost more than cars and cars shouldn't cost more than houses"
Seems fairly logical to me.
|
|
|
Post by fergie on Nov 8, 2007 21:11:58 GMT -5
I just voted 20% to hopefully kick start everyone else into voting. It's your democratic duty people!!!!!! Use it or lose it ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott D on Nov 8, 2007 21:15:59 GMT -5
The price should only be an issue if you really cannot afford the watch. Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. Does that mean if I can afford it it's a good deal? Not necessarily.. There still needs to be a value I recieve for whatever that price is. Otherwise, we'll be seeing $3,000 dollar yellow cheese watches all over the place!
|
|
|
Post by fergie on Nov 9, 2007 10:09:01 GMT -5
Hello Scott Forgive my lack of journalistic skills, especially when I'd been awake only 15 mins What I was trying to express was that if you cannot afford the watch, don't get into debt just to own a specific timepiece. Now I have re-read Zins original post again and I do agree that any significant price hike will put off customers. During the 80's and 90's and before the advent of online shopping, British consumers were often payer higher for things like sports goods, cars, jewellery and a whole range of others things. The main reason? Because we would!!! Now the consumer is more aware of prices abroad mainly due to the rise of the Internet and will not stand for it anymore. They will do their talking with their feet (or fingers and mouse in the case of a keyboard). So I would imagine that Omega hike their price after a steady period of no increases, to just above inflation, that would be acceptable. In the very early 21C when I really set my heart on a SMP Bond, they cost £1090. When I finally bought mine just under a year ago, the list price was £1200. That's £1 shy of a 10% increase. And I feel that that was acceptable. Now if like some people have speculated (on nearly all forums), Omega are aiming to price themselves in the Rolex price band, they may find that the loyal customers still may stay, or as I feel, walk. So maybe an increase of 10%-15% over 7 or 8 years is acceptable. Sorry if I'm wittering on now. Or even if I'm not making any sense. It's been a long hard week and I'm severely lacking in sleep. I can only cope with the easy posts at the moment, brain is on shut down!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Houston on Nov 10, 2007 10:59:18 GMT -5
I never seen so much discussion without a vote. Just like what happens in Congress!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D You fuhnee guy Mr Time.
;D ;D ;D
You should visit more often
OK trying to get back on track, I think it depends on the watch, what one can afford and what's on offer. I think if one wants a watch that badly, one finds a way to acquire it anyway, even if the process takes time ( no pun intended ). I'm excluding seriously expensive items like the Central Tourbillon of course.
In my experience as a relatively recent watchbuyer since January 2004, I've noticed a decidedly even-handed approach to price-increases by Omega. Take the Aqua Terra for instance. I purchased my first back in June 04. Nearly three and a half years later, the MSRP on the watch has moved 12.9%. In a similar manner, the price of the 2254.50 when the 07 catalog was published showed a rise of 13% since I purchased my first diver in February of 04. The price of a Speedy Pro has increased just 11.2 % over the same period. Where there is a larger increase, this has been compensated by the introduction of a new movement and changes to the case, dial and / or bracelet of the watch. I think this compares very well to the price levels of brands of a similar level of prestige. Perhaps the price of a revamped model has increased at a higher percentage than the annual increments of current lines. As a consistent buyer of the brand, I do not find this unacceptable since it really does even out over time. By that I mean the one-off rise in the introduction of a new movement and the annual price rises taken over time.
Naturally it would be foolish to put one's house on the line just to acquire a watch though I think one is unlikely to put that possibility to a test when buying Omega.
Y'all have a nice weekend now ZIN Not usually shaken nor stirred ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ld on Nov 10, 2007 12:06:24 GMT -5
Omega has placed themselves into the "luxury watch" arena.. As such, inflation or any other factors have no plaly in the determination of price. It becomes a supply to demand product. INtroducing a new movement or a new bracelet is never a reason to raise prices.. R&D and tooling is not a large cost burdon in the watch business....marketing is the biggest player. Omega has jumped into that with both feet, sponsoring prestigeous events, and placing themselves as the latest 007 watch.... Prices will continue to go up as the product continues it's latest robust sales.... Those unwilling to pay the price will need to find another brand name.. This is exactly the model Rolex has provided for the watch industry...
|
|