I am disturbed by this thread. Breitling is one of my favorite watch companies, and a Superocean 42 is a watch I hope to own someday. Having said that, I think the changes are a huge mistake.
As I type this, I am wearing a Bulova Sea King with an ultra high frequency movement, accurate to within +/-10 seconds per year, and rated for water resistance to 300m. It had a normal retail price of $799, and I bought it on clearance at $419 when it became a discontinued model. If we compare this watch to the closest equivalent Breitling product, the Colt Quartz, the Breitling is significantly more expensive. What is the difference between the two watches? The trademark on the dial, and whatever that trademark stands for.
The second part - what the trademark stands for - is what has - at least up until now and hopefully going forward - made Breitling one of the few luxury watches that I have regarded as worth the hard-earned, finite, after-tax dollars that they cost. I am well aware that Breitling's tagline "Instruments for professionals" has been more than just marketing, and is backed by history.
Why is "instruments for professionals" important? I am not a professional diver, but I am an occasional recreational diver. I once knew another diver who had a regulator quit working 100 feet underwater and 20 feet into a shipwreck. That diver made it back to the surface, but the ascent could not have been fun.
"Instruments for professionals" means making equipment for people who will experience potentially severe consequences if that equipment fails. If a dive computer quits working, the dive watch (and having checked the time and dive tables before beginning the dive) can get one through the rest of the dive. When one pays for a Breitling, that is what one hopes to be paying for - equipment that is designed very well, put through rigorous QC, and is very highly unlikely to fail.
The change in marketing seems to reflect a change in emphasis away from "instruments for professionals." I hope the marketing does not reflect a change in the mission statement. I would not want to see Breitling to become like the many other companies that see no problem with charging thousands of dollars for a supposedly water resistant watch with a push-pull crown.
If the emphasis is not on "instruments for professionals," then what becomes of the difference between a Colt Quartz and my Bulova? If one really wants an instrument for professionals, would one then be better off spending $2,000 on a Resco (company owned by a Navy SEAL, but a much newer company), than $3,000-$4,000 on a Breitling?
Breitling's reputation has taken decades to develop, but can be destroyed in much less time if they do not maintain it.
I also cannot understand the sudden issue with advertising that "objectifies women." Most Breitling watches are directed towards men. The few that they make for women are exactly what I would have bought for my wife before I had any understanding of what she likes in a watch. The former Breitling wingwalkers display some serious physical and mental skill on the part of the women involved, certainly respectable and hardly objectification.
I hope Breitling is reading this thread and taking it into account. I'd like to be able to justify buying that Superocean someday.