WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

The Luxury Watch Industry as a sign of conspicuous consumption

3K views 41 replies 31 participants last post by  John MS 
#1 · (Edited)
Hi all, I'm currently finishing up my capstone senior seminar and one of our final projects is an analysis of a cultural phenomenon based on Anne Norton's Republic of Signs. In case you are not familiar with the text, Norton argues that many staples of American society, from aspects of our political culture (the Constitution, the Presidency, the very idea of "freedom") to food and pop culture phenomena, are represented not only by the original intent and context in which they were developed, but by a sort of meta-representation that has been developed by entrenched liberal and neoliberal values in a modern society.

For reference:

“Americans in Disneyland do not mistake it for reality. Rather, recognizing it as a representation of desire, they celebrate their collective capacity to produce a world more rational and more rewarding than that which Providence supplies them. In their play, as in their politics, they know themselves as the creators of a new world order" (21).

We were given free reign to choose any topic to analyze within this context. I, much to the annoyance of most of my friends, have chosen to analyze the luxury watch industry. My theme around which I am going to work is going to go something like this: The luxury watch industry, once a sign of the finest craftsmanship, has become a sign of excessive luxury and conspicuous consumption. It is important to note that I am doing this through the lens of the majority of the American population and thus, excluding WIS (although perhaps that may end up a counterpoint).

I'm going to look at the advertising techniques of a few brands, namely Tag, Breitling, Omega, and to some extent Rolex, focusing mainly on brand ambassadors and the advertising rhetoric. I'm purposely going to leave out JLC, AP, PP, VC, and ALS because I think to some extent they have not fallen into the same category as the others.

So here's my question for you all: If you have any inkling of interest in this project and agree to any extent with what I am arguing, can you provide me with some examples of how the watch industry has become a sign for conspicuous consumption and unnecessary luxury?

If you don't agree with my argument, can you point out the flaws and provide me with the tools necessary to strengthen it?

Best,
Chanslor
 
See less See more
#2 ·
So if i understand this correctly = you are cherry-picking brands which fit your hypothesis and ignoring brands which dont? If so, why not just make up whatever it is you want to say - you are pretty much assured of finding atleast one brand that will fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cedargrove
#4 ·
Not quite, no. I'm looking at brands which have been driven to become signs of this conspicuous consumption. I chose that list above based on brand name recognition and advertising techniques, and decided to leave off the ultra high-end choices because I still believe that those who know enough to know what they are recognize them for their craftsmanship and history. Sorry for the mixup and thank you for making me aware of my confusing tone above.
 
#3 ·
An good capstone project choice, disregard your friends. Might want to rethink your exclusion of Audemars Piguet though. AP's reliance on the Royal Oak Offshore to drive sales is a perfect example of the industry's transformation. Once a small volume prestige manufacturer, AP's ambassador has evolved from royalty to sports celebrities.

The emergence of the cheap quartz watch set the industry on its current path, as the finest craftsmanship no longer corresponded to the best timekeeping. I think you'll find the recently unveiled Parmigiani Senfine concept watch is a nice example of the luxury watch industry's existential crisis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#5 ·
I think that if you look back a century or more you will find that watches were advertised as badges of acheivement and consumed conspicuously too. Back in the late 1800's one could buy a watch with a heavily carved 18k multi color gold case with jewels that housed a finely damasceened movement bearing gold jewel settings, a gold center wheel and very high jewel count. Watches have always served two purposes: timekeeper and decorative jewelry.
 
#8 ·
Ugh...where to begin. I'm not familiar with Anne Norton. but frankly the whole premise sounds preposterous - some sort of pseudo-intellectual commentary on culture that is not grounded in reality. Read the Amazon summary of the book, and can say with certainty I'll never read it.

The reality is this - US (like much of the rest of the world) is not a simple black-and-white society that can easily be explained or summarized. My work sends me travelling all over, and I can tell you with confidence that the culture and society in Florida is nothing like NYC, which in turn is nothing like upstate NY, or CA or New England or Texas or Seattle and so on. Hell, even within New York City - there are hundreds of subcultures, both geographical (values and social status display in lower east side is nothing like that of midtown or Harlem), national (Chinatown vs Brighton vs Jackson Heights vs Bedstuy vs Bay Ridge), and financial (status symbols and subculture of wall street is nothing like that of fashion district or Park Slope hipsters). In other words - trying to summarize American culture is an exercise in futility.

What does it have to do with watches - simple... just like there are many aspects and facets of America, so there are many aspects of luxury watch industry. For some it's all about status symbols (granted status symbol for NBA player is different than that of Wall St banker, which in turn is different from that of technology entrepreneur), for others it is about pure jewelry\luxury enjoyment, for others it is about looks, and for a small percentage of population (mostly nerds such as ourselves who frequent watch forums) it is about watches themselves - movements, engineering, etc...

And yes - many brands (including PP and AP which you surprisingly left-out) are using advertising to appeal to specific subcultures around status and symbolism. But that is normal and found in every industry - businesses are there to maximize profit and if they can do so by appealing to certain marketing techniques, more power to them.

I also think that luxury watch industry is by definition a sign of conspicuous consumption. Else people would limit themselves to solid practical quartz offerings from Seiko\Citizen\Timex, etc. The main difference from mainstream (or at least academia) thinking, is that I see no issue with conspicuous consumption or unnecessary luxury. If I work hard (not in a sense of labor, but productivity), and manage to make $ - what is wrong with enjoying myself and spending it on completely unnecessary items? Nothing in my view.

So yes - there is a lot of marketing around certain image. But that is because companies analyze their customers and develop marketing strategy to maximize sales by appealing to value system that the customers possess. But the customers are not a solid block, and what may appeal to some may alienate others. So all the marketing\advertising you see, is not so much the commentary on American culture\society\values, but rather a reality of free economic enterprise pursuing niche market segments where their products make sense. (just like McDonalds and the protein bar industry both competing is US - for different segments).

Personally, I'd write about that. But in modern US academia it will likely to earn you an F. Oh well....
Will leave you with some conspicuous consumption watch (completely unnecessary as I have 15 more in the box) and some conspicuous philosophy.
Watch Analog watch Watch accessory Fashion accessory Wrist
 
#9 ·
So sorry OP you're stuck writing about and trying to rationalize Ann Norton's philosophy on anything. I'm sure you're aware one of her basic premises is that what we buy makes us who we are, and determines our level of freedom. Americans can buy anything thus we are really free, and those folks in Iraq can't and they aren't.

Taking this philosophy to its natural progression were the folks in the Bush administration, and they applied it in Iraq and that "freedom" thing didn't work out quite the way that they or Ms Norton's predicted. In fact her writings are now mostly considered simplistic and panned as unscholarly.

But everyone can have a philosophy, some better, some worse, but seriously watches? Anything above the basic needs is conspicuous consumption. If a guy making minimum wage buys a 1k Movado that rates. If a guy making 1 billion buys a Rolex it's a beater or throwaway watch, to him it's basic.

Good luck dude I agree with the previous post why don't you write about the problems with her beliefs there sure are enough critical references you can use.
 
#13 ·
Unfortunately not an option. The assignment is to examine a cultural phenomenon in the same way that Norton writes her book. I'm not able to digress from the prompt, otherwise I would do just that.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Being my usual contrarian self, I believe there is a lot of truth to the thesis, and actually if anything more so or equally so among members of this forum.

Think about examples of people joining this forum and then setting off on insane buying sprees, picking up 5, 10, 15 watches -- with each one accompanied by an "unboxing" post or a "just picked up a new piece" post here. That strikes me as the definition of conspicuous consumption as well as confirming the notion that we seek to recreate an image (a representation). Now some people might rebut this by claiming that these new members (or old members) are merely gaining greater exposure to new and exciting watches, and buying watches to fill different "niches" (sport watch, tool watch, dive watch, chronograph, manual-wind, beater, high-end, etc. etc.), and therefore it's a reflection of a deeper appreciation of horology or of the technical and aesthetic achievement of the watches purchased. But if that is the case, why do we rush to take pictures and post our new pieces as soon as we get them? If it's about appreciating the watches' mechanical quality, as we love to say, wouldn't we hold off on touting our new pieces until we'd worn them for a while, until they were time-tested, until we could speak ourselves to their qualities?

The reality is, as with any shiny new thing that a person picks up (whether it be a new car, house, piece of jewelry, watch, whatever), we want to show it off.

These trends are exacerbated by many factors in the modern world, such as the omnipresence of the "new" as fed to us by the Internet, which mediates all of our experience and distorts our sense of the real world. We're constantly bombarded by Instagram, dozens of watch blogs, and in our visits to this forum, with a cornucopia of how many new watches are out there, how attractive they are, and how our peers and fellow enthusiasts are just constantly acquiring more. So we want more too. We want to post our wrist shots and get our likes and our congrats. We want to feel like we're developing a good "collection," and that we aren't "missing" a necessary piece like a chronograph if we don't have one (when, realistically, so few of us need such a piece, much less a dive watch).

I don't mean to sound very negative about all of this, and I'm certainly not above these trends (I actually doubt anyone who cares enough to regularly post here is "above" these sorts of trends). I do think we have a hard time being honest with ourselves about our reasons for being in the hobby, a lot of which does center around confirming and demonstrating to others (i.e., performing a representation of) our success and attainment of status.

I'm not familiar with Norton but one name that comes to mind is Baudrillard: http://hilo.hawaii.edu/academics/ho...modernconsumerismandtheconstructionofself.pdf
 
#14 · (Edited)
Of course the luxury watch industry is conspicuous consumption. Examples abound, OP -Richard Mille, Hublot, AP, IWC. I think there are entire books written on this subject.

If women have expensive bags to make other women envious, men have watches and cars. And they are getting larger and flashier.

Look also at auction prices for so-called rare watches. They reach amazing levels today. Even among collectors (who say they are interested in history and craftsmanship), it's often a game of one-upmanship - if you have a double swiss underline Rolex Daytona, I must also have one. In fact, I even have a Patek 1463. To me, luxury watches being conspicuous consumption is just a reflection of human nature, and very true.

Not as sure about Norton's philosophy though (I lost you in your first paragraph), so I won't comment.

...

Think about examples of people joining this forum and then setting off on insane buying sprees, picking up 5, 10, 15 watches -- with each one accompanied by an "unboxing" post or a "just picked up a new piece" post here. That strikes me as the definition of conspicuous consumption as well as confirming the notion that we seek to recreate an image (a representation). Now some people might rebut this by claiming that these new members (or old members) are merely gaining greater exposure to new and exciting watches, and buying watches to fill different "niches" (sport watch, tool watch, dive watch, chronograph, manual-wind, beater, high-end, etc. etc.), and therefore it's a reflection of a deeper appreciation of horology or of the technical and aesthetic achievement of the watches purchased. But if that is the case, why do we rush to take pictures and post our new pieces as soon as we get them? If it's about appreciating the watches' mechanical quality, as we love to say, wouldn't we hold off on touting our new pieces until we'd worn them for a while, until they were time-tested, until we could speak ourselves to their qualities?

The reality is, as with any shiny new thing that a person picks up (whether it be a new car, house, piece of jewelry, watch, whatever), we want to show it off.

It's also very much in human nature to want validation - of who we are, what we stand for, and the choices we make. And this includes the watches we choose to buy. For some reason, it matters a lot to us that fellow watch enthusiasts approve these choices.
 
#12 ·
Sooooo many years since college...the memory of hyperintellectual discussions had almost escaped me! First off, the reference you provided maybe isn't the best example. I don't see Disneyworld as a "representation of desire" nor as a world "more rational or rewarding" in the least. It's a place where people take their kids to go on rides and meet anthropomorphic animals and such - it's entertainment and/or escapism.

Also, the exclusion of brands like PP and AP is kind of interesting to me since their prominent display by many, although they may not be 'official' brand ambassadors, is all about conspicuous consumption.
 
#27 ·
Sooooo many years since college...the memory of pseudo-intellectual discussions had almost escaped me!
Fixed that for you.

Rick "who would have bought different brands if he wanted to be a conspicuous consumer, but TAG-Heuer wouldn't have been one of them" Denney
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoreCowdog
#16 ·
Oh man I don't miss school.. Depending on the class, and the teacher, your 'thesis' or focus may not be abstract enough. These professors usually have an inflated ego and think think they are really deep and clever. They may think it's not too creative for a capstone paper.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#32 ·
Oh man I don't miss school.. Depending on the class, and the teacher, your 'thesis' or focus may not be abstract enough. These professors usually have an inflated ego and think think they are really deep and clever. They may think it's not too creative for a capstone paper.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely. And if this thesis mentioned by the OP is considered unscholarly, then I'm all for it considering the out there hippie opinions (and that's all they are) of most of today's "intellectuals".
 
#17 ·
Why watches and not other forms of personal decoration and jewelry? Or for that matter, why watches and not luxury cars, fine wine, designer clothing, fine dining, big screen TVs, art, or any other brand or item sold using celebrity or athletic endorsement, or other forms of aspirational advertising--coca cola, marlborough cigarets, airlines etc, etc.

Watches have always had a component of luxury. Precious metals have been used from the beginning of watch making. Isn't fine craftsmanship a form of luxury and conspicuous consumption? Humans have always decorated themselves. Watches are mere extensions of that. Always have been. The utilitarian function and the decretive, status symbol of fine watches has existed since the beginning.

Why are you choosing this topic? What problem does it solve or unique point of view does it hope to contribute to academia?
 
#20 ·
My concern is the core of the thesis is flawed, in that it assumes luxury watches are conspicuous. Over the course of a week I could wear 7 different $100,000 watches and I doubt a single person would notice I just wore near 3/4 of a million dollars on my wrist in that week. Drive up once in a Ferrari that cost half that and conspicuous is dripping off me. To further this I don't think the VAST majority of people know how much most luxury watches cost.

At least something to consider.
 
#22 ·
My concern is the core of the thesis is flawed, in that it assumes luxury watches are conspicuous. Over the course of a week I could wear 7 different $100,000 watches and I doubt a single person would notice I just wore near 3/4 of a million dollars on my wrist in that week. Drive up once in a Ferrari that cost half that and conspicuous is dripping off me. To further this I don't think the VAST majority of people know how much most luxury watches cost.

At least something to consider.
Ah, but those in the know, would know. And sometimes that's what matters. It's like a secret Masonic handshake.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Hi all, I'm currently finishing up my capstone senior seminar and one of our final projects is an analysis of a cultural phenomenon based on Anne Norton's Republic of Signs. In case you are not familiar with the text, Norton argues that many staples of American society, from aspects of our political culture (the Constitution, the Presidency, the very idea of "freedom") to food and pop culture phenomena, are represented not only by the original intent and context in which they were developed, but by a sort of meta-representation that has been developed by entrenched liberal and neoliberal values in a modern society.

For reference:

"Americans in Disneyland do not mistake it for reality. Rather, recognizing it as a representation of desire, they celebrate their collective capacity to produce a world more rational and more rewarding than that which Providence supplies them. In their play, as in their politics, they know themselves as the creators of a new world order" (21).

We were given free reign to choose any topic to analyze within this context. I, much to the annoyance of most of my friends, have chosen to analyze the luxury watch industry. My theme around which I am going to work is going to go something like this: The luxury watch industry, once a sign of the finest craftsmanship, has become a sign of excessive luxury and conspicuous consumption. It is important to note that I am doing this through the lens of the majority of the American population and thus, excluding WIS (although perhaps that may end up a counterpoint).

I'm going to look at the advertising techniques of a few brands, namely Tag, Breitling, Omega, and to some extent Rolex, focusing mainly on brand ambassadors and the advertising rhetoric. I'm purposely going to leave out JLC, AP, PP, VC, and ALS because I think to some extent they have not fallen into the same category as the others.

So here's my question for you all: If you have any inkling of interest in this project and agree to any extent with what I am arguing, can you provide me with some examples of how the watch industry has become a sign for conspicuous consumption and unnecessary luxury?

If you don't agree with my argument, can you point out the flaws and provide me with the tools necessary to strengthen it?

Best,
Chanslor
The one thing you got right, or more to the point, Norton got right, is that there are folks who believe they are more capable than God (Providence) at doing God's job.

As as far as conspicuous consumption goes, if you buy more than a $30 Timex, you are conspicuously consuming. This study is a complete waste of time trying to make your liberal professor feel good about himself/herself. You get to pay big bucks for this crap. I sure am glad I have been out of college for 35+ years.
 
#23 ·
To OP; you might want to look at advertising expenditures and unit sales in selecting the brands for your thesis. That data for the top thirty or so brands easily available through the google. Props and chutzpah for coming on this board to ask about excessive consumption. It's a bit like going onto a Daughters of the Confederacy forum to ask about justifications for the War of Northern Aggression.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Just for clarification, I didn't necessarily come here for loving arms and overwhelming support of this project. This is a small project worth approximately ten percent of my final grade in this course. Despite all of the vitriolic comments about my thesis (and about my project and professor), this thread has ultimately been very helpful. I'm going to take the criticisms into account when writing the analysis.

What's more, it's important to note that because I have to argue it through the same lens as Norton, I'm suggesting that it is a manifestation of neoliberal ideals without much empirical data. If you want to discuss my actual final capstone project, which is about Islamic lending practices and how they could be a remedy to neoliberal banking practices which contributed to the crash in 2007-08, then we can talk about empirical data.

However, I digress. Thanks for all your help, if you want to make any kind of further suggestions feel free, I'll be checking back for more information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drhr
#25 ·
Alright I see your stuck with this. It's a good learning experience all through life and work you'll be given crap options and assignments at some point, just give them what they want and move on. In this case I'm not sure there is a lot to learn so just focus on getting the grade. By the way I sure hope this isn't college, this sounds like a high school assignment.

Here's the deal, name a bunch of brands but focus on Rolex. They have tons of marketing examples across all media and because they spend the more and do it better than any other watch maker. If you want add Patek they spend a lot and seem to have the market cornered for pretense and aspirational ads. In addition to a bunch of easy marketing references, you get a bunch of case studies for both brands approach to the market.

Unlike what the previous poster thinks this is a conservative philosophy not liberal. Bear that in mind when you write your paper. Don't know why but Neocons love this crap. Possibly part of the takers buying beyond their means or not knowing their place who knows, just be aware.

Hell you could even use Bernie Madoff as an example to validate this bat s$1t crazy philosophy. He felt a level of comfort, pride, and accomplishment as he would clean organize and play with his Rolex collection. You can reference the NY Times for that.

If your prof or teacher believes this stuff write it like you believe it too. So what, if it is a beyond simplistic view that where you go, what you watch, and your possessions as opposed to your accomplishments determine your sense of self. You're all in.

Good luck. Hope this helps you out.
 
#29 · (Edited)
I am really struggling to write a proper reply to this because I really can't understand how it can be thought that your topic/subject is worth writing about.

The thing i struggle wirh is that I can't believe you don't see it.

Luxury watch: Luxury good.
A luxury item is by definition an object of conspicuous consumption.

It's like you're trying to explain why food is edible or why rain is wet.

That is also ignoring that watches were always items of conspicuous consumption and were for a long time in their infancy, not just the privilege of the rich but the playthings of royalty.
 
#30 ·
OP:

In academia, many contemporary authors or pundits have a habit of identifying what they perceive as trends or signs within their own time that they believe are unique to that period. In addition to business, I studied European intellectual history, and it is quite common that when looking at your contemporary situation/society in isolation you can identify what appear to be unique trends that in actuality have existed for far longer

To say that conspicuous consumption is something uniquely modern is inaccurate. Conspicuous consumption has existed since man wanted to separate himself as different than his fellow man and has been around for thousands of years... look at the pharaohs of Egypt...

The way in which conspicuous consumption manifests itself in our modern society has surely changed, but the act of conspicuous consumption itself has not. Two defining factors in my mind are the emergence of brand names and the emergence of social media. Now, I show off with brands versus just obviously expensive materials (gold, silk, etc) or items (fine horses, wines, houses, etc) and I show them to a digital audience globally versus just people in my immediate vicinity.

Cue the Kartrashian effect whereby even those in small town Oklahoma are now exposed to conspicuous consumption, and perhaps the trend increases as those previously unaware of designer jeans, designer watches etc. now feel that they want those items and there is something special about them. Again, not a new thing, but maybe it is becoming more prevalent.

In my mind, what is more interesting are the emotional triggers that drive people to want to purchase these items or any branded item for that matter. First, you need to look at what emotional need the item is fulfilling. For watches it could be appearance of status, success, and/or wealth for sure, but also manufacturing technique, complication in design, etc. All equate to a higher priced watch for the most part. The same goes for cars. I love to drive and could care less if someone sees my nice car. I would want a Ferrari on a deserted island.

If you want to get to a very base level, not taking into account the many unique situations, I would argue that the most notable global change of the last 200 years has been a near complete shift to a global capitalist economic system. In a purely capitalist economy, we compete for resources and wealth against other agents within the economy. Success within this model is measured by capital accumulation (wealth). Wealth is shown through consumption. Success = consumption.

If I am wealthy and successful, I want to to show it to others. If I am not wealthy and successful, emotionally I want to feel better about myself or my situation and still try to conspicuously consume to show to others that I am also a worthy and valuable human being. Value in a purely capitalist world is related to wealth accumulation... kindness, generosity, intelligence, etc. may not matter. Look at all of the wealthy pseudo criminals we idolize these days...

Another noteworthy event is the emergence of brands. Consumers these days, especially younger consumers define themselves and express themselves and their personalities via brands.

Anyway, you get the point. With that said, I think Norton's premise is too simplistic and flawed. Many people buy nice things simply because they like nice things. I know people who buy expensive items and do not flash them. Her premise also assumes her situation is unique when it is not. This has existed for millennia. I do agree that people are sharing more and flashing more than before, but this is because it is easier to do via digital/social.

Regarding Disney... typical ivory tower pundit reading too much into everything. Disney exists to promote the Disney brand and to make money. They are not trying to achieve transcendence or play God.

Regarding people on here buying multiple watches and showing the unboxing, etc. this is probably just because they are excited about their watches and have no one else to show them too. My day to day friends could care less about my watches which is why I come here...
 
#31 ·
You miss that conspicuous consumption is trending towards the cheap throwaway good as well, with the thing being flaunted is not wealth or items of value but the number of likes you get.

The item you use to achieve a successful collection of likes need not be expensive. It is a more insidious form of conspicuous consumption because even though the item is cheap, it is discarded once it had served its purpose, ready to be instantly and easily replaced.
 
#33 ·
I think that different definitions of conspicuous consumption are at play in these posts. I would suggest that conspicuous consumption has little to do with the cost of the item. Someone could buy a $100k watch and not tell anyone about it. No CC. Conversely, someone could buy a Casio and show it off to everyone. =CC. It is true that people often want to show off large purchases, and so we think of CC being associated with expensive luxury items.

Not to get too nerdy, but the concept you seem to be describing (using watches as examples) is distanciation. In this context, watch makers create expensive items, some would argue, to "mean" skilled craftwork, excellent design, quality materials, cutting-edge engineering, etc. Once the item is sold, however, that product can be used to "mean" something quite different than what was intended -- like a symbol of wealth, greed, exclusion, or whatever. The trick is that "new" meaning is associated with the company providing the product. So now Rolex, AP, Hublot, et al. become symbols of something the companies never intended. Btw, nobody has mentioned Panerai.

I can pretty much guarantee that AP didn't intend to become the symbol of success for hip hop artists. I don't think Pam necessarily wanted to be big with hipsters. But those spontaneous are out of the company's control.

What they can control is advertising and marketing. Watch companies select brand representatives that communicate the values and identity they want to be associated with their products. They use symbols in advertising to do the same thing.

So the argument that you have to make for you teacher is that one or more watch companies actively promote the "value" of conspicuous consumption through advertising or marketing. Is there a watch company that says "buy our watch and your friends will be jealous," or "wear this and you will get laid," or "buy this and everyone will know you have made it to the top"? If so, you have a thesis.

Good luck!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top