Responses to the 2006 proposed termination of the Rolex consent decree.

[pithy]

If you wish to educate yourself on the U.S. watch repair industry's position on the Rolex parts distribution scheme, you owe it to yourself to review this link - in its entirety. These comments represent the most accurate and comprehensive single grouping of independent American watchmaking opinion on this topic.
Exhibit 1 - Public Comments

Do we have a credentialled Rolex representative who could respond?

[s.erickson87]

Very interesting thread. Quite informative. ...may we tread softly however.

[pithy]

Very interesting thread. Quite informative. ...may we tread softly however.

The link is to a United States Department of Justice webpage - on their server - of officially received comments.

[Archer]

If you wish to educate yourself on the U.S. watch repair industry's position on the Rolex parts distribution scheme, you owe it to yourself to review this link - in its entirety. These comments represent the most accurate and comprehensive single grouping of independent American watchmaking opinion on this topic.
Exhibit 1 - Public Comments

Do we have a credentialled Rolex representative who could respond?

Thanks for posting this Pithy...reading down a few pages I see someone even sent a copy of the dreaded "letter from Rolex" into the DOJ and it's reprinted there:

"Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

After careful review of your spare-parts account, we are herewith informing you of our decision to discontinue our business relationship. Your Rolex spare parts account has been officially closed as of today's date.

For more information, you may refer to your agreement, which provides in the Policy Statement, under General Policies, 4th item, that "Both the parts account and Rolex are free, at any time and for any reason, to discontinue their business relationship, without cause and without prior notice."

In compliance with this agreement, we will not discuss the details of our decision.

Sincerely,
ROLEX WATCH SERVICE CORP.

/s/

Khaled Elrawi
Spare Parts Manager"

Oh yes, all about the quality of the work for sure - they won't even tell you why your account is dropped, and they can do it for any reason, without cause. Yep that sure is protecting the consumer....not.

For the watchmaker, so, much for investing tens of thousands in all that Rolex specific equipment...hope you can pay it all of fixing vintage Bulovas and similar watches, someone digs out of a drawer...

Cheers, Al

[bacari]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Donf]

Rolex is all about protecting it's own turf. They will bully the poor watch repair facilities and retail dealers ( soft price fixing anyone?) and raise their consumer prices constantly with little regard to the fact that they seldom actually make any improvements in the watches themselves. This is however their jealously guarded perogative and the business model has done them well. They produce an above average watch that has become the standard of most of the world! A household name!, A status symbol that nearly anybody can afford(if you really want to).

But they can't stop cheap fakes in convienence store selling for 10 bucks and homages from many manufacturers (I see more Seiko "Datejusts" than real Datejusts.).

Dealers and consumers can always speak with their wallets! But the millions and millions of latin Americans and asians who long for the day they can sport a Rolex on their wrists don't care one bit about parts. And maybe that is how it should be.

So go for it Rolex! But that breath you feel on your neck must be making you a bit nervous? Omega is gaining ground.

[novedl]

Dealers and consumers can always speak with their wallets! But the millions and millions of latin Americans and asians who long for the day they can sport a Rolex on their wrists don't care one bit about parts. And maybe that is how it should be.

I am not at all sure about this statement. Unless they are horophiles of a like mind they will most likely be unaware of this situation.

[anothernewphone]

My opinion is that Rolex can do whatever they want. No such thing as "price fixing" a single brand. If people don't like the prices, they don't have to pay them. If retailers don't like the hoops they have to jump through, they don't have to sell them.

Just like Omega pulling out of ADs to sell only through their boutiques - if you don't like it, don't buy. I've been treated poorly by my local Omega boutique, so I'm not buying.

[JoshTheCanadian]

You know, I have given some thought about Rolex's practices in relation to the Sherman Act and various AT caselaw, and I really am not certain whether Rolex's practices could not withstand antitrust scrutiny. I started doing some research on the issue, but did not get all too far. I was actually thinking about writing about the SWATCH groups' restrictions, but due to the difficulty of obtaining a lot of the documents, I was unable to really take it very far.

But this issue with Rolex seems to be questionable vis-a-vis the Sherman Act. I do not think it is a price fixing issue as much as a Kodak issue--which, simply stated, deals with using anticompetitive means in a derivative market (i.e., the watch repair market). I would need to bone up on my AT law to really make a cogent argument, so I am kind of just spitballing here.

[Watchbreath]

But with Rolex, it's a major 'bread and butter' brand for an AD. Many wound gladly sell their first and second
born to have 5 cases of Rolex in their store.

My opinion is that Rolex can do whatever they want. No such thing as "price fixing" a single brand. If people don't like the prices, they don't have to pay them. If retailers don't like the hoops they have to jump through, they don't have to sell them.

Just like Omega pulling out of ADs to sell only through their boutiques - if you don't like it, don't buy. I've been treated poorly by my local Omega boutique, so I'm not buying.