#24, IQ = 126 (gifted) - Omega
#28, IQ = 123 (gifted) - IWC
#34, IQ = 115 (gifted) - TAG Heuer
#44, IQ = 106 (average) - Mont Blanc
#46, IQ = 104 (average) - Piaget
#54, IQ = 97 (average) - Hublot
#65, IQ = 90 (average) - Vacheron Constantin
#66, IQ = 90 (average) - Raymond Weil
#71, IQ = 85 (challenged) - Jaeger-LeCoultre
#72, IQ = 84 (challenged) - Movado
#74, IQ = 83 (challenged) - Bulgari
#75, IQ = 80 (challenged) - Chopard
#78, IQ = 78 (challenged) - Cartier
#91, IQ = 57 (feeble) - Harry Winston
#92, IQ = 54 (feeble) - Audemars Piguet
#94, IQ = 47 (feeble) - Rolex
#98, IQ = 30 (feeble) - Patek Philippe
Interesting you say? My though exactly. You can read the post and associated report to draw your own conclusions, but I think the following stands out:
First, notice there are only 17 brands included (I didn't count Ralph Lauren or LV as they are not watch companies per say) out of probably 600 or so luxury Swiss watch brands (and 120 or so on Facebook). Now truth be told, I'm not sure why brands like Beaume & Mercier (140,000 fans) or Frederique Constant (65,000 fans) were not included. Still, we're talking about a very small minority of watch brands (5.6%) - even supposing twice as many (34) might be significantly present on Facebook.
Conclusion: this industry is still dipping a toe in the social media waters at best. And yes, I do believe Facebook to be a bellwether of social media "juice" for watch companies. Even if you take the luxury industry as a whole, fashion and cosmetics are significantly more advanced than the watch segment. This is not only for Facebook mind you, but for every other digital endeavor not the least of which are e-commerce and mobile (there are no interesting branded mobile watch apps currently in existence, even if Zenith somehow made this list, and e/f/m-commerce are still taboo).
Second, the high-end legacy "heritage" flagship brands really suck at this. AP, Rolex, Cartier, Jaeger, and Patek are at or near the bottom of the barrel. Matter of fact, Rolex doesn't even have a branded Facebook page. This is surprising since clearly we're not talking budget issues here. I think the people at the top are simply not interested in doing social media. To me it's no longer a matter of ignorance, but a calculated decision to simply stay out of the fray for whatever reason. Or maybe just "pretend" to be playing in the sandbox. They could easily kick ass in the socio-digital world if they wanted to. They choose not to.
It's funny because, before reading this report, I would have told you about progress, and how nicely watch brands have advanced up the social media ladder in the last 18 months. I would have talked about hope, progress, catching up to other luxury segments, and new, forward-thinking leadership (especially in the independent brands). But in fact, I would simply have been fooling myself - that's the price one pays for having industry blinders on too long.
Because when you look at the big picture - compared to other industry segments or, God forbid, other industries altogether (think FMCG, high-tech, software, fashion), the watch industry's presence on social media networks is anemic at best. Is it better than several years ago? Sure - couldn't be much worse - but all things considered, given available budgets, emergence from the "crisis" everyone so happily touts to the press, and well-documented benefits of social media in this industry, it's a truly pathetic situation. This report only serves to point that out for Facebook, but it's the same in other channels, when not worse.
The upside exists for the few smart brands who might somehow wake up and realize the amazing competitive advantage this situation actually presents. But I said "smart brands"... As my ex boss Jean-Claude Biver used to say, "We are very lucky, because we're at the bottom of the barrel, and so the only way is up!"
0 comments:
Post a Comment