Luxoplasmosis
How platform metrics infected luxury marketing and why brands mistake reach and conversion for brand equity
I read this interesting article about tech and marketing, and I think it ports quite neatly to the watch world. The central thesis is that companies like Meta and Alphabet have essentially reprogrammed how entire industries think about the effectiveness of marketing. They’ve done this so subtly that brands now tend to congratulate themselves on being “data-driven” when they’re actually just optimising for some big tech company’s revenue model.
The term used to describe this phenomenon is ‘technoplasmosis’ - a term Rory Sutherland coined in response to the article (and now you understand why I was reading this in the first place 😂). Anyway, technoplasmosis is derived from a real word, toxoplasmosis , which in turn, is a condition caused by toxoplasma gondii. This is a parasite that literally rewires cats’ behaviour to help itself spread. The infected cat goes about its day, thinking it’s making its own choices, when it’s actually serving the parasite’s interests. Of course, the infected cat has no idea it’s infected. So if the cat is suffering from toxoplasmosis, companies using ineffective marketing strategies are suffering from technoplasmosis. Clever, right?
For luxury specifically, I’d like to coin my own term and call this luxoplasmosis. This is the same parasitic rewiring, but tailored to brands trading on heritage, craftsmanship, and emotional resonance as opposed to functionality. So let’s apply this to the luxury watch industry, and in particular, the watch marketing initiatives which bombard us from all angles every day.
Estimated reading time: ~15 minutes
Host and parasite
I’ll open by saying most luxury watch marketing suffers from this problem i.e. luxoplasmosis. The brand is the host, and the parasites are the platforms, bloggers, influencers, and all the other channels that exist to extract money from watch brands. In the process of extracting rent from brands, they try to redefine (or at least control the narrative on) what “success” means for watch brands’ marketing, and they do this to serve their own interests.
Nobody ever notices this sleight of hand; brands and investors pat themselves on the back for being “efficient” and “accountable,” when they’ve simply been induced into mistaking someone else’s KPIs for their own. What’s worse, brands have no idea how to ask for something better, because they haven’t given this subject any meaningful thought.
The issue stems from brand executives misunderstanding what they ought to view as important. Once impressions, click-through rates, views, likes, and reel-plays become easily measured and proposed as “value-adding” metrics, these begin to dictate the questions asked and the answers accepted. They also alter incentives for the people actually spending the marketing budget within these brands.
Take YouTube creators like Nico Leonard; he has millions of followers and creates a specific type of “value” in terms of, say, views and virality. I have no personal issue with him; he’s clearly skilled at building a huge audience and making money in the process. I certainly respect the hustle. That said, every serious AP fan I know was bamboozled when AP decided to associate so closely with him.
Just yesterday, I heard Nico say in this video how he’s now got a good relationship with the management at Ulysses Nardin. He then goes on to say UN still sell some “dogshit” watches, but only the models he sells, are not “dogshit.” This matters because he previously said (in older videos) that the whole UN brand makes “dogshit” watches. Now, with new management who are friendly with him, and who have given him exclusive distribution for UN in Ireland, he’s managing his own reputation and credibility.
So why exactly would a brand like AP, or any self-respecting brand for that matter, want anything to do with this sort of volatile personality? Just for the views? Brands chase these partnerships because metrics which Nico offers, look good on their marketing dashboards. But does it have a positive effect on brand equity?
Being measurable does not make things true
Right now, when we talk about concepts that don’t fit neatly into spreadsheets, people tend to believe they’re less relevant. If you can measure it, it begins to feel like truth worth pursuing. This is totally misguided.
When you go on holiday and enjoy it, can you “measure” your happiness? When you buy a watch, can you articulate how “worthwhile it feels?” You can’t put a number on these things, but they absolutely do have value; real, significant, non-zero value.
When brands adopt useless criteria to evaluate marketing spend, they don’t even think about whether a campaign builds brand value or contributes to long-term brand equity. Instead, they focus on improving campaign dashboard metrics and showing month-to-month increases in engagement, views, and click-through rates.
This is, I suppose, a “dogshit” marketing strategy in the luxury industry. In luxury, people buy things they don’t need, and so, brand value is kinda important. Look at Rolex and Patek right now, doing just fine whilst the market is in a tailspin. That’s their brand value holding the fort. When brands spend on marketing, how much do they measure whether it makes people happy or resonates with their audience? Is it memorable? Does it induce ANY feelings whatsoever? None of these things appear in a ‘marketing insights dashboard’, but they do contribute to long-term brand equity and positive sentiments in the respective category.
Counter-example
I recently saw this tastefully produced video about Bernhard Zwinz via A Collected Man:
He’s reviving the name and work of a 19th century watchmaker, J.T. Winnerl. According to the marketing copy, “Zwinz’ perfectionism is evident in each hand-hammered dimple on his dials, entirely absorbed by the desire to create work that fits seamlessly into history, and that will exist beyond time.”
That may sound pretentious in text, but they made this short film to accompany the text, and I thought it was marvellous because it makes the viewer feel something. It stands out. It’s memorable in some way. Minimal dialogue, yes, but huge attention was clearly paid to the audio and the viewer’s immersion.
I can’t remember when I last saw an emotive video like this in the watch world - and it also feels like it cost a fortune to produce. Is it worth spending money on such a thing? He makes maybe 10-15 watches each year, so it is quite likely this can evoke the right reaction from 15 people each year! Anyway, that was a recent example of what else to do with your marketing spend. This video focused on emotion, craft, and on creating something that resonates; instead of something that optimises for platform algorithms. The video only has a thousand views or so, but I reckon it was likely worth every penny spent in creating it.
Edit 7 Nov 2025: A Collected Man reached out to confirm Zwinz currently only makes 6 watches per year.
Rationality trap
The most dangerous thing about this whole ‘metrics obsession’ is how rational it all feels. Spreadsheets and charts come across as impartial and objective. But as Charlie Munger said, “Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.”
The risk of this misguided thinking is actually highest in times of uncertainty… like, right now. Budgets are under pressure, and every CFO wants quick proof of ‘usefulness’ for the marketing budget being spent. “Accountability” is the buzzword in every boardroom, so marketing managers turn to numbers and charts they can put in slide decks today, to get budgets approved. Of course, the marketing platforms and influencers are quite happy to provide this data.
But the actual cost is much more than the cash spent today, and it’s invisible until it’s too late. Brands can optimise into oblivion, have awesome quarterly metrics of views and clicks, win these short-term battles… but when the money stops flowing into that marketing channel, the clicks and views all drop to zero. Having won a few small battles with short-term marketing spend on useless things, the long war of cultural relevance and brand equity is lost.