Well, well, well... sometimes you write something that gets people talking, and occasionally, the brands themselves decide to join the conversation! Yesterday’s piece on MB&F’s SP One led to someone from the brand reaching out with some additional context. And you know what? I’m delighted they did. In this post I will explore what I learned from the dialogue with MB&F. If you missed it, start with this post first:
Not another LM
First things first: I got some things wrong, and am happy to admit it. My assertion that the SP One was “clearly an LM without a dial” was obviously based on my own interpretation of their design language but it turns out, there’s more method to their madness than I had initially understood.
At some point they decided (internally) on a specific ‘design DNA’ for the LM line; this is MB&F’s tribute to (their words) 19th-century traditional watchmaking which comes in the form of lacquered dials with Roman numerals, low-frequency movements (2.5Hz), rounded bridges and of course the signature flying balance wheel which is an MB&F ‘twist’. The SP One does share a round case shape and 2.5Hz frequency, but it also breaks several rules which they set for what defines watches in the LM line - most notably the open barrel, which they felt would not fit within their vision for what any LM should be.
Fair enough, and so I stand corrected on the new SP classification; but there is one small vindication for me as well… MB&F admitted they probably should have launched the SP line when they launched the Flying T instead (which is an LM too) i.e an automatic piece with a smaller balance wheel and serpentine hands would also have been sufficiently different from their usual LM offerings, and warranted a new product line - but that was an oversight at the time. Overall, it was an interesting insight into MB&F’s internal design process, and a very useful dialogue to have had.
On Volume
Yup, I was wrong about the nature of their growth ambitions. MB&F categorically states they have no plans to increase total volume between 2024 and 2026. They are targeting “the same revenue as 2023”, which is supposedly around CHF 50 million (according to some of the market reports I have seen).
The SP One will account for approximately 60 pieces per year (ideally 30 of each model), and this will represent approximately 5% of total MB&F revenue (which includes MAD Editions). Let’s do some quick maths:
Rose Gold SP One: CHF 58,000 retail
Platinum SP One: CHF 63,000 retail
60 pieces annual production = ~CHF 3.6 million retail value
If this represents ~5% of revenue, total brand revenue would be ~CHF 72 million
Given publicly estimated revenue is CHF 50 million, the delta probably accounts for retailer margins - but we know MAD Editions is sold directly and not via retailers, so we can make a guesstimate that there is around 30% margin for retailers - which isn’t too insane if my maths is correct.
So much for the “chasing volume” theory.
On Broader Appeal
I have to say, being wrong about the volume angle still doesn’t invalidate the core argument about MB&F using the SP One to broaden their appeal. In other words, they are indeed trying to attract new types of buyers, but they are doing so without increasing total output. In many ways this might be more challenging for them, because they need to expand their audience whilst also maintaining some exclusivity through (relative) scarcity.
If anything, I have to say, this makes MB&F’s strategy more sophisticated than I initially gave them credit for; the idea is that this is an experimental piece which will hopefully be a gateway drug which could convert normies into tribe members - but also without diluting the brand’s core weirdness.
If it works, it will look quite clever in hindsight. If it fails, well, I will say I told you so 😂 (I really wish them every success; this is a joke, so please read it that way)
So the child actually survived?
Max Büsser’s most-repeated quote has always been “A creative adult is a child who survived” (or something along those lines). When I asked for hints regarding next year’s HM12, they said it would be “going back to MB&F roots.”
If true, this suggests the SP One isn’t quite the massive shift in creative direction I initially thought it would be; it’s more like a calculated experiment to increase accessibility for the MB&F brand. The upcoming HM12 may end up proving that the mad scientist is still very much alive and kicking.
We shall see!
On being wrong (and why it’s good)
Because the previous post was free to read, the reach was a lot higher, and several (new) readers who aren’t familiar with SDC accused me of being “too harsh” on MB&F. I don’t even agree, but the truth is that harsh(er) takes tend to get better responses than the usual BS coverage you see elsewhere. When brands know they will get honest, sometimes uncomfortable analysis, they are more likely to engage meaningfully to set the record straight (if appropriate).
My open and frank conversation with MB&F would never have happened if I’d written another puff piece about their “innovative skeleton design” or some other nonsense. You need to poke the bear to wake it up 😂
So what am I saying? Well, for starters, MB&F is a lot more thoughtful about brand strategy than I’d initially assumed. Rather than this being a panicked attempt at increasing market share, the SP One is better described as a calculated move to expand the tribe while also hoping to avoid compromising their core identity - which I maintain, is still a genuine risk.
Like I said in yesterday’s post, we will have to wait and see whether this works out for them. 60 pieces per year isn’t exactly mass market, but it is still 60 more “normal” MB&F watches than we had before. The ultimate test will be whether these new collectors graduate to ‘proper’ HM pieces or get stuck on the ‘gateway drug’.
Transparency Wins
What I love about this whole exchange is how it demonstrated the value of transparency. MB&F was able to clarify misconceptions about their strategy, collectors now get better information to make more informed decisions, and we all get to refine our understanding of how these brands actually operate.
SDC isn’t a traditional publication - the goal is to create open dialogue between collectors and brands willing to engage. Sometimes that means getting things wrong initially, but if it leads to better understanding, I think that’s a win for everyone involved.
To conclude, the SP One is absolutely an attempt to broaden MB&F’s appeal, but I now believe it’s a lot more nuanced than just outright ‘chasing volume’. If I had to come up with a one-liner: they are not necessarily abandoning their weirdness, they are just creating a ‘stepping stone’ for newcomers to reach it.
Will it work? We’ll know in a couple of years when we can determine whether SP One owners have graduated to buying proper Horological Machines or instead moved on to their next shiny trinket.
I am grateful that some brands are still willing to have real conversations about their strategies. Keep the feedback coming - whether you are a collector or a brand. Everyone benefits from dialogue… not monologue.
Have a great weekend; and Max - if you ever read this - I’m looking forward to seeing what “back to roots” means for the HM12.
No pressure lol 😂✌
Man, this felt so good. Kudos to you and MB&F for actually capturing watch marketing/reviewing as an intellectual discourse.
Instead of doubling down on being criticized, both parties did a little better for the community. That’s what it’s all about, right?
this exchange feels like the antithesis of the intellectual wasteland referenced in the first post. refreshingly reasoned discourse.