SDC Weekly 73; Influencer Economics, Media Integrity & How Watches Open Doors
Greubel’s Latest Party Trick, Rolex UK Squeezing Small ADs, Rolex Patent, Watchbox Leaving Dubai, AP’s YouTube Gamble, Sotheby’s Middle Eastern Lifeline, a Missing $13 Billion Hermès Fortune and more!
🚨 Welcome to SDC Weekly 73; Yes, it’s early. You’re welcome 😁 Estimated reading time: ~40 mins
This week, we dive deep into the economics of watch influencing through candid conversations with Justin Hast, Tom Exton, and Andrew Morgan. Given their generous contribution of time and insights, I’ve led with this section making it free for all readers. We’ll also explore how watches function as social access tokens, examine Greubel Forsey’s latest technical achievement, unpack Rolex UK’s squeeze on small dealers, and unpick AP’s controversial YouTube strategy. Plus, we’ll discuss Watchbox’s latest moves in the Middle East as well as the mysterious case of a vanishing $13 billion Hermès fortune.
If you’re new here, welcome! Feel free to catch up on the older editions of SDC Weekly here.
Influencer Economics & Media Integrity
Well, this should be fun :)
The watch industry’s relationship with social media has evolved dramatically over the past decade. From early Instagram wrist shots to today’s highly produced YouTube content, the landscape has shifted significantly. Traditional marketing channels - print magazines, dealer networks, and trade shows - have had to adapt to a world where a single influencer’s recommendation can move more merchandise than months of conventional advertising.
The broader marketing landscape actually tells a more nuanced story. According to recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) research, social media investments have actually declined to their lowest level in seven years, with spending dropping from 17% to 11% of marketing budgets between 2023 and 2024. They attribute this decline to various factors including content fatigue, attribution challenges, and the emergence of retail media as a competing channel.
Contrast this with another recent report, which suggests 60% of marketers plan to spend more on influencer marketing campaigns in 2024. Sprout Social seems to think social media now serves as a primary engagement channel for consumer brands, with Instagram and TikTok becoming essential for high-engagement video content and influencer marketing, especially among younger demographics.
I am inclined to believe the HBR conclusions over Sprout (due to what I perceive to be obvious conflicts of interest) - but, who am I to judge. I haven’t analysed any data myself.
Yet, watch influencers such as today’s interviewees, operate in what I think is a unique space that transcends traditional social media marketing. Their work spans multiple channels - from YouTube content creation to consulting services, event hosting, and direct brand relationships. This hybrid approach might explain why they have maintained relevance even as broader social media marketing appears to be facing headwinds.
A couple of weeks ago I posted an Instagram story asking how influencer marketing really works:
The response was overwhelming. Collectors were extremely curious about the logic behind the content they consume. Rather than speculate, I reached out to three distinct voices in the watch media landscape...
—
Justin Hast - find him here
A fellow South African whose path I have yet to cross in person, despite numerous near-misses over the years. Justin brings an infectious energy to an industry often criticised for its stuffiness. His genuine passion for watches radiates through everything he does, whether it’s consulting for luxury brands or creating engaging content. Over nearly a decade, he’s evolved from enthusiast to respected industry insider, yet managed to maintain the spark of authentic excitement which first drew him to watches.
Tom Exton (TGE) - find him here
A prolific content creator who’s built an impressive following across automotive and watch spheres. Tom is usually the first to poke fun at himself, which ends up being a trait that makes him surprisingly relatable despite his success. Tom says he’s been collecting watches for nearly 20 years. While he’s generally open about the commercial aspects of his work in private conversation, his appreciation for watches is evident to anyone who knows him personally. He’s a hustler in the best sense of the word - hardworking, strategic, and unapologetically ambitious.
Andrew Morgan - find him here
Andrew sounds like the quintessential British gentleman, which was possibly the sole reason for Watchfinder’s YouTube channel growing into industry’s leading source of video reviews during his tenure - and what gave him the legendary ‘talking hands’ nickname. Some might say he has one of the most respected voices in watch media. I’d agree. As an accomplished author, his YouTube scripts are small masterpieces of wit and technical precision. While others might wing it, Andrew crafts each video with the care of a watchmaker assembling a movement. His thoughtful approach and genuine desire to add value to the community have earned him both viewers’ trust and industry respect.
—
Each represents a different approach to content creation, and their combined insights offer a glimpse into what feels like an area of modern watch marketing that tends to be shrouded in mystery.
The Money Side
The financial mechanics of watch promotion vary dramatically, and reveal how the industry has evolved beyond simple paid posts. Each of our interviewees has developed a distinct approach to monetisation, which speaks to broader changes in how watch brands allocate their marketing budgets.
Justin’s model focuses primarily on long-term consulting relationships:
The majority of my work and income is through consulting with brands not in actual fact paid posts per se. More often than not though I do get asked to produce video content that has evolved over the years; it started with just images and and in recent times it has been predominantly video content which I will host.
His projects typically range from £5,000 to £15,000, but as he explains:
When it comes to my audience in particular I don’t see myself as an “influencer” in the traditional sense - I would like to think I’m viewed more as an expert and a tastemaker.
Tom Exton takes a more diversified approach, rejecting standard rate cards in favour of bespoke arrangements. “One size definitely doesn’t fit all!” he emphasises. His pricing strategy is refreshingly transparent:
Generally also, the less you want to work with a brand and the more intrusive/unpopular the campaign - the higher the price.
Andrew Morgan’s approach stands in stark contrast:
I don’t charge watch brands for features on my channel. They’re welcome to compensate me after I’ve promoted their watch if it does well for them, but I don’t ask for it. I like to pick watches I like. How I get compensated is through YouTube's native ad revenue, and by working with brands on consultation and media production.
Brand Relationships
The relationship between influencers and brands obviously requires careful navigation. All three emphasise the importance of maintaining independence while fostering productive partnerships.
Justin describes a gradual evolution:
I should say now that in fact I’ve got absolutely no professional qualifications to condone working as an editor or photographer or filmmaker or presenter or consultant … it really is all as a result of my core interest in watches.
Tom’s approach focuses on clear deliverables:
If they’re paying they get the final say - we create according to a brief they’ve either pitched to us, or we’ve pitched to them & agreed - but they have final sign off.
Andrew maintains stricter boundaries:
I turn down all watch brand sponsorships on my channel. I have turned down all but one watch collaboration so far. It is very important for me to add value to the community and not take it.
Content Creation vs Control
The mechanics of content creation reveal clear differences in approach, particularly regarding editorial control and brand involvement.
Justin emphasises authenticity in presentation:
When you’ve been asked to be there for a reason they want you because they want you - and as a result you need to ensure that you bring your own secret sauce or energy, and don’t allow for the script to override that.
Tom’s framework is more structured, particularly for paid content:
Everything has to be pre approved word for word if it’s a paid campaign. But if they’re not paying, they get what they get.
This binary approach helps maintain clear boundaries between commercial and editorial content.
Andrew’s model seems to reflect his broader ambitions:
My passion and the commercial side are intrinsically self-sustaining because I am in the fortunate position where I can work on what I want, how I want. I won’t work on anything I don’t want to; and I won’t do anything I don’t want to. It’s a big, big dream, but my goal is to have a JC Biver-like impact on modern watchmaking.
Authenticity
Perhaps no topic generates more discussion than authenticity in watch promotion. The challenge of maintaining credibility while operating in a commercial space is something each of these lads approaches differently.
Justin addresses this head-on:
I’ve always believed that you should look to add value without asking for anything back and I think looking back, it was where I had an opportunity to build relationships and trust. I can vividly remember for many years doing work for nothing and at times not even being able to pay for the train ticket into London to go and shoot watches - for free - for a brand.
Tom takes a pragmatic view that might surprise some:
Hard thing to do, especially when to some ‘non watch people’ it just looks like you’re flexing. Half of my audience are car lovers and don’t always understand the watch thing, so I can’t delve too deep for too long or I risk losing a large chunk of their interest.
He adds an interesting observation: “That said the more casual watch observer is often a better bet for brands - the hardened watch geek is less susceptible to having their opinions changed.”
Pretty valid point, in my view - and might explain the AP Youtube Gamble we cover later on.
Andrew’s perspective is more absolutist:
Authenticity is my ability to enjoy what I do and it not become a job. If I lack authenticity, my viewers will leave, and my opportunities to work with brands I truly love will dry up. It’s self regulating in a way.
Market Changes & Adaptation
The watch industry’s recent cooling has affected marketing strategies. According to recent data from the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, marketing budgets have seen significant pressure as exports declined 5.8% in the first half of 2024.
Justin notes the evolution:
Over the years we’ve seen brands become media outlets and media outlets become brands retailing more and more watches by the month. But we’ve also gone through a number of cycles in the last decade from the lows of 2008 where brands were destroying stock to maintain brand equity to the highs of 2020 in the pandemic.
Tom observes shifts in brand approach:
Marketing budgets are always the first thing to get hit - and I have seen a slightly less relaxed attitude to marketing spend. But not hugely so. It is so important in this space, it’s not just a ‘nice to have’ like in some spheres.
Andrew offers a contrarian view:
My understanding is more watches are being sold than ever, just at more competitive prices. That makes the consultation side more interesting, helping brands understand what’s important and what’s not.
Content Creation & Control
A fascinating aspect of brand relationships is how each creator manages video content approval.
Tom explains his binary approach:
If they’re paying they get the final say - we create according to a brief they've either pitched to us, or we've pitched to them & agreed - but they have final sign off.
Andrew’s process reflects his independence:
Brand adjacent partners we work with can choose to see the video and make comments before publication, although I specify in the contract that I have final say. Only one has actually asked to see.
Justin’s approach focuses on relationship building:
I’ve been fortunate enough to do a fair few talking gigs for brands and retailers over the years and I thoroughly enjoy it but I do think it’s an art form as is the interview and the more you can do the better you get at it.
Metrics, Growth & Future Vision
The approach to measuring success varies significantly among our three influencers, revealing different philosophies about value creation in watch media.
Justin emphasises quality over quantity:
When it comes to engagement and metrics you’re absolutely aware of the importance of maximising these. But in truth it’s very difficult to know what maximising actually looks like because each and every profile and audience is very different. I like to consider the quality of content i.e. the film production level quality of images or quality of insight and inspiration more so than I do the [content] impressions.
His business goals are fairly transparent:
It is a lifestyle business for me... I appreciate there isn’t any IP as such but my goal is for it to be a £500,000 business a year with a network of partners to lean on and a variety of different revenue streams - which I believe it can be.
Tom takes a more data-driven approach to proving value:
I have a drive full of screenshots showing purchase conversions across all the spheres my audience are interested in; automotive, horology, travel, fashion, tech etc. I think what’s different with what I do, to some in the ‘influencer’ space is that I put my money where my mouth is on the things I love.
Andrew’s vision extends beyond mere metrics:
It is a big, big dream, but my goal is to have a J.C. Biver-like impact on modern watchmaking... If I lack authenticity, my viewers will leave, and my opportunities to work with brands I truly love will dry up. It’s self regulating in a way.
Little does he know, Biver’s main game is ‘invisibility’ so it feels like his ambitions are, perhaps, misguided 😂
AI Threat?
With artificial intelligence reshaping digital content creation, I asked each influencer about its impact on their work.
Justin’s response is characteristically human-centric:
Someone a lot wiser than I once said that people will compete with you on a bunch of things but one thing they can’t beat you at is being more of you.
Tom sees practical applications:
It’s been fab for editing tools like captions on short form content - but replacing human opinion, interaction and my collecting journey can’t really be replaced.
Andrew takes a measured approach:
My production process is pretty well optimised, so although I test tools all the time, I’m yet to find anything that doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.
Advice for Aspiring Content Creators
I wasn’t sure this was worth asking, but enough people were curious, so I did.
Justin emphasises authenticity and persistence:
My advice really now to anyone coming in is don’t think about it too much, just do what feels right, take action, and look to add value where possible. My genuine sense is that it’s a wonderful industry with a great deal of passion and it’s not a zero sum game; there’s always opportunity for us all out there in different ways.
Tom focuses on practicality:
Simple content does the best - twiddling a watch around, that is in focus and lit well, with a voice over and captions on the screen, is pretty much all you need. People will smell BS though; if you’re just doing it for clout and know nothing, or don’t care about the subject. Passion and authenticity are the secret sauce.
Andrew unsurprisingly cuts to the heart of content creation:
Be observant. Understand what people like. This isn’t about you, it’s about them.
What Can We Take Away?
Last year I wrote about the state of watch journalism, highlighting; “the cry of ‘we can’t bite the hand that feeds us’ is an unbelievably lazy belief.” These conversations with Justin, Tom, and Andrew have both validated and complicated that view. While the fundamental problem remains - an industry allergic to criticism and riddled with conflicts of interest - the reality is more nuanced than I initially portrayed.
Charlie Munger once said, “Show me the incentives, and I will show you the outcome.” In watch media, the incentives are crystal clear - maintain positive relationships with brands or risk losing access, advertising revenue, and ‘partnership opportunities.’
Consider Wei Koh’s effusive praise for literally anything with a dial and hands, or Monochrome’s recent claim that the Cubitus is more original than the Nautilus. These aren’t just opinions - they are symptoms of a system where critical discourse has been replaced by marketing copy, masquerading as journalism.
Our three interviewees offer contrasting approaches to this challenge. Andrew’s stance is perhaps the most radical:
“I don’t charge brands for features on my channel. They’re welcome to compensate me after I’ve promoted their watch if it does well for them, but I don’t ask for it.”
This approach - at least at face value - preserves editorial independence, but it is a luxury afforded by his successful YouTube monetisation and consulting work. It also ignores our natural human tendency of reciprocity. Is one more, or less, likely to say bad things about a brand they have a good relationship with? I have no doubt Andrew’s ethics are in order, but there is an inherent bias which will be present in any watch media personality given their relationship with a brand.
Justin has carved out a different path, focusing on long-term consulting relationships rather than regular ‘transactional’ promotions. He explains: “I’ve been fortunate enough to do a fair few talking gigs for brands and retailers over the years” which he balances with his emphasis on authenticity and value creation. Again, I suppose YMMV, but given, for example, Justin has managed to forge a strong relationship with Richemont brands (Lange, Vacheron), I would not go to his channel to hear critical feedback about these brands. That’s totally fine, and I absolutely appreciate the position he’s in. What we need in this case, is transparent disclosures from all influencers.
Tom’s model is perhaps the most commercially pragmatic: “Just because I wouldn’t wear something doesn’t mean it is awful.” His transparency about pricing - charging more for brands he’s less enthusiastic about - is an interesting compromise between commercial reality and personal integrity.
The one area I disagree with Tom, is that he’s being followed for his opinion. So while I do agree with his sentiment that something he doesn’t personally like, can still be a decent product - that’s not what people who follow him care about! In that regard, therefore, this is a grey area for me.
Brands’ Blind Spots
What is particularly fascinating is how brands seem to misunderstand their own best interests. Back in Edition 56, I noted how “reporting facts is never slander, and watch media should stop choosing the easy road.” Yet here we are, with brands still punishing honest feedback and rewarding sycophancy.
Remember when Revolution Magazine was essentially acting as Massena Lab’s marketing department during the Uni-Racer launch? Or when major publications remained conspicuously silent about the Omega auction controversy that Perezcope exposed? These aren’t isolated incidents - they are ghastly symptoms of a systemic problem.
The irony is that this system ultimately hurts the brands themselves. As I wrote:
“…watch journalists who feel hamstrung by this conflict of interest between honesty and the annoyance of their clients, have difficulty accepting the idea that they’re marketers instead of journalists.”
When every new release is ‘revolutionary’, every collaboration is ‘groundbreaking’, and every design is ‘iconic’, we create a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario. Readers become cynical, trust is eroded, and genuine innovations struggle to stand out from the marketing noise.
Take the recent Cubitus launch. Instead of thoughtful analysis about its place in Patek’s lineage or honest discussion about its design merits and flaws, we got a cascade of carefully worded enthusiasm from major publications. As Tom candidly noted: “If they're paying they get the final say.” This dynamic explains why finding genuine criticism of major brands has become as rare as a steel Nautilus at retail.
Imagine running a restaurant where critics were banned for giving anything less than five-star reviews. Absurd, right? Yet, it feels like this is essentially how the watch industry operates. As Andrew Morgan said: “I turn down all watch brand sponsorships on my channel... It is very important for me to add value to the community and not take it.” This sort of principled stance represents what the industry needs, but rarely gets.
The current system has created what we might call the “Emperor’s New Watch” syndrome - where everyone pretends every new release is brilliant because their livelihood depends on maintaining the illusion. The result is daft. Brands become increasingly detached from genuine market feedback, mistaking marketing compliance for actual success.
A Path Forward?
Remember Munger’s wisdom about incentives? Let’s look at the current structure:
Media outlets need advertising revenue to survive
Editors need access to new releases and industry events
Influencers need relationships with brands for content
Brand executives need positive press for their bonuses
Everyone needs to maintain their position in the ecosystem
As Tom candidly pointed out: “Generally also, the less you want to work with a brand and the more intrusive/unpopular the campaign - the higher the price.” This reveals how the system actually ‘prices in’ compromise.
The MKBHD Model
I have used this example before, but one more time won’t hurt. There is, in fact, a better way. Consider Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) in the tech world - a creator who has built an empire on honest, unvarnished reviews. Brands respect him precisely because he is willing to criticise them. His audience trusts him because they know he will never just be reading from a press release.
Justin touches on this when he says:
“I should say from the outset that the majority of my work and income is through consulting with brands not in actual facts paid posts.”
By diversifying revenue streams and building genuine expertise, content creators can maintain independence while still making a living. The difference between Justin and MKBHD, is that Justin still ‘relies’ on the brands he consults and has access to, so complete independence is perhaps impossible for him right now. That isn’t a problem in and of itself, we just need to be crystal clear about incentives and alignment.
The solution could lie in what Justin describes as his approach:
“I’ve always believed that you should look to add value without asking for anything back.”
Combining this philosophy with diversified revenue streams and genuine expertise, could provide a template for more independent, honest voices.
As for this ‘diversification’ - it would help if it didn’t come with more conflicts of interest. The obvious answer is to seek sponsorship outside the watch industry; Perhaps jewellery companies, accessories, insurance, even luxury cars. Such brands would never directly feature as subjects of reviews and criticism, but the target audience overlap might be a good fit. MKBHD reviews ‘tech in general’ and gets sponsored by tech-adjacent companies like DBrand and 8 Sleep, to name a couple.
Off the top of my head, brands could also establish formal feedback channels which reward constructive criticism, or they could host “Watchfam design competitions” hosted by our 3 influencers, or there could be an influencer-driven annual ‘GPHW’ (GPHG but for Watchfam)! (Add your ideas in the comments!)
Above all, the industry - and perhaps influencers themselves - should develop standards for disclosure and transparency. If influencers work with a brand in any capacity, it would go a long way for them to have a disclosures page stating this is the case. People are then free to ‘overweight’ or ‘underweight’ the influencer feedback on these brands accordingly.
This is not to say influencers would not happily be transparent when asked - the above interview responses prove this point - I just think it would be cleaner if it was openly declared without having to ask. Some have NDAs in place too - what for? Nobody is asking for commercial details, just a simple disclosure of a potential conflict of interest.
Let the people decide for themselves, if they want to trust you after that. The mere fact that it is not disclosed openly for all to see, is an indication that this is a conflict of interest, even if not malicious!
The Real Cost
The current system’s greatest casualty isn’t just truth - it is trust. When every review reads like a press release, when every piece of ‘hands-on’ content feels sponsored, we lose something valuable: genuine dialogue about watches and watchmaking.
As I wrote previously about watch journalism: “If big watch media really wanted to, they could simply form an industry alliance of standards, and take a fcking stand.” The same applies to influencer marketing. Until then, we’re stuck in a cycle where, as Andrew Morgan puts it: “This isn’t about you, it’s about them.” - the real ‘them’ being, the brands, instead of the consumers. (That’s not what Andrew meant, of course)
Perhaps the most telling insight comes from watching how our three interviewees navigate these waters. Each has found a different way to maintain some measure of independence while building sustainable businesses. Their success suggests there is indeed room for honest voices - if you’re willing to work for it.
The watch industry deserves better than an echo chamber of uncritical praise. It deserves what every great art form needs: informed, honest criticism that celebrates excellence while acknowledging imperfection. Until we fix the broken incentives that reward compliance over candour, we will continue getting the watch media we incentivise, not the watch media we need.
Conclusion
To brands: Stop punishing honest feedback. Your products aren’t improved by sycophancy, and your long-term brand value isn’t enhanced by an echo chamber of praise. Consider establishing formal channels for constructive criticism and rewarding those who provide it.
To media outlets: Your credibility is your most valuable asset. Once lost, no amount of exclusive access or advertising revenue can restore it. Consider diversifying revenue streams beyond watch brand advertising - your readers buy more than just watches.
To influencers: Transparency isn’t just ethical, it is good business. Your audience’s trust is worth more than any brand partnership. Consider creating public disclosure pages listing your commercial relationships and potential conflicts of interest.
To readers: Vote with your attention. Support creators who maintain their independence and integrity. Question content which reads like marketing copy. Demand better.
The watch industry deserves media coverage as sophisticated and nuanced as the products it celebrates. We can all play a part in making that happen.
Leave a comment (or reply to this email) if you’ve had experiences with watch promotion - positive or negative. I’m particularly interested in hearing about encounters which changed your perception of a brand or influencer - for better or for worse.
—
Before we go, I’d like to thank Andrew, Justin and Tom for their candour, as well as their time spent replying to my questions - I appreciate you, and wish you all the best!
🎈 Small stuff
Greubel’s Latest Party Trick
Just when you thought the watch world couldn’t get more absurd, Greubel Forsey celebrates their 20th anniversary with a watch smaller than a Cubitus1. Their new Nano Foudroyante EWT comes in at a surprisingly wearable 37.9mm x 10.49mm - so, not quite the size of your mum’s Datejust, but you get the idea.
The spec sheet reads like a watchmaker’s fever dream: first-ever flying tourbillon, first chronograph (a monopusher flyback, naturally), and a foudroyante which splits each second into six parts. All this in a case that wouldn’t, look out of place next to ‘normal’ watches - arguably another Greubel-first.
Of course, being Greubel, they've thrown in enough technical wizardry to make people feel dumb. The foudroyante is directly driven by the tourbillon cage - like connecting your Ferrari's rev counter directly to the crankshaft. The tourbillon assembly alone contains 142 components, which is basically an entire watch movement for some brands. They've even managed to keep the foudroyante sub-dial perfectly oriented while it spins around on the tourbillon cage - a party trick that probably took more engineering than their shareholders budgeted for.
Speaking of engineering, they claim this setup uses about half the energy of traditional systems, measuring consumption in 'nanojoules' because apparently, microjoules are too mainstream now. The nano-foudroyante supposedly takes up 90% less space than a conventional one, though it’s still large enough to handle with tweezers - so perhaps ‘nano’ is a bit of marketing stretch, though SJX says ‘nano’ is in reference to the energy consumption.
It’ll set you back a mere CHF 465,000, before tax of course. Only 11 pieces will be made, which means you’ll probably have better luck spotting a unicorn than seeing one in the wild. Then again, when was the last time you saw any Greubel in the wild? Despite doubling production in 2022, they’re about as common as an intelligent Lange owner.
This release feels like Greubel remembering what made them great in the first place - pure, unadulterated mechanical madness draped in impeccable finishing. Whether it’s enough to pull attention back from the hype-driven market remains to be seen. But for the 11 collectors who manage to snag one, they’ll own what is certainly among the most technically impressive watches of 2024 (the IWC Eternal Calendar is right up there for me, btw).
For what its worth, my initial reaction on aesthetics - before considering the complexity and engineering behind the piece - was how sparse the top half of the dial is, and how mundane the ‘Greubel Forsey’ text looks. It isn’t ghastly, but it was a mild gripe.
That said, however, it is always good to see new inventions, so this is a win for watchmaking as far as I’m concerned. To quote Jack Forster:
“…as a decades-long fan of watchmaking that doesn’t ask Why, but instead asks WHY NOT? I’m glad it exists at all.”
Fully agreed.
What’s your take?
Rolex UK - New Terms Squeezing Small ADs
Some interesting changes are afoot in how Rolex UK manages its authorised dealer network. Changes that might just reveal a broader strategy at play.
The crown has reportedly shifted all UK ADs to 7-day payment terms, down from the previous 30-day arrangement. While this might seem like a minor administrative change, it creates significant cash flow pressures for smaller dealers.
Adding to the squeeze, Rolex has also modified its delivery system. Gone are the days of next-day delivery following invoice. The new process involves invoice, payment, and then a 3-7 day wait for delivery. “You can’t pick delivery speed, you take what they give you,” notes someone who wished to remain anonymous.
This logistical change initially appears to be driven by cost-saving measures. With approximately 82 stores across the UK requiring high-security, high-value deliveries, consolidating routes makes financial sense for Rolex. But for me, the timing of the change is the most interesting part - especially following the Bucherer acquisition.
The old system allowed ADs some breathing room: receive stock, sell the popular pieces quickly, and use that revenue to pay invoices within the 30-day window. The new arrangement demands immediate capital commitment - something not all dealers can manage comfortably. Rolex might be saving money, but do they even need to do this?
Reading between the lines, these changes feel less like simple adjustments motivated by operational/financial goals, and more like a deliberate strategy. With Bucherer now in their arsenal, Rolex may be using these tighter terms and slower logistics to naturally thin out their AD network - particularly smaller players with weaker cash positions.
“The 7-day terms likely came about because some stores were not paying on time,” suggests another industry insider. Perhaps"! Or perhaps it is just a convenient excuse to accelerate a broader retail strategy which gets rid of the ‘riff raff’ in the AD network.
Let me know if your local AD has mentioned any changes in their Rolex relationship. I’m particularly interested in hearing about similar shifts in other markets, so please ask your AD when you visit them 😉
Watchbox is Leaving Dubai
Remember when WatchBox merged with Govberg, Radcliffe, and Hyde Park Jewellers to form The 1916 Company last November? The deal was positioned as creating “the leading global destination and community for fine watches” - and now, just under a year later, we might be seeing the first signs of consolidation.