Watch Brand Strategy: Genius or Mistake?

NickO · 2023-05-19T23:41:46Z

Explore the M.A.D.1 watch by Max Büsser and its impact on MB&F's brand exclusivity. Is it a branding mistake or genius? Collectors debate the luxury market.

NickO

WPS member · Horological Meandering forum

29 replies8956 views1 photos

NickO's insightful post delves into the complex branding dilemma surrounding Max Büsser's M.A.D.1 watch. He explores whether the association with the high-end MB&F brand, despite being a separate, more accessible offering, is a strategic misstep or a stroke of genius. This discussion is crucial for understanding the delicate balance between brand exclusivity and market expansion in luxury horology.

29 collectors discussing this on the WatchProSite forumJoin the Conversation →

This is the M.A.D. 1 watch from the brilliantly creative mind of Max Busser. It’s a relatively inexpensive piece launched by Max as a way of saying thank you to everyone who has contributed to his success over the years. What it is not, and I believe was clearly never intended to be, is an MB&F watch. That’s a separate brand created by Max with pieces typically six figures and up.

And yet I constantly see this watch being referred to as an MB&F.

The first question is does that matter? Well, as the owner of a few MB&F pieces that I paid $$$ for, I’m not super-thrilled with that prestigious brand being associated with such a lower priced piece. Maybe that’s a bit elitist of me, but I think Max recognized this and tried hard to keep the brands separate. It’s like if you spent $200K on an Aston Martin and then they made a $10K Aston Martin and sold tens of thousands of them, you’d probably miss your exclusivity a bit, too. That’s the reason most high-end luxury producers segment their brands and keep them distinct and apart.

However, it hasn’t worked here, as this watch is widely referred to as an MB&F. So does it matter? And if it does, does that hurt Max or help him?

I’m honestly not sure. I know as an MB&F owner, I wish the distinction was more widely respected. But I do know this piece has been tremendously successful in raising awareness for Max and his products and I think that is awesome. But exclusivity is a real thing, with value to consumers, and once lost it’s gone for good. I remember having the chat with a senior executive at Rolls Royce. They knew in great detail what the true global demand for new Rolls Royces was, and they always maintained production below that number. The key was always to maintain the prestige and mystique of the marque. And perhaps that’s my point here, in my opinion MB&F has lost a little mystique with this project. But the extend to which anyone else cares, or how it affects demand for true MB&F pieces is unknown.

So this is either a disastrous branding mistake, pure genius, or just a tempest in a tea cup that changes nothing. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the three

Key Points from the Discussion

The M.A.D.1 watch, while a brainchild of Max Büsser, is distinct from MB&F due to its use of generic, off-the-shelf movements and lack of bespoke hand-finishing, unlike the handcrafted, artistic movements found in true MB&F pieces.
The market and collectors often associate M.A.D.1 with MB&F, partly because it is Max Büsser's creation, leading to an 'IG worthy moment' that appeals to both existing MB&F collectors and new enthusiasts seeking an accessible piece from a renowned master.
Strong luxury brands can introduce lower-priced novelty products or accessories without necessarily devaluing their core high-end offerings, as seen with examples like Kurono Tokyo relative to Asaoka Pura Tourbillon, or the Moonswatch compared to Omega's Cal. 321.
From a business perspective, launching a downstream sub-brand is often a textbook strategy and generally easier than moving upstream. The M.A.D.1 project appears to be a well-executed move for a company of MB&F's estimated size.
A significant factor contributing to the brand confusion is the lack of clear separation on digital platforms, such as web searches for M.A.D.1 leading to the MB&F site, and platforms like Chrono24 listing it under MB&F.
The author reiterates that if part of a luxury product's value proposition is exclusivity, then any perceived dilution of that exclusivity, even if unintentional, can diminish its value, drawing a parallel to real estate where diminished views impacted property values.

The Discussion

vitalsigns

May 20, 2023

Ah, em... [cough] Moonswatch (although 1-2 orders of $ magnitude less).

I totally get and agree with your point. Marquee watch makers and brands are selling luxury and exclusivity. They should tread very lightly when taking on projects that could do damage to either of those selling points, whether directly or indirectly. I can't speak to the effects of this particular project, but I do see it referred to as the MB&F MAD 1 all the time. Perhaps that means there will never be a MAD 2. Cheers, John

NickO

May 20, 2023

This second brand Max set up is called M.A.D. EDITIONS

This is, logically, M.A.D. 1., the first piece from that brand. I bet over time we see more. It certainly doesn’t help that websites such as Chrono24 never set that up as a separate brand. So anyone selling this piece lists it as an MB&F. Sometimes, brands leverage this “grey area” to their advantage. In my professional career, I’ve seen many, many executives who did a two-week professional course at Harvard Business School, list it on their LinkedIn profile as if they attended Harvard. No, no,

BigFatPauli

May 20, 2023

Ummm... What? Your rant is full of self-contradiction.

You literally say: "That’s a separate brand created by Max with pieces typically six figures and up. And yet I constantly see this watch being referred to as an MB&F." So MB&F itself has separated the brands. In fact, on several occasions during interviews Max specifically says they are separate brands and goes into the details as to what the differences are in their visions. No where does the MAD 1 say "MB&F". You're blaming MB&F (or perhaps even Max himself) for what other people say on the in

NickO

May 20, 2023

I appreciate your passion!

My “rant” as you say, was definitely not intended to blame anyone for anything. Yes, they are two separate brands that are often associated together. My post was simply to provoke thought on what are the consequences, if any, of that? And if I missed the mark…… well, won’t be the first time……

patrick_y

May 20, 2023

NickO, it was very provoking! And you brought up a good point.

And I can totally see where you're coming from. Yes, MB&F is definitely at that "Aston Martin" level in the watch world. A solid analogy. And yes, I can understand Aston Martin owners being upset. All I can say is, if that $10K Aston Martin has a growling V8 and all the trimmings, I would agree, the superiority of my Aston Martin (if I owned one) would be threatened. But considering the M.A.D. watch is SO VERY MUCH NOT AN MB&F - not even close, I think you're safe. At least not among ser

NickO

May 20, 2023

Patrick, you’re always the man 😀

What’s the deal with the Cygnet? I’ll have to go do some research, but that is so far off the ranch. What was Aston Martin thinking, and did it have any long-term affects on the Aston Martin brand? Just, at first glance, that was crazy…..

Available on the marketplace

MB&F M.A.D. 1S Editions Ice Blue Unisex Watch

13,500 USD

Pre-owned - Excellent · AE

View all MB&F on the marketplace →

Continue the conversation

This thread is active on the Horological Meandering forum with 29 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.

Join the Discussion →

Key Points from the Discussion

Available on the marketplace

Continue the conversation

Related Articles