Horological Meandering

So this post is a serious discussion about something that absolutely infuriates me and I'm hoping it hews to the PuristS code of conduct and won't be removed.

Hodinkee put up for sale exclusively through their website a tweaked model of the VC Les Historiques chrono in SS. Nice watch. I read their post on Thursday when it went up. I have also read their numerous articles about various VC references over the past few months. Early in this past week they had a watch comparison article that featured the new VC Overseas 3-hander vs. 2 other manufacturers' references. It was a very positive take on the VC 3-hander. So I re-read it and there was no disclosure that there was a business relationship between Hodinkee and VC. There were no disclosures at all in other previous articles that included VC content. This is just unbelievably unethical in my opinion. It's shilling uncovered after the fact if a disclosure is not made.



(pic credit to Hodinkee website)

Now I know other Purists read Hodinkee, and have bought their recent Zenith watch, will wonder what's the big deal? You can argue that Everyone has the internet at their disposal and can make their own decisions and Hodinkee is doing a great favor for all of us with their 2-prong business model - free journalism and selling watches. Well thank you but you're missing the point. The point is it smells of commercial favoritism and with the size of Hodinkee's reach & influence, they can shift the balance for manufacturers that do business with them. You work with us and we pump up your sales. The VC watch collaboration alone will drive over $1.5M USD gross sales. That is substantial. I don't know the split between Hodinkee & VC, let's say 30/70. Wouldn't another manufacturer love to record that turnover to survive business in a downturn? How about Habring who makes a very nice vintage-inspired chrono? How about Parmigiani Fleurier? How about Breitling who is up for sale?

Anyway I'm just very disappointed by the biggest watch blog that it did not do the right thing once again. It just reinforces the belief that if you want independent and ethical watch journalism, you must search far & wide for it.


(post edited to insert correct image - Ornatus-Mundi)

This message has been edited by Ornatus-Mundi on 2017-02-13 07:16:48

In due time it will be more apparent to a wider group of readers less versed in horology.

I do think however they have an interesting role in sensing what users want more of and act as a bridge to the manufacturers who seem at times poor at sensing what consumers want. A stainless version of this is very cool I admit, however not sure why they could not have done this by themselves to begin with..?

No message body

I don't think they themselves would call them selves and independent source of journalism. They admit they are a business and they took a lot of money from investors to build the business. Again, why are we holding them to a standard to be independent when they are pretty open about not being truly independent and having business interests?

in terms of English language content, I am guessing, or in the top 2 or 3. And they provide their content free and push their content out aggressively. In turn they benefit from the pageviews that readers like you and I give them. Pageviews help them set advertising rates and contribute to the value of their business. So it is a 2-way street, Hodinkee benefits from having a large growing reader base. They have clout due to pageviews from us. And not all readers can be expected to know how Hodinkee operates. And with that influence, they need to exercise it with care and the simplest thing to do is to fully disclose when content might be biased or swayed by a pre-existing business relationship. Disclose it clearly each time and do what they want. Let the reader know up front. Simple as that.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I went from not really caring to agreeing with you.

all the power to Hodinkee to flourish in their business. they're keeping people employed and hopefully paying taxes and contributing to the economy.

I don't really understand what the big deal is about.  I don't think for a second that hodinkee is biased in a VC, Zenith or Nomos article or -- at least -- no more than any other site, blog etc. that accept advertisers.

I don't assume something nefarious from Hodinkee. Their VC watch is attractive and cheers to the 36 future owners.

But in my eyes they did not clearly show the division of editorial vs. commercial business with this VC special edition watch rollout. They released articles over the past month where VC watches were highlighted by their editorial writer Jack Forster and Jack wrote favorable & positive statements about VC watches. Then they rolled out the VC LE chrono and clearly said that it was a year long process to create. So they've been in a business relationship with VC for a year and the editorial side of the house doesn't mention it at all when an article includes a VC product. Again I am asking that they should have simply made a 1 sentence disclosure. Because not every reader has the knowledge about Hodinkee you and I do from years of reading them. And so from my perspective Hodinkee could steer potentially less informed watch buyers to VC because Hodinkee have an interest to their own bottom line and not to the objective informing watch buyers.

in my eyes it is like this: first hodinkee identifies a particular watch they like or love and then there is a collaboration. So I don't think for a second that Jack or other writes were not honest in saying what they said about this model, regardless of the collaboration. So a genuine favourable article is probably what makes a collaboration happen and not the other way around (collaboration first, exposure after).
Hodinkee features virtually every new watch (collaboration or not) so I think there is still an objective view. I am pretty sure that they would not start a collaboration with a manufacturer they don't admire making a watch they don't like themselves...
Is a bit like fratello watch. He wrote hundreds of articles about Omega Speedmaster before collaborating with Omega (but in honesty this is a bit different as all he got was 1 watch )

good thread.

I wish success for Hodinkee. I just believe they can be more forthcoming in positioning their content. Information is power and with the Swiss watch industry, it seems that every player wants to hold their cards tight and it saddens me that one of the biggest blogs in Hodinkee is not setting the example that clear fully disclosed information is the way to go.

Ablogtowatch had done a few editorials on this before as well.

This blurring of editorial and financial will continue to exist unless web consumers are prepared to pay for content.
This would be the only way to ensure media organisations stay unbiased and independent.
Until then; everything online will be tainted by commercial bias.
Hodinkee are the most successful (and egregious) but hardly alone.

but it's also because we consumers are too happy to suck it all up without making a fuss. There's no consumer affairs ombudsman for the watch industry. We should demand a little bit more.

what you like. Any blog, forum etc. will always offer a biased, individual opinion of what THEY think about that watch. Most of people will use the blog (or this forum) for ideas to be explored with your own mind (and wrist) nothing more, nothing less.

So that we can see true data. Failure rate, tested accuracy, service performance, etc.

I won't slate Ben for running a business, but everyone who reads that site needs to understand it's a dealer first, an advertising platform second, and journalism a distant third. The total evolution of the site from a blog to an online shop took place gradually but completely. He welcomed investors, took the money, and announced that sales of goods would be the future focus... understood. But a certain face-value credibility is lost when you have skin in the game and opine on business partners without immediate disclosure. All enthusiast media sometimes crosses the boundary into the realm of cheerleading, but even that isn't quite the same as talking up a paying customer in stealth mode.

in honesty some of the sponsored content of low-end watches is much more disturbing than what hodinkee does but of course this is relative.
My bottom line is that any watch blog/forum is a mere guidance. I am sure that every sensible buyer will use his own view to make a decision. Both hodinkee and ablogtowatch offer a comments session so is a very open process of debating a watch.

It's not necessarily a luxury portal. The coverage of sub-$1,000 (and even sub-$200) timepieces is part of Ariel's regular content stream, but it seems easy enough to avoid that content. Even beyond these low-end watches, there tends to be more variety on ABTW. Both of these sites now have full-time writing and editorial staffs, so they should be willing to accept content suggestions or critical feedback. Even on that count, however, I've found that the folks at ABTW respond to non-commercial advice and inquiries about content, but I've never received a response to an emailed question or comment from anyone on the Hodinkee team. Which brings me back to the OP's question... Pay to Play? Still open.
Best,
Tim

But my counter to you is that ABTW has certainly moved away from honest criticism to a safer, more relationship sensitive approach to content. Conversely, Jack F is one of the most respected editors in the business and he is hardly on auto-pilot for a shop. R

Ariel certainly has to pick his spots to launch a strong critique of a new product, but that's the watch world of the moment.
Best,
Tim

which article(s) are you specifically concerned about?

the three-on-three article from this past Monday or Tuesday. The 2016 VC Overseas 3-hander was compared to the current AP RO 3-hander and the 2016 Piaget Polo 3-hander. Jack Forster wrote the section on the VC Overseas. And Jack's perspective was plainly positive. then there was an article after SIHH where they picked the top watch from the trade show. The VC super complication was picked and they ran an article anout it.

First, I don't see Jack being involved in the creation of the LE watch and there is definitely some commercial/editorial segregation in Hodinkee, although it's perhaps not strict. 

and in my mind when there can be an appearance of bias, due care should be taken to make it known and let your reader get to his/her own informed conclusion.
there are so many simple things Hodinkee can do to maintain integrity if they put themselves in the professional journalism sphere.

As long as you know what you're reading. Ben Clymer and other members of the team have said on multiple occasions that they only write about what they like. The whole site is biased from the start, and that is the point! HODINKEE represent their own tastes, and a lot of people follow along with that or find that they have similar tastes. I for one was well and truly on that bandwagon for a while, then my tastes evolved. The point I'm making is that Hondinkee advertises, collaborates with and sells products and brands that they believe in, and I believe them when they say it. It make sense to me, what they're doing is exactly what they want, and they are going as far as they want. It's up to the consumer to interpret this.

Like anything, you're buying the seller.

Ben Clymer has said in the past that Vacheron is an under appreciated brand, so now he is elevating it because he can. He thinks its a good watch, so he is promoting it and selling it as such. He could be promoting Hublot, but he's not.

Also, good points have been made by all. I do enjoy these useful and intelligent discussions on our forum.

I'm demanding more from Hodinkee because their influence is growing stronger every year. If they continue to provide free content on the web, they just need to disclose it when the content is structured like a watch review or an impartial analysis. A 1 sentence disclosure in the article is all it takes to make it clear. "Hey this article includes information about Vacheron Constantin with whom we have an arrangement to market watches." Or they should have a paywall or a registration process that communicates the nature of their business and stop providing directly free content that can be misconstrued to be pushing a specific manufacturer.

they had a one off partnership with MB&F, Zenith, Nomos, Vacheron so a disclaimer saying they share business with these manufacturers will be incorrect. Hey guys is free content and if someone is not interest in a collaboration/doesn't trust their site anymore is not forced to read it. They are a private business so they don't owe any particular duty. I do not doubt the integrity of their writer because they run a business...the articles speak for themselves!

that whatever they say have to be bespoke to the reader. NO! They present and comment with their own judgement and opinion based on emotions but also a lot of horological facts... To me is a bit like a club too so owning a co-branded watch is nice.

So I don't personally see anything wrong. It's not like they can survive on a subscription based model. Same thing magazines and newspapers having been doing since way before the interweb was around.