Horological Meandering

Thanks for the Borg analogy, Ed. I have posted separately some related social psychology concepts on group interactions.

 

On the one hand, the various Fora bring to our attention watches that we may not have otherwise considered, but on the other they may guide us down a path to a watch that is unsuitable for us. The first scenario happens more frequently than the latter, but we need to be cognisant of the risk.

 

You also touch on how ‘filtered’ peoples comments are on public Fora. I think there is a somewhat different ‘tone’ when communicating here versus face-to-face with a ‘watch colleague’. This may be partly due to the non-verbal cues that facilitate more open communication. The internet is fun and a wonderful tool, but it still doesn’t replace corporeal connections. I wonder what will come next with Internet 2.0 to enhance such interactions.

 

Andrew

w/ passion.  And there have been reviews in the past by community members that are "cold" and seem just like a paid advertisement for the watch.  And cause of the latter, it is great that we had the topic of disclosure not too long ago.

A review in any media format where the author has worn the watch on the wrist for at least a week or 2 has much more credibility for me as a consumer.  And you can tell if the author in a magazine review has had any personal experience with the watch.  A lof of the time it is just the usual press release regurgitation IMO.

And regarding reviews by the PPro mod team, to further expand what Daos already said above, practically almost all the watches reviewed are either owned by the reviewer or have been requested by the mod for review.  Our new disclosures will disclose any relevant info.

Also, any mod who has been "bought" or writing false reviews will be subject to ejection from the PPro team.

Cheers,
Anthony

Whether the watch belongs to the writer (who is pure or independent or bribed or bought or otherwise) or on loan.

The only difference is the degree of biasness.

Regards

Ling

 

Yep, I am convinced, you are right: We are not smarter or more immune to marketing strategies than the medical doctors!
Even if we think to be independant in our watch buying decisions, we may decieve ourselves. I think, anybody here would consent to the statement, that we never buy a watch for pure rational arguments alone. Our choice of words reveals that: watches "speak" to us, we "fall in love" and feel a "passion" for them. Please note: there is a percentage of more than 95% of male participants here and our choice of words is completely different than usual when we talk about watches. Probably we would be much more reserved when commenting on our wifes or girl friends !

We are instantaneously ready to admit, we actually do not even really need them (the watches and their complications, that we nevertheless buy) - so there is no point in saying we would be guided by reasoning. I dare to affirm, the opposite is more true: we mostly buy our watches on an irrational basis!
Of course, I can hear your (and my) protest: "No, it´s our fascination for craftmanship, technical brilliance and horological finesse, for design perfection".
And yet, having a perfect thing available is no rational argument to buy it, it is an aesthetical perception and horology is concieved more as an art than an industry, at least it works for me that way.
Pure rarional reasing would ask: Do I really need it? For what purpose? Can I achieve the same goal by cheaper means? Is it a good investment of money and time? (Folks, time is money, we always hear - be honest, this lovely website is a big time killer and our browsing here in no way effective in the sense, that we would make money, just more fun. On the contrary, spending time here, makes me want to buy even more watches!)

So there is a broad field of unexplained motivations and feelings - and this to my mind is where advertising comes into play suggesting us an "image" of watches that we subconsciously absorb and that mingles with our aesthetical, technical and design perception.

Well, in the end it is tough to understand oneself, but as far as I am concerned, I can support the afore mentioned points. I am clearly a fairly logical person in many aspects of life, but when it comes to watches, I am not. That does not mean, I become completely crazy, but I am well aware, that my watch passion does not stand the test of logical reasoning. This, I strongly believe from my knowledge of other forumner´s posts, not only applies to me !

Watch reviews of respected and knowledgable moderators and other experts definitely has a positive influence on my buying decisions, much more than George Clooney or Cindy Crawford will have. But again, I think, this forum constitutes a clear minority of watch buying customers which buy watches on different grounds than the "ordinary public".

I would not affirm a "herd reflex" for myself: if I do not like a watch, many enthusiastic posts here will not make me feel otherwise. I observed that with the Lange Zeitwerk, which I did not come to like more in the course of its discussion. Or the Panerai´s are just not up my alley.

So far my avowal concerning watch buying and the possible influence from other parties on it.

Best regards,

anaesdoc

Dear Anaesdoc,

 

Excellent contribution to the discussion plus a few topics for new threads!

 

Watches are an interesting emotional outlet for a predominantly male audience and many may well be more comfortable describing their emotional connection to a mechanical watch than to other areas of their lives.

 

I assume that most of us think that our watches say ‘something’ about us, our tastes, lifestyles, aspirations, interests, etc. At least some of these cues must be picked up from how others ‘see’ (describe) these watches, and how 'advertising' (at all levels) presents these watches to us.

 

Thanks again.

 

Andrew

Hi, Andrew,

I look at celebrity endorsements like I do about government fees - I have never used fire department services, rarely use police services, the roads around here suck, but I understand that collectively, these services are needed. And so I pay my fees.

Celebrity endorsements add to the cost I pay for a piece from a  particular brand (the endorsement fee has to be amortized somehow) and I either like the piece enough to pay the "celebrity tax" or I don't buy it.

Unfortunately, seldom is one able to unbundle parts of a product, hard or soft value added, that one dislikes or doesn't care about. (I've got some Canon 1D pro bodies and a Leica DMR where I've gone into, what, 20% of its feature set?)

What we have to be careful about in "our" discussions, though, is to draw conclusions beyond what is fair to do so.

We are a specific and distinct "demographic" but no "better" or "worse," "superior" or "inferior" to any other. (everyone wants to think they are special and all others are uncouth, uninitiated, what have you)

From a businessman's perspective, they want a buyer base that maximises profit and minimizes costs. The costs of educating, or bantering over the display counter, or having a "purist" poring over the piece they are THINKING about buying, with a 12x loupe, in the store (only to, after 2 hours and 25 visits, decide "it is not perfect enough, there is an imperfection in the anglage right there near the balance cock, see?" and not complete the purchase) is one sort of cost to them, as often as not a "waste of time," no different than spending money paying a celebrity to wear their watch for glamour shots, so that the celebrities' little fan boys and fan girls follow, unquestioningly.

Which do you think is a bigger, more profitable market for a brand? (answer: depends on the brand. And of course, the owner/management have their own biases and priorities; some "prefer" a connoisseur customer base, others a more "trendy, fashionable" one. Some don't care, as long as the buyer's money is real and going to be spent on their product.)

About "peer" endorsements - BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS.

Daos has captured the original PuristS philosophy, as I originally conceived it, perfectly. BUT...

Ling has voiced the inherent caveat - everyone; EVERYONE - has their own biases. This is a fact of human nature. All we can do, as readers and fellow enthusiasts, is try to suss out what those biases are, and decide if they coincide, consistently, with our own preferences and biases.

Some buy Robert Parker 100 point wines.

Someone else prefers to buy Robert Parker 80 point wines.

Both are Parker disciples, one is just inversely correlated to Parkers wine tastes.

Which is not a bad thing, if the reader maintains their own mind and taste about wines.

Now, journalistic ethic, integrity, and "passion" is a whole 'nother matter...

TM

my comments about fire, police, DOT, etc - were made with all due respect. Police, fire departments, EMT, DOT, social infrastructures are to be respected, they provide a valuable service. I hope no one misunderstood my comments.

TM

Thanks Thomas,

 

All interesting points.

 

“…everyone wants to think they are special and all others are uncouth, uninitiated ….”

 

Most of us consider ourselves at the centre of normality. Not sure who said this but there is a driving analogy that I quite like. We are usually comfortable travelling at ‘our’ speed and anyone travelling slower who gets in our way is a moron and anyone travelling faster than us is an idiot.

 

We do have our own biases, or to put a more positive spin on it, our own priorities. There are many Purists whose opinions I value, but this has partly come from familiarity with their personalities (at least what they project here) and disclosure of their own priorities.

 

Andrew

As you know well, Andrew, but for the benefit of others who may not, Keith Jarrett  is a remarkable pianist /composer, equally well known over the last few decades for his avant-garde jazz compositions as for his stylish take on jazz standards and the classics. He is also (and has been for some time, apparently) a watch connoisseur. [Keith, are you out there? Keith?....]

It seemed so 'right' that Francois-Paul Journe should have Keith Jarrett's endorsement: both are avant-garde, both are highly competent, both are innovative. This is from FPJ's 2002 catalogue:

 

 

Did the endorsement alone inspire a purchase?

No, it did not.

Did it pique an interest, and inspire further enquiry?

Being perfectly frank? Yes, it did (although an article of like kind by George Clooney or Cindy Crawford certainly would not have done so!).

Did that further enquiry lead to a purchase?

Eventually, yes:

 

 

Perhaps, then, the value in 'celebrity' endorsements is not a 'first phase' or immediate connection with a potential purchaser, but a second or even third phase effect - the sowing of a seed, left to germinate and grow if it will. You'd want to pick the right celebrity, though: anyone for O.J.'s Rolex?

;-)

 

Cheers,

pplater.

Hi pplater,

 

Thanks for this contribution and the great photo. You know my love and respect for Jarrett’s work (and interestingly 2009 has been the year that I reconnected with his early recordings).

 

This proves again that the key is finding the right celebrity to make the connection. The endorsement itself may not seem significant, but it may just be the little push that makes us look twice at a watch.

 

Andrew

 

Ps. I wonder what watch Bach would wear? I think the Resonance would be a perfect fit as well.

.... he was clearly one cool dude -

 

 

;-)

 

Cheers,

pplater.

[image credit embedded in URL of pic]

JS Bach, were he alive today, would be wearing a Jacob & Co, while laying down grooves at the hippest clubs in Lagos, Shenzhen and Cali.

Why a Jacob & Co? Five time zones, all in the same piece.

Cheers
Tony P

When I think of Bach's music I relate more to the ordered mathematical side. That's what made me consider the Resonance as appropriate. There was, however, a theatrical component to some of his music.

Actually you have given me an idea for another music-horology crossover post.

Happy listening ...

Andrew

If could hanker for a Resonance even more, which is impossible, this would do it - I adore Jarrett and consider having been at same of his solo concerts among the great experiences I have had. That is really a meaningful "celebrity endorsement"!

Have a good new year

Andreas

 

Very interesting topic!

As always it is all about brand perception. You won't buy a specific watch because some celebrity wears it on an advertisement. But it does influence how you see a certain brand and if you identify with that. Using celebrities helps the brands very much in achieving that feeling.

As for Georg Clooney on the Omega advertisement... His face is on every major brand advertisement these days. You can't take him serious in any way...

Greets!

This message has been edited by rik1 on 2009-12-30 01:35:22

And every Friday morning, at "Wrist Scan Central", I re-connect with you, my honored parade of celebrities.

No message body

Are the everyday people (I am everyday people, like Sly Stone would sing) like you and I and us who are the true watch afficianados and nuts and WIS's, and not so much the Hollywood crap, but folks like Chuck Yeager (Rolex) and all the astronauts (Omega Speedy) and Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Navy SEALs, COMEX, Mt. Everest Climbers, etc.  And the guy timing his bbq with a chrono, or making sure what is today's date...

Vive la Suisse, vive les montres et horlorgerie, vive les temps!

=:^D

There is a whole branch of psychology called “social psychology” that is interested in the way people in groups interact. Perhaps we have some social psychologists amongst us that could comment, but they are probably all too preoccupied watching us. J

 

[In fact if you consider how many of us are regularly posting and how many are lurking in the shadows, its positively scary. I never liked being on the dance floor at parties when 90% of the attendees were sitting at their tables watching; but that’s for another conversation.]

 

There are several social psychology theories that apply to groups, and some of them may be familiar to us or even applicable here on PPro:

 

“Social facilitation”: When others are present our level of arousal is increased. We perform better at simple tasks when we are watched, but complex tasks may be performed less well (“performance pressure”).

 

We would all agree that we behave differently when others are with us (perhaps some more than others). On-line groups must be a sort of half-way house in this respect. [Has PPro considered a live chat room?]

 

“Group think”: a cohesive group tends to stifle dissent and move towards group harmony. At its extreme this can lead to failure to identify all sides of an argument.

 

“Group Polarisation”: Groups that are particularly focused on one issue can talk themselves into extreme positions. This can be exacerbated by “group think”.

 

“Social loafing”: as a group gets larger, the individual contribution decreases disproportionate to the group size.

 

“Bystander effect”: In larger groups, the compulsion to help those in need is lessened.

 

Now I am not suggesting that any of this happens regularly, or at all, on on-line forums such as PPro, but I think it is interesting to be aware of the phenomena and how they may influence our interactions.

 

What are your observations?

 

Andrew

 

Ps. Try searching a few key words like “internet troll” (both in the usual negative but also positive sense), “computer transference”, “computer mediated relationships”, “cyberspace addiction”, “cyberspace consciousness”, “internet dreaming”, etc. In fact I sometimes wonder if we are providing fuel for hundreds of advanced psychology PhD’s. LOL

 

Pps. Normal transmission will resume shortly …

 

all that stuff is giving me a headache; it seems too awfully close to work...

Seriously, many of the phenomena you raise all too often result in sub-optimal results for me as a / the founding Purist, whose founding mantra was, is, and hopefully always will be,

"Learn the facts;

allow yourself and your opinions to evolve through the foundry of sharing with others of similar interests, but hopefully diverse experiences and points of view;

know the difference between fact and opinion.

Discover yourself."

These are the reasons ThePuristS was moderated the way it was. Ironically, in the very act of being careful not to allow dogma to be chanted, or homogenization to be the end result, we were often accused of censorship and dictatorial "editorial" policies.

PuristSPro has evolved beyond me and ThePuristS, but hopefully the executive management and moderator team of today and tomorrow hold true to at least the essence of the ideal - that we want to encourage everyone to share, and help each other find their own preferences, priorities, and personal "truths."

No fascist neo-nazism here, I hope!

It's a tough balance, between society and individualism...

TM

Thanks Thomas,

 

Simplified to its essence, I agree that Purists is about sharing information on watches (and other topics) in a passionate and interesting way and on as level a playing field as possible. This interaction hopefully leads to greater understanding (enlightenment may also be an appropriate word, but it sounds a bit metaphysical!).

 

You understand this better than me, but I think it is interesting to examine the undercurrents and constructs that influence how we interact. The same can be applied to any community.

 

Not meaning to give you a headache or dissect things too much, just interested in some of the deeper influences.

 

Andrew

headaches come with the territory...

;-)

Seriously, your posts are always the wellspring for very interesting threads.

Happy new year (and to a wonderful new decade!)

TM

That randomly mid-week you can drop this almost academic post here on HoMe without batting an eyelash!    There are some deep ideas in your post, and frankly I'm not sure I'm bright enough to even delve into them, but I will say a few words about interactions on the internet.  Without a doubt there are some people on this forum whom I've never met in person that know me better than people I am friends with in real life.  I find this phenomenon interesting personally.  I wonder if the setup of PPro, or the type of people who participate here regularly have led to this result.  Hard to say.  I do think PPro is a unique place -- but perhaps I'm suffering from the common delusion that leads one to believe they are unique and their places/people are special.

Daos

You are too kind. All I did was make the logical jump from the influence of celebrity endorsements, to the influence of PPro endorsements to the factors that influence how we might interact with (or influence) one another on the forums. Honestly I didn't mean to make it that 'academic', but I hope readers found it interesting.

Thanks for being so honest with your reflections on interacting here. The PuristS concept (thanks TM!) has brought together an impressive group of people. There you go, I appear to be under the same delusions as you and haven't learned anything!

A

myself included...and I'm a Creative Director. However, some advertisements'/advertisers' target audience may not always target the general populace, such as the example with Mr. Clooney. it is a specific audience Omega is appealing to (perhaps an employment opportunity for a Purist?) and I must say, the concept is not to sell the watch. The concept is to partner with a 160 year old company that has been to the moon and back. Also, perhaps the underlying message with the pix of Mr. Clooney is to say, and this is just my opinion, "This guy does NOT have the qualifications as his field of expertise is in the entertainment business and just because he may be high profile, it is not enough to get him in the door. We want qualified people."

What the ad DOES do is make you stop and look, watchmaker or not. And for this ad, it did its job to that extent. Watchmakers would stop and look and maybe lay down the same comments as posted here but they would stop...and look...and maybe think, "Hey, maybe I should apply?"

As most have already stated above, it would not sway anyone here to purchase a piece just because Mr. Clooney endorses it. Celebrities do not influence my choosing of a timepiece. I would be more inclined to listen to the PuristSPro Moderators and be influenced by them than any celeb.

That's my two cents ~ ~ or whatever it's worth nowadays.

Aloha,

Bob

This message has been edited by masterspiece on 2009-12-30 18:13:41

If I wanted an Omega, I'd have to 'get past' anything that featured an actor, especially a semi-hollow one like Clooney... But the Newman connection to Rolex is somehow cool. Maybe because he never appeared in an ad... (right?) Tag Heuer in my O has been ruined by these awful slick endorsements... but they seem to be working financially.... Oh well, I do not like them Sam I Am.

I like watch brands that are not well known to most people.

JerryW