Seiko

Dear Watch Fam., 

My perception is that they are finely tuned machined which is more suited to mid low level products. Quality and reliability are two obvious expected traits from Japanese brands. Yet, I personally do not think they are on the same level aesthetic wise with Swiss brands.

Talking about the premium segment (grand seiko), I would expect a good 20-30 off the top compared to the Swiss. Why this rationale? Pedigree (or the lack thereof in international market), association with Seiko as a brand for sub $1,000 watchmaker, relatively poor resale value and the previously mentioned aesthetics.

While I am sure that Seikos will last and in many cases outperform established Swiss brands, until they can create a good story for their brand, their place in the world of horology will be relegated to second place. This is unfortunate because I do think with some minor mods they can take their place amongst the best of the best watch brands. Something can be done to take them mainstream in the international watch community.

Interesting that you point to pedigree, because this seems to be both one of Seiko's strongest (domestically and with Seiko collectors) and weakest (international general perception) points.

As many loyal fans of Japanese watch brand would happily point out, Seiko is a storied brand from Japan with long heritage. Unfortunately those are only within a limited confinement that is not exposed to the international community. And also Seiko's success as a mid low brand is really killing its Grand Seiko image.

We have the Core model at ~$50 and the GS model at ~$5k and the Credor model ranging up to $400,000. All with Seiko on the dial. That is a terribly confusing brand identity.

But not necessarily at home. One can see the same behaviour from many Japanese brands and they tend to be quite successful with it on some continents. Toyota does everything from the very cheap Daihatsu to the ~US400k LFA and even under its own brand in Japan, you will have cheap and cheerful to luxurious (Toyota Century) - in fact the Lexus brand was introduced there only recently - same with Nissan's Infiniti in Japan. If you look at other automotive products, like tires, in Asia you'd have Bridgestone (a premium manufacturer) offering various levels all under the same brand successfully. In Europe / European manufacturers you would have different brands all belonging to the same manufacturer - Sloan style. And there have been examples of the high and low approach in Europe, too - Citroen during its prime was one (with the DS / SM at one end of the spectrum and 2CV at the other).
I have no access to Seiko's finanicals or sales numbers, so all that follows is speculation. At the Micro Artist Studio Credor level the number of customers annually is so small, that the Seiko name does not matter - you are speaking about seasoned collectors that buy the product and the craftsmanship and not an association with some personality.
Regular Credor models will continue to be sold primarily in Japan and some selected ones through the brand boutiques, as I understand. These again probably have no brand issue in the home market and there will be enough of a JDM fan community elsewhere to make them sell in the limited numbers envisaged.
Grand Seiko is another matter. There the company seems to have global ambitions. At the moment I feel they started with the sustainable, if slow approach of wooing collectors / WISs or whatever you want to call us first. Most watch blogs or magazines will definitely give them credit for the watches and I have rarely seen an entry where they were dismissed simply for being Seiko. In a family firm, where there is no immediate pressure from shareholders, this strategy may well work. You only need to persuade so many in this generation and start early with the next one, and then you will simply produce a cohort effect. No spectacular short term growth in that direction but good for sustainable brand building.
As for removing the bread and butter level - do not think it would be smart. They may all not bring much profit individually but the volume and the requirements in terms of automation and cost control are very valuable training grounds that will produce better results higher up the food chain.
All in all it will not make the masses convinced of the value of the higher end offerings in the short run but at the same time if I talk to my non-watch friends, they cannot understand why one would pay more than €1.000 for a watch anyway, whether Swiss, Japanese, or whatever other nationality

There is no perceived difference between japanese brands in my country (CEE region). They are seen as are reliable "workhorses".  

So Seiko with its higher-end models (eg. GS) is not differentiated from Casio (G-shock) and Citizen (Eco-drive)?

Grand Seiko is a relatively new phenomenon compared to the Swiss manufacturers, and it should offer more for less than it's competitors for decades to come in order to boost the brand image. Free-sprung balance, micro-adjustable bracelets, thinner cases, better finished automatics, just to name a few improvements.

I have been told that surveys at the turn of the century showed US customers see Seiko as a $400 watch. But that doesn't mean that watch collectors see it as such, or that Seiko haven't been able to push the bar higher. Perhaps this is going slower than we might wish (if we want to resell the watch for a higher price) and with it's happening with a few maneuvers and marketing that show plenty of "Oriental Inscrutability". But still, Seiko is moving up their image, globally, on several fronts. Grand Seiko is one. Astron is another.

Wonderful feedback, thank you!
Changing perceptions of Seiko is the story I am most interested in, and I think you are right on when you allude to the power of the collector in setting the long-term trend in perception. Marketing is powerful, but over time what sets the course is the aficionado community, because they are the pulse at the heart of the economics, politics, art and culture of the watch world.
May I ask, do you have a sense of what may have driven (is driving) this changing perception of higher-end Seiko models in the US? Is it a kind of victory by attrition, where Seiko has consistently produced high quality timepieces decade after decade, to the point where the once overbearing brand identification with "quartz crises" is wearing away? Is the sophisticated luxury goods consumer in the US changing in some macro sense that somehow favors Seiko? Is it more of a "rising tide lifts all boats" phenomenon where the success of the luxury watch industry out of Europe is ploughing the way for market growth in general? I suppose it could be a mixture of many reasons....
Many thanks for your thoughts, Cazalea-sensei!
Yoroshiku,
Matt

And they differ by price range and customer type. At the range of up to say $400 (anecdotal, not precise), I guess they are valued for their quality, reliability, durability, price / performance ratio... In terms of Swiss competition, there is largely only Swatch in the same price range, which mostly does not attract the same customer type - little cross shopping there IMHO.

When you get to Grand Seiko territory, things change drastically. The average buyer in the price range has no clue about it (yet) and the signaling potential is negligible for the peer group.

At the same time most watch aficionados will either love them, or at the very least respect them (even if grudgingly). That's the great thing about them. For most people they are invisible but the ones with whom it is fun discussing watches will mostly both notice them and want to talk about them.

In my recent experience there has been pretty much a uniform response by such people. Talking about the brand gets them mildly interested but not enough to check it out. When they see mine (chances of seeing one in the wild in Europe are still between slim and remote) they all want to have one / know where the nearest AD is.

Had a discussion like this only yesterday with a very patriotic Swiss colleague. Owner of several Rolexes, APs, GPs, Breitlings, a Chopard and a VC and fairly taken with the subject and informed about it. He's been one of the rare people to have noticed and commented on my LUCs in the past. But the GS was the only watch he asked me to take off and show him in detail and the appreciation was palpable.

Will that transfer to the general public buying watches in the €2.000 - €10.000 price range? Unlikely in the short run but that's part of the appeal.

Thank you for your great reply. May I ask what you mean by "the signaling potential is negligible for the peer group"?
Do you mean this in the economics sense, in terms of Seiko not being able to communicate its high-end brand identity to other watch houses (peer) and consumer (principal)? Or do you mean this in the political-sociological sense, where a GS on the wrist does not signal high-end status to the wearer's (consumer's) peer social group?
Thank you again for your comments!

While Omega, Rolex and similar brands will have instant 'status' recognition, Grand Seiko will not - i.e. It is a completely under the radar watch.

the watch dial full of the colorful feeling.

An interesting question, Matt. Since you asked, here are the opinions from this USA citizen who has lived most of his life in California. Likes: JLC, VC, Hermes, Piaget. Dislikes: AP, Rolex, Hublot, Gerard-Perregaux.
“Regular” Seiko: A brand of high quality, producing reliable and sturdy watches in the $150-$800 range. Makes a vast number of models with a variety of visual styles. Probably slightly higher in quality than Citizen and Orient Star.
Grand Seiko: I have never seen a GS watch in the metal; I’ve never looked for them. I don’t even know if any dealers carry the brand here in San Francisco. From what I’ve read, I’m confident that GS watches offer excellent fit and finish, and good value for the money.
But one thing has held me back: the visual design language of GS dials. To my eye, GS watches are at best staid, bland and nondescript. They look like badly-designed 1950s watches. They lack style; they are neither utilitarian nor elegant, nor anything in-between. It is surprising, because I find Japanese art prints, for example, often to be very appealing with great visual interest, beautiful use of color, and harmonious balance. But I don’t see those characteristics in GS dials. If GS produced watches as attractive as Hajime Asaoka’s designs, THEN GS would be high on my list.
Ano “How about a GS watch equivalent of a Yozo Hamaguchi print?” Nuevo

Yes, that is one of the major challenges for Seiko - how to manage their dual identity of cheap quartz vs quality mechanical.
I think Seiko will finally make a GS push in North America. The wheels are turning. Take a gander at their collection, you may be presently surprised at what they offer ~ some are standard affair as you mention, to be sure, but some are quite unique and aesthetically pleasing. Careful though, if the Seiko bug bites you, it's been known swallow entire collections

I often hear this from new owners.

Watches from GS are as good
(designed, engineered, manufactured, conservative, materials, style)

but watches from GS are also less
(stereotyped, expensive, stolen, etc.)

Those last 3 attributes are very important to some, and unimportant to other watch buyers. So if you want as good as Rolex but without the extra freight, you buy GS (say the "sensible" people). The rest buy Rolex, and some of them understand how a GS could be just as desirable.

The same might be said across a wider range of Japanese watches (I'm not knowledgeable enough or willing to identify which brands or levels).

Occasionally one type of watch becomes so iconic that its brand image transcends its category AND country -- Swatch Quartz is one; G-Shock is another that comes to mind. Does anybody else really offer a comparable product to those two?

So I suppose of the men who have made it to the point they can buy a $5000 watch, the GS buyer will be the one wearing round-toed shoes, not pointy; necktie not long scarf; jacket with 2-3 buttons not 5-6.

I better stop before offending any more ...

and to me, that positioning seems quite nice: Seiko's GS as an "inconspicuous consumption" alternative to Rolex's conspicuous consumption. I do think that to make this work optimally, cutting the tin can offerings at the bottom of Seiko's lineup will be necessary.