There are few things watch brands like more than an ‘icon’. These watches — recognizable from across a room or a blurry Instagram photo — are known entities built on designs at least 50-years-old. But to build for the future, do we need to stop looking at the past? Does the watch industry have an icon problem?
There are few things watch brands like more than an 'icon'. These watches — recognizable from across a room or a blurry Instagram photo are known quantities. They're easy to sell and simple to market. From a commercial sense, it makes sense then to iterate ad infinitum — at least until it doesn't.
An icon needs to be carefully nurtured and curated. Too many versions, too fast, and that undefinable 'it' factor loses its potency. While the original is likely to survive, all the brands and models 'inspired' by them are likely to take a hit.
This is the situation we're currently seeing with integrated sports watches. It's unlikely that the Royal Oak and the Nautilus are going to leave mainstream consciousness anytime soon, but the dozens of other brands making visually similar watches in a short-term attempt to cash in on the cachet — those brands are going to be out in the cold when the winds of fashion shift away from that very particular style. It's telling that Patek Philippe, which could have spent a great deal of the last few decades cashing on the phenomenal popularity of the Nautilus, has consciously kept the production of stainless steel sports watches low.
This integrated trend is indicative of a wider malaise affecting the watch industry — a problem with design. At its most charitable you could describe the state of mainstream commercial watch design as conservative. The vast majority of major producers are relying on their greatest hits, making minor tweaks to decades-old designs and calling it innovation.
Eric Giroud, one of the most respected (and prominent) freelance watch designers, has spent the last 25-plus years mapping out the finer points of watch design. For Giroud, a good watch design is "A cocktail of many elements. Innovation, coherence, and beautiful proportions all play a role, but above all, a good design is a beautiful object with great desirability. If you can balance all these things, it should give a good watch design. Of course, you can't forget that good communication is important to make the object in question even more desirable because a successful design is a design that sells well and long."
This is, essentially, the recipe for an iconic watch. Giroud's last point, on the importance of good communication, is particularly interesting. The overwhelming narrative of the Swiss watch industry for the last 20-30 years has been one of history. Legacy leads to prestige and credibility. Initially, this communication was focused on the pedigree of the manufactures themselves, but ever since the explosion of interest in the vintage market and reissue watch designs more broadly, the history of the maker has become inseparable with the watches themselves.
When it comes to the pervasive focus on 'vintage-inspired' designs Giroud remarks, "A notion of ease has set in with the trend of vintage-inspired watches. As a result, there is less risk-taking on certain projects and even less willingness to research contemporary design. Fortunately, this is a generalization because there are many watch brands that create watches with contemporary design." Giroud points to brands like MB&F, and Ressence as leading the way when it comes to innovative, interesting design approaches, as well as organizations like ID GENEVE and AWAKE with a conceptual, global approach with a focus on sustainability and material innovation.
It’s true that many brands are making incredible contemporary designs but the vast majority of these forward-thinking designs are made by brands that are not large-scale commercial operations. Take, for example, the widely cited Morgan Stanley research into the largest Swiss watch brands by sales. In 2021 the top 10 brands on that list were Rolex, Cartier, Omega, Audemars Piguet, Longines, Patek Philippe, Richard Mille, Tissot, IWC and TAG Heuer. The only brand on that list with a key 'iconic' model younger than 20 years old is Richard Mille, and that's only because the brand itself is 24 years old. By my reckoning, the next closest example would be Omega's current version of the Seamaster Diver, which got a major design overhaul just in time for James Bond to strap it on in 1995's Goldeneye. Beyond that, every single brand's greatest hit is based on a design from the so-called golden age of watchmaking.
Don't get me wrong, the status quo is the status quo for a reason, and while Rolex *could* decide to upend generations of tradition and create a brand new collection that ditches the Oyster case and President bracelet in favor of something genuinely novel — it isn't that simple. To prove my point, you don't need to go back much further than 2019, to the halls of the Palexpo, where Audemars Piguet released their revolutionary Code 11.59, to all the pomp and ceremony the blue chip brand was capable of. Except it didn't quite go according to plan. The initial response to the new design was vitriolic. In the years since, perceptions around the Code 11.59 line have softened as people get more chances to see the complex case architecture, and increasingly complicated creations emerge from Le Brassus. Regardless of what you actually think about the watch, and how it was released into the world, it perfectly illustrates the corner watch brands have painted themselves into.
Audemars Piguet knew it was the 'Royal Oak' brand, for better or worse. Other brands would have happily accepted this fate, and the associated revenue as endless Royal Oaks flew out the door. But CEO François-Henry Bennahmias wanted options that didn't involve an octagonal case and integrated bracelet. So the 11.59 platform was developed, over many years, to be a more traditional round alternative to its famous sibling. A platform making the most of cutting-edge technology and built to showcase all the mechanical artistry the brand is capable of. There's nothing too risky in this new design, but if one of the greatest watch brands in the world gets that sort of reputational hit for releasing a new collection, you can see why all the other major brands are playing it safe. While we're on the topic, does anyone remember the public response to Patek Philippe's Aquanaut when it was first released in 1997? The 'grenade' was shunned and scorned, seen as a low-rent cousin to the Nautilus. It took well over a decade for the collection to stand on its own feet and earn the respect of collectors.
The big brand's reliance on 50-plus-year-old-designs is a problem. Maybe not right now, but it will be sometime in the future. You can only lean on your heritage for so long. It's unfair to place the responsibility solely at the feet of watchmakers. Educated and critical collectors need to take occasional risks, and I believe they are. Bulgari's Octo Finissimo, anything the MB&F makes, the weird and futuristic outliers of the watch world are never going to replace the Sub or the Speedy, but once these designs reach a critical mass, it might inspire some design innovation from the big brands. When we asked Eric Giroud what advice he would give a major watch group on design strategy, he was clear: “I would simply tell them that creation should be at the center of the development of a watch and that a greater share of risk should be allocated to the design part of the overall process. Innovative and contemporary design is a long-term value.”
A question to leave you with: if we don't start coming up with new watch designs soon — what will be the iconic watches in a few generations, the Apple Watch?
