What are microbrands today? Do they outgrow the category? Who are they for, and what’s their actual role in the watch world? We’re well into their era, so let’s assess what we’ve learned.
Depending on who you ask, the microbrand grounds well may have started in the mid-aughts. And, again, depending on who you ask, it was a full-on movement by the 2010s. We’ve seen many come and go. We’ve seen a few level up.
Different watch watchers may have different ideas of the timeline. One thing’s for sure, though. The watch world has been living with microbrands, as we know them, for quite some time now. We’re familiar enough with them, and yet, in a centuries-old industry, they’re still technically new.
I think it’s a good time to reassess. In the contemporary culture and market, what are they? Has that changed since the aughts? What do they offer? Are they good or bad? And, of course, who are they for?
Table of Contents
What’s a Microbrand Now? The Polarization Factor
What a microbrand was, and technically still is, is right in its name–It’s a new, small-scale watch producer. However, it’s this one prerequisite that makes the term so polarizing. It reminds me of the word “influencer.” Defining it requires a few fundamental prerequisites, but from there, there are a lot of conditionals.
Different people view certain conditionals as more or less necessary to the term. And other people have different positive or negative associations with these levers.
Size Matters
Okay, so what does small scale mean? Size can mean two things. It can mean a small group of people running the brand, sometimes as small as one individual. It can also mean a mid-sized group of people who only release one or two models at a given time.
For example, the French watchmaking company Montres Ambre de Morteau bought out Yema in 2009. I don’t consider them a microbrand anymore. However, their branding, products, and general vibe still feel like a mid-aughts microbrand.
But, here’s a parallel — a simile, if you will. Imagine a tech company run by two guys in a basement. Imagine it blows up and is now a multi-billion-dollar corporation. Just because they keep their t-shirt-and-jeans and standing-desk-with-medicine-ball-chair culture doesn’t mean they’re still a start-up. Anyway, the small-scale aspect of it can cause people to have positive or negative associations. Let me give you some examples.
How Positive and Negative Associations Affect One’s Definition
When you’re one or two people running a watch company, you do everything—the marketing, the sales, the designing. It can take days or weeks and a lot of lost sleep to sell just a small number of watches.
If a brand focuses more on sales and less on the creative, this can be a turn-off. If you have negative associations with microbrands, then this is what a microbrand might be to you. Perhaps a truly creative, artistic, small-scale watchmaker is less microbrand and more watch studio to you.
Though it’s exceedingly rare, perhaps the microbrand focuses on actually producing parts. Due to the scale required to do this, most microbrands outsource to Asia. It’s simply not possible for a vast majority of small-scale businesses to take production in-house. But, a few small brands like Holthinrichs and Ketelaars from the Netherlands manage to do this. This is partly thanks to advancing technologies. For example, Holthinrichs uses 3D printing.
To you, watches are perhaps more about EDC, more like gear than a style accessory. If you think being a microbrand is good, then maybe Holthinrichs and Ketelaars qualify. If you believe microbrands are bad, then you might consider these brands less microbrand and more engineering.
Make no mistake, though. These in-house producers and creative-focused watchmakers are microbrands when it comes to their size.
Another hallmark of the typical microbrand is that it sells online and is direct-to-consumer. This leads me to the next exploration: How good or how icky does it feel when a certain brand is selling to you?
The Importance of Sales
I’m not going to lie. There are microbrands out there that sell generic pieces. They advertise on YouTube, and they all tend to share the same story. We’re here to fill a gap in the market. Luxury doesn’t have to be expensive. So and and so forth.
I’m not a cynic about these kinds of things. I think anyone making something, regardless of their intentions, can find a genuine audience. But I do understand that some people feel like they’re being had. My advice to those people is just to do all of your homework. If, at the end of the day, you know what you’re paying for, no judgment. And no judgment if you accept that you’re paying for an overpriced fashion watch because you love the design. Just know that you’re doing it, and don’t skip bill payments to do it.
Now, that being said, watchmakers do need to sell. They’re businesses. They have margins. They need profits. So, sales and relevance are inextricably related.
Are Microbrands Still Popular? Are They Relevant?
One thing that new brands do that I love, but not everyone else does, is reviving old, defunct models and brands. I love it because it sometimes unearths an unknown part of watch history. Even more, you get to have a physical manifestation of that.
Those who don’t like this might think someone just found an abandoned trademark and used it to enter the microbrand market. What does that history have to do with them, they might ask?
A good example is when Timekeepers brought back the Smith’s Everest PRS-25. You know the famous Rolex story about how Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay reached the top of Mount Everest? And how they had a Rolex with them, which would inspire the production of the Explorer? Well, they also had a Smith’s watch with them. However, since Smith’s disappeared as a brand, they didn’t get to enjoy legend status the way the Explorer did and does.
The way Timekeepers sold this watch was a bit like a free-for-all. They’d sell a limited amount in a short amount of time, causing a frenzy. So maybe the cynics wondered why they were Hunger-Games-ing us, on top of wondering what their connection to Smith’s was.
I wasn’t offended by it, personally. Maybe they simply couldn’t produce that much. And maybe creating the window of time allowed them to sell them off fast and move on. But these are some ways in which small brands create relevance for themselves. I understand that it doesn’t feel as natural when it’s so heavily curated. But business is business, and a cool watch is a cool watch.
Do Microbands Actually Fill Market Gaps?
As much as they can. Again, I like it when they unearth forgotten history, like what Timekeepers did with Smith’s. It combines education with collectibility. Microbrands also fill niche markets. That’s what Mr. Jones does.
If someone decided to make a line of watches with gundog or sailboat motifs, and the designs were actually cute? I’d eat that up. What’s something hyper-specific that you’re passionate about? Now, Imagine a watch line based on that. Wouldn’t you eat it up, too? Similar to how the internet and streaming allow content creators to hit the nichest of niches, microbrands do that with watch audiences. Tsao Baltimore is another good example.
But can they really fill the luxury gap? Can a microbrand offer a luxury-level timepiece without the exorbitant upcharge of heritage and marketing? I’m really not sure at this point. I imagine this being achieved in two ways.
First, through a wildly independently wealthy watchmaker who can self-fund indefinitely. Second, if an independent horologist made one-offs and sold them like a piece of art, which is what Japanese watchmaker Hajime Asaoka does. But is he a microbrand? Technically, yes, but let’s be honest. This isn’t the same as Vincero.
The Collectibility and Investment Factor
Now, the billion-dollar questions. Should watch enthusiasts and collectors consider adding microbrand watches to their collections? Do they hold value? Are some more valuable or collectible than others?
First, if you buy watches for style, there’s no reason to discount microbrands. Even big-brand collectors are starting to add microbrand watches to their collections. As far as the investment factor? Well, here’s the most boring answer in the world: The jury is still out.
Should you pull a Warren Buffet and Benjamin Graham and invest in undervalued brands you think have intrinsic worth? Or should you hitch a ride onto a rising star like Christopher Ward?
Unlike big names that’ve been around for hundreds of years, there’s just not enough precedent. It’s a matter of figuring out, for yourself, what kind of watch collector and investor you are. Personally, I’ll say this one more time: just buy what you love. There’s no risk in that.
Questions? Comments? Let me know!
Leave a Reply