Royal Flop? – AP x Swatch: Brand Building or Crisis Management? – Episode 81

We recorded today's episode on May 13, just a few days before the AP Swatch Royal Pop went on sale. We discuss the decision-making and implications of this project for both companies' brands and businesses, and for many reasons, we consistently question why AP in particular would partner with Swatch on this project. On the positive side, we do point out Swatch's competencies in production, distribution, marketing, and retail of these kinds of products. Sadly though, today's events — store closures, out-of-control crowds, and even fist fights — undermine that case, and only serve to underscore our skepticism in this project and the points we discuss on today's episode. In sum, the botched on-sale has turned this project from an exercise in brand building to one in crisis management — certainly not what AP or Swatch had in mind.

Across the conversation, we work through the collaboration from three angles: brand, product, and business. We dig into Ilaria Resta's stated rationale — putting watchmaking into mainstream culture and protecting "rare watchmaking savoir-faire" — and the curious decision to direct the donated proceeds to AP's own foundation rather than a third party. We examine the form factor itself (a pendant rather than a wristwatch), what it says about AP's attempt to protect the Royal Oak while capitalizing on its cultural cachet, and whether this project actually solves a problem AP has — or whether it amplifies the access issues that already define the brand's relationship with potential customers.

We also turn the lens on Swatch. Unlike Moonswatch and the Blancpain Scuba, the Royal Pop is the first time Swatch has borrowed equity from outside the group, and we unpack why this looks like a near-perfect outcome for Swatch and a much harder calculus for AP. Along the way we draw comparisons to Moonswatch's cultural footprint, debate which direction "borrowed interest" actually flows in these collaborations, and float a few alternative ideas — including an AP-coded Flick Flack — that might have served the stated mission better than what landed on shelves this weekend.

Openwork is a weekly podcast about how the watch industry actually works. An unfiltered look behind the scenes — no press releases, no hype, and no sponsored takes. Hosted by Asher Rapkin and Gabe Reilly, co-founders of Collective Horology. Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can find us online at collectivehorology.com. To get in touch with suggestions, feedback or questions, email podcast@collectivehorology.com.

Look, I can't, we can't allow you to make another Royal Oak.

Like that's just not gonna work.

We need to protect that product and the brand.

You can make like a pocket watch kind of version of it.

And I'm sitting here from Swatch and I'm kind of like,

yeah, man, look, I'll do whatever you want.

Yeah, exactly.

Like I get, wait, I get to make something?

Yeah. Okay.

This is Openwork, a look inside the watch industry,

a podcast from Collective Horology.

I'm Gabe Reilly, co-founder of Collective.

And I'm Asher Ravkin, co-founder of Collective.

Collective Horology is an independent watch retailer

based in, you know what,

let's just say it, Ventura, California.

We carry a wide range of independent brands,

including Karl Suki & Sohn,

Holtenricks, Dominique Renaud, and more.

To learn more about us and check out

our available inventory, visit collectivehorology.com

or, and you guys will only have to hear us say this

for another couple of weeks,

or come visit us at Open House,

our annual event where you can go hands-on

with many of the brands that we carry.

This year, 14 of them.

You guys have heard the spiel.

I want to say one thing, which we haven't said yet.

News. News.

There will be some special watches at the show

that have not yet been released,

including some that will be first available

at our own Open House show.

So if you are passionate about one of our makers,

some of our makers, all of our makers,

I suspect you will be excited

about what we have in store for you.

And the only way to know what that is

is to sign up for the event.

And of course, join our mailing list.

Yeah, I already know of two watches

that will be there at the show, available at the show.

Both of them are very wild, very wild watches.

One of them is a collaboration actually

of two of the brands who will be at the show.

Who could it be?

You're shaking your head.

Yeah, we're not supposed to even say that.

Why not?

Because we were told that if we screwed that up,

and I quote, if you ever saw Liam Neeson on the phone,

I will do that to you.

Well, that was from the other two brands.

There's another one?

I'm talking about the other two brands.

Cool.

All right, well, speaking of feedback,

we got some feedback recently

about the watches we wear on this podcast.

And so first of all, if you didn't know,

if you listen to this podcast on audio only,

although I suspect from the views on YouTube,

a lot of people are watching this on YouTube now,

we never do a wrist check,

but obviously we wear watches every day.

And some people have noticed like,

hey, you don't necessarily always wear independent watches

or the brands that you sell.

What's up with that?

You guys shouldn't be wearing Rolexes or anything else.

You should just be wearing the watches you sell.

And I had to think about that in two ways,

one or a few ways.

One is like, I'm kind of shocked and amazed

that anyone even like notices or cares.

So that's great.

Thank you.

And then two, I always tell you this,

we have to separate out being right from being effective.

And part of me, the side of my brain that is like,

well, you don't understand.

We love all watches, not just independents.

And clearly we love all watches.

And we talk here about the industry at large

and the business of watches at large.

But separating being right from being effective,

I think it's a good point.

While we've certainly put a huge financial stake

on the line for this business

and for the brands that we carry,

and we own plenty of independent watches

that are in our safe.

I think it's reasonable feedback.

So we're both wearing some special watches today.

You've got a Fierce Bruntwick Midas, the original.

No, no, no, no, no.

You're gonna do a wrist check?

We don't do wrist checks.

And I've got on a Moser, our Moser collaboration.

So I'm not doing the wrist check to do the wrist check.

That's it, man.

You broke a seven, what is it?

81 episode streak of no wrist checks.

We've mentioned watches that we're wearing all the time.

This wouldn't be the first time.

It's not a wrist check.

It's an acknowledgement.

First of all, we ask for feedback.

So people who are, forget just noticing

and having a thought about it,

but the people who take the time

to actually share the feedback, thank you.

And we take it to heart.

So at least today, you're not wearing a Rolex today.

Neither am I.

You know what else?

Neither of us is wearing today.

Well, I don't think that would be appropriate.

Jesus.

Also a Royal Oak.

We are not, yes, we're talking about,

well, nor are we wearing a Royal Pop.

I've got nothing around my neck.

Yes, indeed.

Actually I do have a necklace on,

but it's not a Royal Pop.

So I'm going to,

for those who listen to the podcast regularly,

I think my opinion about the way that Audemars Piguet

runs its business is pretty clear.

So I want to preface this discussion by saying,

I'm going to take my skepticism and, you know,

I think frustration with the way that that company

has chosen to run itself.

And I'm going to put it aside.

For me, I feel the same way as you,

however, maybe a little bit differently.

This has actually changed my mind in some ways about GDP.

So we're going to talk about this,

but then we have to acknowledge the bias.

Yeah.

But I want to look at this project

because there's obvious, I mean, look,

every single person listening to this podcast

loves watches enough that you've had a fire hose

of this Royal Pop,

either it's whether it's the, you know,

AI slop variants before they actually came out

or the actual clocks themselves coming at you,

you probably consumed as much about this watch

as you ever could have wanted to.

Plus by the time this episode drops,

today is Wednesday the 13th that we're recording it.

This Saturday is when these watches go on sale.

So I'm sure we're going to go through another tsunami wave

of, you know, or not,

of people waiting outside of Swatch boutiques,

waiting to buy these co-branded items.

What we want to do here is to look at this

from a case study standpoint,

within the context of both brand, product,

and the business of AP and for that matter, Swatch.

Yeah.

I think this is more existential to Swatch than it is AP.

I do too.

Well, sort of,

but Swatch is obviously a big component to it.

So I want to look at it from that standpoint.

I think there's a lot of questions here

and a lot of sort of interesting,

there's a lot of things to look at here.

I don't think this is a simple, a simple question.

And there's a lot of hot takes out there.

So, you know,

I'd like to challenge us both as we look at this

to really be thoughtful about how we approach this

and avoid, I think, some of the, you know,

the scorched earth, you know, options.

I don't have a scorched earth.

I mean, I have, it's interesting.

I have both some very strongly negative thoughts

about this.

I believe that's scorched earth.

And strongly positive thoughts about this

that are, that live side by side.

Yeah.

And are creating this state of cognitive

and emotional dissonance.

Well, this platform that Swatch has created here,

you know, with the moon, you know,

with the moon swatch and with the scuba

has definitely, I think, elicited that feeling

in a lot of people where you hold those two different ideas

in one hand, you know.

For me, less so with those and more with this.

I mean, just starting with the omega moon swatch

and then the, it's called the Blancpain scuba.

I don't even think they call it the scuba.

I think those are fine.

I mean, I owned, I suspect you have as well.

I've owned a moon swatch.

It was okay.

I kind of lost interest in it,

but like I get it and look at it.

I think it worked wonders for the omega brand.

It's actually helped the, ironically, maybe

it's actually helped put some more shine

on the actual moon watch itself.

I don't know if I could say the same

for the scuba or whatever it is,

but like they're fine products, I get it.

Well, so this is where I want to start.

I want to start by looking at this from a brand standpoint

and then let's talk about product.

Okay.

When we think about the moon swatch

or we look at the scuba, that is intellectual property

that is owned within the swatch group.

In many ways, whether you like them or you don't,

I think it is almost impossible to say

that the moon swatch was anything other

than a stroke of genius

and an absolutely exceptional marketing play.

Forget about the revenue.

I mean, the revenue is-

Commercial success too.

I mean, this is something they talk about in the,

well, it's important to the shine

of the swatch group overall.

I mean, the moon swatch in particular

has been a huge driver of success for their business.

I wish I had the data for this,

but anecdotally I can certainly confirm

that there are many clients out there.

I just had a conversation actually yesterday

with a friend of mine who specified,

like I went out and I bought a moon swatch

and after about a week and a half,

I realized what I really actually wanted was a moon watch.

And then I went and bought it.

I bet the conversion rate from moon swatch

to moon watch is not insignificant.

I don't know.

And there is this thread of a theory

that weaves across each of these projects.

And Ilaria Resta herself says this,

the CEO of Audemars Piguet

in a post on LinkedIn today, the 13th,

that they operate under this theory

that swatch watches exist for young people

and that these are somehow gateways

into these luxury brands

that will hook these people into a love of watchmaking.

I'm gonna quote Ilaria Resta on this here.

Quote, this is a one-off collaboration

with a singular ambition to ignite collective desire.

Oh, thank you, Oprah.

To spark the kind of cultural conversation

that makes people feel about watches

the way they feel about art or great cars,

making mechanical watchmaking something cultural,

emotional, and alive, perpetually relevant,

even when it is entirely unnecessary

because every generational shift is a reminder.

An industry that turns inward and stops connecting

does not just lose relevance, it loses its meaning.

Okay, so let's decorporatify that.

Basically, what she's saying here,

her thesis, or one of her theses,

is I'm gonna bring more people into independent,

pardon me, into proper watchmaking

by making this available to them.

Now, we'll talk about this in the product.

The general point of having watches

that break through to culture, mainstream culture,

is a gift, and no one should take that for granted

or take that lightly.

In fact, it's something that we should all aspire to.

I think there is a lot of inward-looking

and navel-gazing in the watch industry

that's dangerous because the more we do that

and the more we bicker with each other

over anglage and escapements and what's in-house,

it's like the more we lose relevance in mainstream culture

and the more we close the door to this hobby.

So I would agree with her point overall.

I think the MoonseWatch does that successfully.

I don't know that the Scuba did,

and we'll talk about the AP collaboration.

I'm not sure that will either.

Yeah, so I think part of that, though,

is also a gross misunderstanding

of what it is that she's trying to do.

Because the other thing that she says here is that,

and I'm gonna quote again from her comment here,

this project has a, quote,

this project has a deeper ambition

to safeguard rare watchmaking savoir-faire

that risks disappearing entirely.

That is why Audemars Piguet will donate

100% of the collaboration's proceeds

to support the artisans who keep high watchmaking alive

through scholarships and the next generation

and financial support for those

whose craft is under pressure.

Hmm, okay.

Here's, when I take a step back

and I look at this from the brand standpoint,

I am very skeptical of a lot of this

because it feels to me like some of this comes from a,

honestly, I think a really good place.

Some of this comes from an incredibly self-serving place

and some of this is just bullshit.

So let's break that down.

I think some of it is also very shrewd.

I think we're saying the same thing.

So from my standpoint, all right, let's talk about that.

This is not going to make,

this is not a support for watchmaking.

These are cheap watches.

These are plastic watches.

These are disposable and irreparable watches

as all swatches are.

That doesn't make them a bad watch, you know?

Like this isn't like everything has to be a $20,000 watch.

Of course not.

But is this watchmaking of a variety?

Of a variety.

I think it is of a variety

and I'm not sure I agree with you.

That's fine.

But let me finish the thought.

It certainly puts the idea of a mechanical watch

and what is even a Royal Oak into mainstream culture.

But hang on one sec

because I want to extrapolate a little bit

because what she's doing here is she's saying,

she's connecting two ideas that don't really jive, right?

Because what she's basically saying is

I'm going to work with Swatch

who makes, you know, machine-made extruded cheap products.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

No, no, no.

I'm not saying, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm not saying that as like,

I'm like judging anyone who loves Swatch.

I'm just saying that is factually what they are.

Yes.

They're disposable fast fashion versions of watches.

Yes.

Well said.

And then she's saying,

I'm going to use that to hook people into watchmaking.

Okay.

Now you can make an argument and say,

all right, look, man, you know,

people go to Zara, they buy suits, you know,

because that's what they want.

That's what they can afford.

That's fast fashion.

And then over time,

maybe they end up buying something from J.Crew.

And then after that, they go to J.Press.

And then after that, they go to, you know, X, Y, and Z.

And by the time they're in their forties,

they're, you know, buying a really nice suit

from the armory.

Okay.

Fair enough.

But nobody's saying that Zara is tailoring.

You know what I mean?

It's a cheap suit.

And you're not going to expose people

to the beauties of handmade tailoring from a Zara suit.

So it's a little thing, but here's the, here's the-

I think you're being a little bit literal there.

I think-

I'm being very literal.

I think it opens people's eyes to a world.

So this certainly happened-

Okay, but-

This happened with the Moonse watch,

and this happened again with this thing

before it was announced.

I had people who know that I have a watch business.

Yeah.

Don't know anything about watches,

except Gabe's the watch guy,

who are texting me about this

and asking me what I think.

This is putting watches into mainstream culture in a way.

And what it does, you're right.

Are these the fast fashion versions of watches?

Yes.

But what it does is it points to,

there is a whole world of watchmaking out there

that you have maybe not thought about,

considered, or even been aware of.

And it just opens this portal to this other world.

Are these products themselves high watchmaking

or fine watchmaking?

No, they're not.

But they certainly open a portal to that world.

I think that's fair to say.

Or in my view-

I think what you're stating is her thesis.

Which, by the way, may very well be proven true.

I'm not just stating her thesis.

I'm saying I see proof of that thesis,

or I see evidence of that thesis playing out

when I have people who know nothing about watches

asking me about this and curious about this

and wanting to learn more about AP.

Well, see, I haven't heard a single person say that to me,

but I did about the Moonwatch.

And I'd make an argument about that,

which is to say that the Moonwatch and the Moonwatch

have a place in cultural history and knowledge

that APs do not.

I think AP does have a place in culture.

If you look at, I mean,

one of the successes of the last CEO, Francois Benhamious,

was that he did a lot of work

to take HP, AP out of kind of the world

of the watch enthusiasts and the cognoscenti

and put it into mainstream culture,

not just through collaborations with Marvel,

but by putting it on the right wrists

and putting it into culture.

You have APs being mentioned in rap songs.

You have celebrities on red carpets wearing APs.

These are things that weren't happening 20 years ago.

The brand is in culture.

Now, is there a certain segment of the world

who can even afford, or forget afford,

get access to these things?

For sure.

But I do think AP is, look,

it's one of the big four brands,

along with Rolex, Patek Philippe,

and Richard Mille by revenue.

They dominate the market,

even if they don't make a ton of watches.

I do think AP is one of the few watch brands,

along with Rolex and Patek Philippe,

that has broken through to more mainstream culture

in a way most watch brands have not.

So I would argue,

does the Royal Oak have the same history

or cultural resonance writ large as a Speedmaster?

No, it doesn't have all those same ingredients,

but is it a much more culturally relevant watch brand

than the average watch brand?

100%.

So I want to agree with you,

and we'll get to this when we talk about product,

but if that's the case,

their choice and form factor for this product is bizarre.

Well, I think, yes.

I understand why they're doing it, by the way.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

So I think the same reason AP is saying,

we're donating the profits here.

Well, we're going to get to that.

Well, you already brought up, I think that's shrewd,

because if they had just taken the money

and thrown it to their bottom line,

that would have looked like greed,

that would have looked like selling out.

Oh, they are doing that,

but they're doing it in a much more clever way.

Well, we could talk about that,

but I think by them saying, like,

hey, we're donating this, it removes that argument.

It doesn't look like just a cash grab for them.

The fact that they did a pocket watch or a necklace

and not an actual watch,

I think they're trying to have their cake and eat it too,

and again, be rather shrewd here by saying,

we're not cheapening the Royal Oak

by making a plastic wristwatch.

We're making another object

that's inspired by the Royal Oak

that isn't a substitute or just a facsimile of it.

It's a totally new form factor

for this design language and this aesthetic.

I think the problem with that is,

if you're doing this to create a cultural moment,

I'm not sure that a pocket watch

is the product to do that with.

So we'll come back to that.

So if you're trying to create the next moon swatch

and the next thing that people are lining up for,

I don't know that you do that

with a pocket watch or a pendant.

100%.

So look, I think we can go back and forth

on this one a little bit.

I will agree.

The fact that everybody is talking about this,

that it is growing into mainstream,

that it is appearing in mainstream press,

that it has gotten the attention that it's getting,

does prove that Swatch is an absolutely incredible platform

for the expansion of awareness

for some of these other brands.

Yeah, but I think you have to separate

the chatter about this and the conversation about this

and the cultural impact of this into two things.

One is that conversation and that chatter

before the thing was revealed,

and two is now the conversation, the chatter,

and the cultural impact that everyone knows what this is,

which is a necklace.

Yes.

So I think those are two different things.

With the moon swatch, it wasn't.

No.

With the moon, because it was-

And look at what's happening right now, right?

Everyone's immediately offering mods

to make it into the product that they wanted it to be.

But with the Blancpain, it wasn't either.

It was like, we were expecting a Blancpain,

a classic Blancpain watch, and that's what we got.

And it was like, it was teased.

There was some excitement about it,

granted less than the moon swatch.

And when it was revealed, it was like,

oh yeah, that's kind of what we were expecting, cool.

This is, oh my God, AP Swatch, what are they gonna do?

This is incredible.

We're so excited.

People are lining up

before they even know what it looks like.

Then it's revealed.

And I gotta be honest, I think overall,

if I look at all the sentiment I'm seeing,

whether it's comments on social media

or in groups I'm in, things like that,

it's kind of a sad trombone.

So let's talk about the product in a second

because we need to discuss the other thing

that Ilaria Resta said as the rationale-

She said more, we've got more.

She will donate 100% of the collaboration

to the proceeds to keep high watchmaking alive

through scholarships in the next generation.

And I really wanna focus on this next sentence,

financial support for those whose craft is under pressure.

So I did a little bit of research and wouldn't you know it,

there is no public statement whatsoever

about what charity they're actually gonna be donating to.

Nothing.

So I'd like to offer a theory.

Here's what I think is happening.

There is a significant labor shortage in Switzerland,

globally, really, for watchmakers.

We see all sorts of solutions to this program, right?

Rolex has a school.

All of these large companies have apprentice programs.

Modern watchmaking, industrialized watchmaking,

which the majority of AP watches are,

is essentially a form of assembly line production.

They don't like to describe it that way,

but that's basically what it is.

You gotta run your company efficiently.

100%, you gotta figure it out.

Same thing with Omega.

You can't make a million watches

if somebody's sitting there,

not that AP does, I think they make 70,000,

but 70,000 watches, I mean, like,

let's just do the math, right?

I mean, 70,000 watches,

if somebody worked every single day,

you're still pushing out 190 watches a day.

They don't work every single day.

So it's hundreds of watches a day are being made.

You have to industrialize it.

That means you need people

and you need people who are talented and skilled

who can execute this and not scratch a bridge

and not ruin a screw, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

So by quote unquote, donating this to something,

we don't know who, my guess is what they're doing

is that they're pumping it into either a not-for-profit,

and again, this is a theory that they're a party to,

that they are a partner with,

maybe that they own, who knows,

where they will be using that money to train watchmakers,

which will then help them staff up their business.

Now, well, that's a conspiracy theory.

No, I don't think it is

because there's two ways to look at that.

You can say, oh, it's a conspiracy theory.

How dare they, it's self-serving.

I'm like, actually, it's pretty great

because just because you go to a school

or you work for a specific company

doesn't mean you have to work there forever.

You're not an indentured servant.

If you get trained by AP, you work there for a few years,

you can do what you need to do and you get hired,

then you know what, they're making jobs.

Is that a bad thing?

I don't think so.

But is it completely altruistic?

No, but those two incentives align.

We need watchmakers, we'll train watchmakers,

we'll take the profits from this program

and we'll put it into a program

that helps us get more watchmakers,

helps us make more watches,

helps us sustain the business.

That's not a bad thing, though.

It's not, who knows what they're doing

because they're not actually telling us,

but if that's the case, I dig it.

Now, here's the other side.

And this is the part,

if you want to get conspiracy theorists.

So AP is donate, I did some research here myself.

I couldn't find anything.

Could you?

You know, I got perplexity here, man.

This is the research tool of the century.

So what I'm seeing here is that,

and the source is from the AP website,

is that AP is donating to the Audemars Piguet Foundation.

Right, so, okay.

So my theory is-

Brands Foundation focused on environmental,

educational and community programs,

formerly founded-

So my theory is correct.

Yeah, but is the fact

that there's an Audemars Piguet Foundation

some terrible thing?

No, no, no, no, no.

I'm not saying it's terrible.

What I'm saying is that's what they're doing.

They're taking this money.

They are taking it.

They're not giving it to some third parties.

They're not donating to Vostep,

you know what I mean?

They're donating it to themselves

to create programs, to create watchmakers,

which I bet you they will hire.

Again, is this a bad thing?

I don't think so.

Vocational training is important.

Creating opportunities is important.

They're not exactly being direct, but you know.

Again, I think they're being incredibly shrewd

with this aspect of it, which is to say,

this is about, you and I both know

that whatever money AP makes on this

is trivial relative to their core business, right?

I don't know that, do you?

I'm going to guess.

I mean, this is,

they don't need this project is my point.

I don't know that, do you?

The brand is doing well.

Their sales are up.

I think they said, Ilaria Resta said

the sales was up, revenue is up 10% year over year.

You said the brand.

I'm talking, now you're talking about the business.

I think the business is fine.

Sure.

Regardless of this project.

The business doesn't need this project.

I don't think the brand does either.

We can talk about that,

but I don't think the business of AP needs this project.

So I think it's incredibly shrewd for them to just say,

we're not taking this money and putting it in our pockets.

We're donating it to charity.

I think that's smart.

It is.

Now, how exactly they do it,

we can pick it apart and scrutinize it.

But I do think that that is purely a sort of a PR

and communications move.

It is.

It's a smart and a savvy one.

It is.

Because it allows them to escape any criticism

that they're selling out the Royal Oak

or this is just a cynical cash grab.

Okay.

But let's call it what it is.

They're donating to their own foundation,

which someone I suspect controls

who probably is also on the board of AP.

So, you know, so really what are they doing?

They're just taking the money

and they're allocating it to another project

that is tax exempt.

Again, like now draw your conclusion.

I would suspect in Switzerland, as in other countries,

there are criteria that a nonprofit organization

or a foundation must meet.

All of this is theoretical

because we don't have evidence of it,

but we're looking at what we're seeing, right?

And that's that.

And again, I want to be clear.

I don't think this is bad.

I just find it interesting

that this is how they're organizing it.

But then there is the other sentence here, which is-

There's more from the quote.

The financial support-

This is the gift it keeps giving.

Financial support for those whose craft is under pressure.

So the way I read that is kind of the same angle

that LVMH is taking with independent watchmaking,

which is to say we, AP, would love

to help independent watchmakers

and supply chain folks and things like that

through our largesse through this project.

And I guarantee you that will be in exchange

for something contractual.

It's interesting.

When you look through the LVMH award contract,

there's a lot of stuff in there

where independent watchmakers in exchange for-

So when they sign up to participate in the program,

they sign a contract.

Oh yeah.

And there's a lot in there

about the expectations of that watchmaker

and also the expectations of LVMH, to be clear,

but it's not a free ride.

And I have to imagine that there's probably something

in their mind around this, which is like,

well, let's take the money from this project.

Let's use it to invest in training watchmakers

and scholarships and things like that.

We have a vector for that.

That's our foundation.

Everybody wins here.

Let's do that.

Okay.

Then there's this other sentence, which is very vague,

but I think it's open to interpretation and says,

maybe we take some of this money as well

and we use it to bolster the supply chain,

which also helps our bottom line.

Or we take this and we use it to support

an independent watchmaker who can help add some juice

to our more abundant product line and things like that.

I'm not so cynical.

I don't think that's cynical, man.

This is one of the things that I think is good about this.

I think this is business doing business.

But I don't think it's worth singling out AP.

I mean, you've said LVMH is doing something similar.

Rolex does something similar.

I mean, they go out of their way to say like,

we support the watchmaking industry

as an ecosystem overall.

I mean, we want to go there.

And Rolex essentially is hypothetically a not-for-profit.

Yeah.

So, I'm not so sure that this is like some conspiracy

that we all need to be-

You keep framing this up as if it's a conspiracy.

And that is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is we need to look very clearly

at what they're telling us with open eyes.

Sure.

Which is that-

They're going to have discretion over how these funds

are distributed.

And when they say they're donating it to charity-

And it's going to their own foundation.

That is factually accurate.

And in practice, not so much.

Well, there could also be a game of telephone here

where people read this,

they glaze over the press release,

and they say charity when AP has been saying all along,

as I said, on their website, in their press release,

the proceeds go to the AP Foundation,

which does many things, including education.

So, there we have it.

Now, I said the business,

and you were right to force me to be clear with my words.

I said, the business doesn't need this,

and the brand doesn't need this.

You think the brand does need this?

No, I don't.

And it makes me wonder what it is

that they think they're accomplishing

from a brand standpoint.

Interesting thing about-

That's the biggest puzzle of all of this to me.

Like here, let's go back to our thesis

that this brings people in,

like putting aside the cultural thing,

which I agree with you completely,

but let's just talk about this as a gateway, right?

Like how many people who buy Mad Watches buy MB&Fs?

I don't know, but like, interesting question.

Same question here.

How many people who buy Royal Pops

are gonna buy a Royal Oak?

Well, I know the answer to that.

Well, they're gonna go to the Audemars boutique

and they're gonna get the same treatment

that anybody else gets,

because if they walk in there

and they think that like their $300 like plastic dongle

is gonna suddenly like open a door for them.

Yeah, basically we're just sending more people

into the buzzsaw here.

Kind of.

For a brand that says all the time,

we don't make enough watches.

We can't accommodate all the demand we already have.

You walk into the AP boutique, you get the stiff arm,

or they try to bundle you on a less desirable.

Now we're gonna send more people running into that.

Just imagine some of the customers.

No, imagine what we hear when someone walks in there

and is like, hi, I have five or six Audemars Piguets

that I've collected over the last 10 years.

And I'd like a 15202ST.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

Now, if I show up and I'm like, hey guys,

I've got like three plastic pocket watch dongles

and a monocle, like who's gonna hook me up?

Oh, you do have a monocle.

I do have a monocle, so get that guy a watch.

But it's very different from, I bought a Moon Swatch

or I heard about the Moon Swatch

and I realized that what I really want,

or opened my eyes to, I really love Speedmaster.

Okay, go into the store and buy one.

Yeah, you want a Speedmaster at retail?

Walter Socek can get you one by three o'clock.

No problem. You don't wanna know how.

Yeah. You know what I mean?

But my point is like, you can get one.

You can't get one of these.

So they're just setting this up.

And it's bizarre to me too, because they risk making

the core, what is the Achilles heel of the brand,

which is the way that they treat potential customers.

They actually risk making that problem worse for themselves.

100%.

And for more, and treating more people in that way.

So how would you do that?

So to that point, I don't like, sure.

Could you make an argument on a slide,

in a presentation that's like,

we believe that we'll see X percentage of conversion

over time by bringing younger people,

who are more oriented towards experience

and less towards objects into watchmaking.

And let's all approve this.

And everyone around the boardroom goes,

yeah, that's a great idea.

I see that, but I don't know that AP needs it.

And I would go so far as to say that,

look, maybe AP is the aspirational first watch

for some people.

That is entirely possible.

I believe that that's true.

And maybe 100%.

And I believe also that like by doing this,

they'll broaden the horizons of folks

who may not have paid any attention before,

get blah, blah, blah.

All the things we just talked about.

Doesn't solve their core problem,

which is that nobody cares about any watches they make,

other than the Royal Oak.

Yeah, you're exacerbating.

Right.

I mean, if the Royal Pop was like,

the Royal Remaster, you know what I mean?

Like the Remaster Pop.

All right, well, maybe you're creating

some degree of demand.

Obviously that would be not successful

because nobody knows what that is, you know?

Or like the Jules Artemis Pop, you know?

Le Code 1158.

Exactly, Pop, you know?

But the point is like, I get it,

but you're just generating demand

for a thing you can't service anyway.

So weird choice, but follow your bliss.

Let's talk about the product.

So I get why they didn't make a watch.

Totally, I totally get it.

It actually protects the Royal Oak itself.

It doesn't cheapen the Royal Oak itself.

To give them credit,

I'm gonna give both Swatch and AP some credit here.

I think what they're trying to do is like,

create a new product fad or new product category,

which is a very bold thing.

Like I've heard a lot of people say like,

I think they're trying to make fetch happen.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

I think I've heard a number of people say,

and I agree that this is the goal.

I don't know that it will happen,

but it's like, they're trying to create the next Le Boo Boo.

You know, and I get that.

They want this thing to be a product category of one

and a cool thing to have.

And maybe someone wears it as a necklace.

Someone told me in a text message,

again, someone who knew nothing about AP,

you're like, I might want to put one of those on my purse.

You know, like my daughter would hang one of these

from her backpack, you know,

now that I'm buying her a $300 Swatch.

Way to mark yourself as a target,

but like, don't watch her too much.

But like, you know, like,

and so I think that that's actually bold.

I think that that's daring.

I think that that's risky.

They didn't do the safe thing,

which is make a facsimile of a Royal Oak as a watch.

Like that would have been the easy thing to do.

They chose the harder path here,

which we can discuss because I don't know

that this is going to have the same product resonance.

I don't know that this has a product resonance.

I respect the strategy.

But they took a risk.

I respect the product strategy.

Put me on the record for that one, you know.

Don't ever say-

They did the obvious thing.

They did not do the obvious thing.

They could have done the easy thing and they didn't.

Now, whether that will play out in terms,

I mean, I do think we're going to see

a massive opening weekend of sales.

Of course.

You know, whether or not-

Will it sustain?

I don't know that it will.

I mean, she refers to this as a one-off,

so maybe it's limited.

I don't know.

Look, I don't,

there's a reason why the pocket watch

isn't as popular today.

And I love pocket watches,

but isn't as popular today as it was in the past

because there's better form factors.

Yeah.

We have some AP facsimiles here.

We've got an AP wall clock.

And then we have,

actually, you want to talk about some cool stuff.

Like we have a small collection,

not of pocket watches, but of-

Stopwatches.

This is a Minerva.

We had a couple of Minerva stopwatches.

We've got a Heuer.

We have a cool desk clock there

from the folks at Solabs.

Like these things are really cool and neat,

but they're niche.

But they're niche.

Exactly, they're niche.

The only person who cares about an AP wall clock

or a Minerva stopwatch or a Solabs desk clock

as cool as these things are,

and we have them

because we think they're really cool,

are watch nerds.

Yeah.

So that, but which goes against the theory

that they're presenting.

Exactly.

You know, which is why,

which is why-

It's maddening.

It is maddening.

And I look at the, and this is why when I,

you know, you were accusing me of being a cynic

or skeptical or conspiracy theorist,

but if you really zoom all the way out here,

let's describe this project.

We're going to take some of the most valuable IP,

in fact, I would argue for AP,

the most valuable IP, intellectual property they have.

One of the most valuable IPs in all of watchmaking,

one of the most valuable IPs in the world of product.

Right.

We're going to take that,

and we're going to democratize it

through a fast fashion machine.

And then what we're going to do

is we're going to take away its core identity,

which is a watch,

to put it into a form factor

for which nobody's been asking for.

Doesn't mean there might not be interest.

And then we're going to take the proceeds from that.

And we're going to fund our own charity with it,

which is regulated presumably by them

to potentially educate watchmakers,

which I suspect will help the industry, but also them.

And then this other thing in the corner

about what they're going to do with, you know,

people who work in the watch industry under duress,

whatever that means.

Weird.

But for one thing, for one thing,

let's talk about the Swatch Group here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I have my own Rube Goldberg machine here,

which is, I do want to,

we've spoken a lot about AP.

I do want to talk about.

Well, I really want to talk about Swatch.

Yeah.

Two thoughts on AP.

One is like, I see it a little bit differently,

which is like, being culturally relevant is part of AP.

Yes.

You know, like that's one of the things

that they've done really well

that has contributed to their success

over the last 10 to 15 years

is they've realized they can't be just a watch brand,

but they need to be a brand

and they need to be a cultural force.

Yes.

And me sitting here with strong feedback about it

is the price of relevancy.

And they've done that.

Yes.

So now they're like,

what's our next move on the chessboard

of cultural relevancy?

You know, it can't just be about the, you know,

mentioning the next rap song

or the next red carpet at the Met Gala or whatever it is.

What's our next move?

Let's do a project that gets our name

and our, you know, one of our core brand assets,

which is the design.

Their core brand asset.

Out there in the culture, everyone's talking about it.

Everyone wants it.

There's lines for it.

And the way we're going to do that

is to make the most insidery horological product

we possibly could, which is a pocket watch.

Like that's what, and I know why it's like,

well, we can't make a watch.

It's not even technically, it's a pendant.

It's like, we can't make a watch, a wristwatch.

So what do we do?

We want to be, it's like.

They already made the clock.

The, you know, the biggest thing they could do

to have this huge cultural impact

was make this horological object

that is something that is likely

only to appeal to insiders.

Yeah.

Like that's what, now I could be wrong

and we could be eating crow.

This really could be the next Le Boo Boo,

but product hits like Neato or Le Boo Boo

or snap bracelets or whatever it might be.

Yeah.

They catch fire and they become popular

not because they were designed to be,

it's just dumb luck.

Yes.

Lightning strikes.

You can't make lightning strike.

You can't put it in a bottle.

And that's what I find so puzzling here.

Now, the one thing where I will eat crow

is we were pretty harsh on AP

and the way they showed up at Watches and Wonders

by saying they showed up and they had closed doors.

They couldn't even be bothered to put a watch out.

And a number of people told us like,

yeah, well, we actually were able to get in there.

When we went inside the booth,

it was this really cool wonderland.

And like, I don't know,

it actually was one of the more interesting things

at all of the fair.

I still stand by putting the velvet rope up

and the closed doors wasn't the look for a brand

that said they want to be at the center

of the watch industry

and participate in the watch industries

and be a good corporate citizen in the industry at large.

I will say as puzzling as I find this product

and this project for AP,

I do think it is them showing up

and participating in the wider watch ecosystem.

And that to me is surprising, unexpected

and not something I saw coming.

So I will give them some credit for that,

but they're doing it with a curious partner

or a strange bedfellow, which is Swatch Group.

I think the fact that everyone looks at this and says,

like, there is no one who's like,

oh, they're doing this with Swatch

because it is the only company that can do this.

And say what you will about the Swatch Group

and brand management or whatever,

they have proven that Swatch as a platform

is a cultural accelerator

like nothing else in the watch industry.

Well, couldn't you argue the opposite,

which is to say, if we look at the Swatch, these products,

whether it's the Moon Swatch, the Scuba or now this,

I would argue maybe it's the opposite.

It's like Swatch needed the Speedmaster to catch fire again.

They released the Blancpain Scuba collaboration

and the world was like, eh,

they do this collaboration with AP

and everyone is so excited about the project

because it's an AP and a Royal Oak.

And then they see what the product actually is.

And they're just like, huh?

Okay, I guess.

So-

But I mean, there's two parts to it.

Like you're saying two things.

You're saying that the money doesn't matter

and it's the cultural relevancy.

The cultural relevancy for both Blancpain

and for Omega and AP, all of that went up

and the attention went up.

Who cares how many of these they sold in that sense?

Yeah, but-

There's more attention for Blancpain

than Blancpain's gotten in forever.

Because they effectively lowered

the entry price of a Blancpain.

It's nothing to do, in my mind, I like Swatch.

My first watch was a Swatch.

I've collected Swatch watches.

I know a lot of people love them.

I own Swatch watches.

My kid has a Swatch.

I get no shade on Swatch.

But I think the borrowed interest here goes the other way,

which is to say it's Swatch borrowing interest from Omega,

Swatch borrowing interest from Blancpain,

Swatch borrowing interest from AP.

Because what they're doing is democratizing those products

that are premium products or out of reach.

So I don't necessarily view Swatch as an accelerant

on Omega or on AP.

I view it as the opposite.

It's borrowed interest to make Swatch more relevant.

I think we don't, I think to answer that question,

we would need data that we don't have,

which is the conversion rate of the million, you know,

Moon swatches that were sold in 2022

into full-on speedy buyers.

Sure, well, let me put it this way.

No one was lining up outside the Swatch store

until they put an Omega logo in the window

or a Blancpain logo in the window

or now an AP logo in the window.

And to me, that's all you need to know.

The borrowed interest is going the other way to Swatch.

I guess.

I think the flip side of that, I mean, yes, that's true.

That is true.

But I think the other side of that is

who else in the industry would be capable of doing this?

No one.

So that's my point.

That like, sure, is Swatch, you know,

trading at that same level of interest?

No, it's certainly not.

But because of the infrastructure that Swatch has

from a production standpoint,

there is nobody else that can do this.

And I think the Swatch brand means something

and has value and Swatch is a platform

that can bring other things in,

whether it's key pairing or AP or whatever it might,

how many cool co-branded Swatch collaborations?

You got a Van Gogh Swatch.

Those are cool.

Like they've defined Swatch more than anything,

not just as its own,

they've defined it both as its own brand identity,

but over the decades as a platform

for collaboration as well.

So from Swatch's standpoint,

Swatch is not saying anything about donating anything.

No, they need the money.

So Swatch, they owe money all of it.

We're gonna quote the Big Lebowski as much as we can here.

Look, I think, but for Swatch-

Look at the financial results of the Swatch group overall.

They need this to succeed.

Well, and there's not-

It's material to their business

in a way that it isn't for AP.

Well, and there's another side to it too,

which is notice how all of the discussion

and all of the feedback and all of the opinions

and what, how long have we been talking about this?

We've been talking about this for 47 minutes, right?

All of the-

We've just been talking about AP.

By the time I edit out most of what you said,

it'll be 20 minutes.

Exactly.

But my point is, all we've talked about is AP.

For Swatch, we're like, oh yeah, totally.

I mean, I think for them, it's a coup.

It is, that's my point.

Where I'm just like, for Swatch, I'm like, good job, dudes.

Like, great job.

You nailed it.

Whether this thing is a success or a failure,

it does not fall on the shoulders of Swatch.

You know what I mean?

No, it benefits.

Look, I think if I was Swatch, from a brand standpoint-

And I'm on the other side of the table and I'm-

Yeah, sure.

Like, can you see any way this hurts the Swatch brand?

No, I can't.

And it's like, you'll take what you can get.

Like, if I'm the person from Swatch,

and to role play a little bit here,

and you're from AP and we're kind of negotiating

what this project exactly is going to be.

And you're telling me like, well, look, I want to do this.

I want to help the industry overall.

I want to like, you know, keep watchmaking front and center

in the cultural conversation.

Let's do that together.

We'll donate the money to charity.

But, guy from Swatch, like, I can't,

we can't allow you to make another Royal Oak.

Like, that's just not going to work.

We need to protect that product and the brand.

You can make like a pocket watch kind of version of it.

Like, don't really give people what they want.

Give them, you know, like a few degrees out

from what they actually want.

And that way, you know, like we're not diluting our brand

and people who have invested in a proper Royal Oak

aren't mad.

This person must be married to a product designer,

a tutor.

Yeah, exactly.

Well, I have a theory about tutors.

I've changed my theory about tutor

not giving us exactly what we want.

Because I got a watch recently from tutor

that I think is perfect.

But I digress.

So you're sitting there from AP telling me all this

and I'm sitting here from Swatch and I'm kind of like,

yeah, man, look, I'll do whatever you want.

Yeah, exactly.

Like I get, wait, I get to make something?

Yeah.

Okay.

Like, sure, yeah, it'll be a necklace.

Like, great.

Whatever, you know.

Let me send you the invoice.

So I say, you know, I have a lot of strong opinions

about the Swatch group,

but in this particular instance, I say to you folks,

what an excellent job, well done.

I cannot see a single downside to Swatch doing this.

For Swatch.

Yeah, I mean, it's like, well, it's a pendant.

So do they sell as many of them as they could?

No, but they still sell something.

They got the brand out there and culture and-

Yeah, man.

And it's set for Swatch.

They're also going to get some AP boys

into the Swatch store.

Yeah.

You know what I mean?

And it sets up the next move for Swatch.

Like it keeps Swatch desirable.

Like, is this the, you know-

Do you want to talk about the Regep Regepi Swatch

that we saw in-

Well, no, it does set the move.

Is this the most desirable version

of what this product could be?

No.

But is it, is what will happen at the Swatch boutique

this weekend better than what would have happened otherwise?

With no-

I mean, there will be that Swatch Jorn sundial.

Does it set up the next collaboration for Swatch

to do something bold and unexpected?

Does it raise people's expectation of the brand?

Does it keep Swatch top of mind?

Does it keep Swatch alive as a platform for collaboration?

Well, it opens the door outside

of the Swatch group's intellectual property,

which to me is the most interesting thing.

And for making things other than watches.

Yes, that, but it, you know, I look at it and I'm like,

okay, this is kind of cool in the sense that

now that they broke the seal on this,

now anybody hypothetically has permission to approach Swatch

with their own intellectual property

to see if they can fast fashion it.

And like-

And if AP did it, then what's the downside?

What's to stop anybody else from doing it.

Now, granted, you might get to a place

of diminishing returns here, blah, blah, blah.

They may end up creating-

Rolex is next in line, I'm telling you.

Exactly.

But, and then you end up creating this whole other

subculture of collecting kind of like, you know,

the plastic version of X, Y, and Z.

And I mean, cool.

Like, all right.

You know, that's more people in the space.

Like, that's a whole thing.

Like, I get it.

You know, I think-

You know, remember when Swatch used to make those

wall clocks that were just, not just giant Swatch watches,

but they also had giant straps on them?

Yeah, man.

I want to get one.

Yeah, I used to buy them at Think Big.

Remember Think Big?

Yeah, I want to get one of those for the office.

Like, that's a cool wall clock,

just a giant Swatch watch.

Well, the funny thing is, I look at this and I'm like,

you really want to bring new people in?

You should be doing AP-coded Flick Flacks.

You know what I mean?

What would an AP-coded Flick Flack be?

What do you mean?

What I'm saying is like, Flick Flack,

you know, the children's version of a Swatch watch.

So like an octagonal-

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You know, it's like, no seven-year-old

is knocking on the door of the AP boutique,

but you could definitely program into their-

You know how you and I talk about the fact that

a Rolex Submariner is like the definite,

like if you think watch and you look up

watch in the dictionary,

it's a picture of a Sub, you know?

There's a certain degree of like-

I stole that chestnut from Ben Clymer.

Well, there you go, but you could-

That's right.

Thank you, Mr. Clymer.

But my point is, you could imagine

if you really were trying to do that,

where you just start taking design elements

from like these iconic other watches

and start programming them into Flick Flacks.

And you know, you saw, but the challenge of that,

of course, like you have to have fun with them,

because the whole point of a Flick Flack is fun.

So you're messing, you're playing with fire a little bit,

but it's kind of this interesting idea of, you know,

okay, well, if you're going to really, you know,

tease this idea out, what other assets,

what other platforms does this watch have?

Anyway-

You think people would have been more stoked

if it was a Flick Flack and not a pendant?

I think so.

I think so.

And it might've even hit on the-

I would have thought it was obscenely charming, you know?

Like that's just-

Yeah, so cool.

Yeah, I think that's the way maybe you do a watch

without doing a watch.

Exactly.

Anyway, look, all of this to say,

coming next summer,

the pendant is a limited product,

but the Flick Flack is next in line.

Exactly.

The, you know, instead of, whatever,

we can keep coming up with crazy ideas.

Point being, look, no matter how you cut it,

this was a fascinating thing to do.

Whether it's a commercial success or not, you know,

whether it's a brand, good brand choice or not,

whether, you know, the charitable thing is, you know,

as clear as mud or not, like whatever.

Bottom line here is, did you see this coming?

I did not see this coming.

Neither did I.

This is my point.

I am willing to eat crow on AP now

because we can say whatever about

whether it was the right choice strategically,

but it does show that they are willing to participate

in the wider industry, which I think is interesting.

I think that's a good thing.

The fact that AP is like,

hey, let's see if we could figure out something cool

to do with Swatch,

and maybe we can't do the product that everyone wants,

but like, we're going to do something.

And it's going to put watchmaking back in the headlines

in the real world where real stuff actually matters

and real people will hear about this stuff.

Like, I wonder also whose project this was.

I wonder if this was Benihamias

or I wonder if it was Resta.

It apparently, you know,

these things in the corporate world take forever,

but Benhamias is Swatch collector.

So I heard somewhere he sold off most of his collection,

but apparently at his height of Swatch collecting,

he had hundreds of Swatches.

Like, he was known as like a Swatch enthusiast.

And, you know, at these smaller companies like AP,

it's a family owned company.

It's personality driven.

Ilaria Resta is very much the face of the brand now.

Benhamias was the face of the brand.

These things are always personality driven.

You know, these things aren't decided by committee.

So I would suspect it might've started with him.

Well, the reason I ask, you know,

is prior to being the CEO of AP,

Resta had spent virtually her entire career

at Procter & Gamble.

And to me, I'm like,

this actually feels like something

that would really align with her,

or like Procter & Gamble's like theories of brand building.

One of the questions that like I've worked,

and by the way, like I actually do package goods branding,

and I can tell you one of the things

that consumer package goods brands think about

is not just like they're, you know,

what the brand stands for and the product intrinsics

and its attributes and the key selling points.

They think about the role of their brand,

not just in the life of their consumer,

but they think about the role of their brand in the world.

And this is a project where AP is showing us

like they're at least trying,

they're thinking about what is the role of AP in the world?

And I think that's an interesting question to ask

that we can disagree with how they did it,

but most watch brands aren't doing that,

and that's to their detriment.

And I do think her core thesis of,

if all we do as watchmakers is focus on the savoir faire

and the finest finishing and the best watchmaking

and the luxury experience and all this stuff,

we just start talking to ourselves

and an audience that is either shrinking or aging out.

We have to think about the role of our brand in the world

and the role of watchmaking in the world

and keeping watches alive as a-

Yeah, the only problem with that though,

and I would say like, I get that,

is everybody needs toilet paper,

everybody needs deodorant, everybody needs shampoo,

and anyone can get those things easily.

None of that applies here.

Yeah, but they're, oh, well,

that makes the role of the brand even more important.

To me, it's-

Yeah, sure, sure, sure.

You can't just brand on product intrinsics.

No, but brand is in service,

product is in service of brand

and brand is in service of product.

Like these two things exist in,

they have to serve each other, right?

If the brand promise is not brought to life in the product,

it's a failure.

If the product doesn't serve the brand promise,

it's a failure, right?

So those two things have to align.

Right now, when you look at this,

it's like this project is about brand promise,

but the product itself and the outcome

doesn't necessarily play out in that way,

which is another reason why it's kind of a bizarre choice

from a brand standpoint.

That said, taking a step back

and looking at why brand is so critical

to consumer packaged goods,

it's because they're commodities,

and the commodity itself has no fundamental value

until you wrap it in the value of the brand, right?

Like shampoo, if you buy head and shoulders,

it's just white goo.

It's the fact that it's head and shoulders only matters

because there's been investment in that brand,

you've seen ads for it for decades.

You can get the same active ingredient

from the drugstore brand.

Exactly.

So brand for consumer packaged goods is everything.

I think brand is pretty much everything for AP.

And here, what they've created is something

where the product doesn't serve the brand promise.

So I find that interesting, or may not serve the brand.

Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, yes, you're right.

I think it's great that AP is saying,

look, we have a stake in the watch industry

and in watch culture and putting watches into culture.

That's great.

On the other hand, for a brand that has managed itself

so well and been methodical about protecting their brand

and their image and their exclusivity,

it is a bit puzzling.

Yeah.

That's why this whole thing is so,

like we could probably keep chatting about this for hours.

It is-

It's fascinating.

It's a fascinating, puzzling thing with no clear answers,

and it still hasn't even gone on sale.

We'll have to see how it does.

All right, shall we leave it there?

I have a few more points.

No, I'm kidding.

We should leave it there.

I'm really curious to hear what folks think about,

not the product itself,

but the business decisions about this.

So let us know.

Thank you for listening.

Openwork is, of course, a production of Collective Horology.

You can find us online at collectivehorology.com.

And like I said, get in touch.

Let us know your thoughts on all of this.

And to do that, you can email podcast at collectivehorology.com

Bye.