We’ve seen quite a number of watch launches over the past couple of weeks, mostly thanks to Geneva Watch Days (GWD), but also a few unexpected surprises that pretty much came out of nowhere. Generally speaking, there are a few ways that watch brands tend to do this, but they all revolve around some kind of big reveal, which makes sense in terms of getting attention. How the reveal is structured, however, can vary from launch to launch.
There is the unannounced drop, like the Blancpain collaboration with Swatch that happened last weekend. Although there were restrained hints on the respective social media channels of each brand — not to mention the wild speculation online within collector groups — the news pretty much hit the ground like a flaming meteor. For a few years now, Audemars Piguet have also been taking this route for certain (not all) of their new releases, with zero media build-up, just casually sending the news out across journalist inboxes once the watch has been officially launched.
Others go to the opposite extreme, sending information out to journalists months in advance, under protection of a press embargo, meeting with individual writers and editors to craft article angles and coverage. Of course, this was a lot more common when print media was predominant and required extensive lead time in order to make print deadlines, but it still happens in the digital realm to a certain extent.
Most launches fall somewhere in between. They don’t go to all the effort of coordinating a big media push, but neither do they just spring out at you with no warning. They get in touch a week, maybe two weeks, before. They mention to you when you meet with them, that they’re releasing a new thing soon and to keep an eye out for the press release coming your way. If you’re lucky and the timing is just right, they might even have a prototype on hand for you to check out (after you’ve put your smartphone away, obviously).
The type of product rollout selected is usually driven by the watch itself. If you put yourself in the shoes of a brand that’s about to launch something new, what would you prioritise in terms of audience and media response? The quantity of discussion? The quality of discussion? The amount of variety within that discussion? The tone of the discussion (positive or negative, sophisticated or lowbrow)? It depends on the watch.
That is to say, there isn’t a right or wrong answer to any of these, but it’s interesting to examine various watch launch campaigns and try to analyse what they’re motivated by. Was X brand chasing a big media buzz when they launched that watch? Did Y brand offer exclusive information and interview opportunities to particular journalists with the intention of tapping into the community of hardcore mechanical movement nerds? Did the marcomms people over at Z brand deliberately set out to control the conversation with strict non-disclosure agreements and an intimidatingly comprehensive library of press assets and talking points that journalists were “encouraged” to use?
I’m going to volunteer a piece of information about writers, reporters and journalists. People who end up in this profession are not really that great at parroting official lines. We are an inquisitive and opinionated bunch, and our threshold of belief is pretty high — meaning we rarely take things at face value. A lot of us were admonished as young children to stop asking so many questions and just accept what others (parents, teachers, random figures of authority) were saying. If you ever meet a writer and ask them why they chose that career, the answer is probably not going to be because they enjoyed being told what to think.
As contradictory as it sounds for me to say this, I don’t actually like press releases as a concept. I recognise their necessity, and I certainly respect the work that goes into them, but I think they take away a great part of the pleasure of being a journalist, which is to Go Out And Discover Stuff. I want to have a watch in my hand; I want to ask questions of the people who made it, who designed it, who conceived it. I want to create a story based on what I find out from talking to all these people, a story that I think will speak to my audience and what interests them. A one-size-fits-all press release can’t do that for me.
If that sentiment has a slight ring of hypocrisy to your ears — after all, I have written a few press releases myself over the years — let me put it this way. In writing a press release, I’m actually doing all those things I just described above. I’m not just ingesting and regurgitating information from a fixed source. I am Going Out And Discovering Stuff. There’s no set message yet, the press release hasn’t been written yet (because in that situation, I’m the one writing it, duh). I am holding the watch, talking to its creators, and crafting a story that will help the watch come alive in the minds of those who read it afterwards. I am, in fact, writing my perfect article.
And in an ideal world of horological discourse, I think that’s what all watch writing should be like. No official mandated message. No brand-issued beautifully worded narrative about watchmaking heritage and rediscovering brand patrimony. Maybe just a technical sheet with a table of information on it. You’re supposed to let art speak for itself, aren’t you? If your watchmaking is art, why not let it speak for itself?
For years now, I’ve been planting this idea among the brand executives I’m on a friendly basis with, but so far no one’s been adventurous enough to actually take it up. I hope it happens one day. Writers can be as inventive and creative as the watches they come across. Why not see what they really have to say?
