Ariel Adams
We are extremely excited to be able to present to you someone who embodies a pure watch collector. Someone whose passion transcends a certain brand or design and whose focus is truly horology itself. That is, Ariel Adams, founder of aBlogtoWatch.
Ariel and I first got in touch via Instagram while discussing watch design, particularly the Fallout-inspired Laco RAD-AUX Limited Edition he designed. The watch industry has seen significant changes over the past two decades, and Ariel has had one of the best seats in the house from which to observe the happenings of the industry. The rise of platforms like his have transformed many aspects of the watch industry previously unchanged for decades or more. The marketing, the sales avenues, the connection between manufacturer and consumer, have all changed in recent times. Nowadays we can research, read reviews, and purchase watches, all from the same website. This kind of accessibility has also given rise to a relatively new phenomenon – microbrands. And it’s people like Ariel that we have to thank for these developments. As such, we discussed not only his own story with horology but also some key factors that are emerging in the watch industry today, particularly: financing for microbrands, the pre-order model, and innovation.
Now, without further ado, the interview itself.
Andres Ibarguen: Ariel, thank you for speaking with us. Let’s jump into your background; when would you consider that you became a proper watch collector?
Ariel Adams: It was probably in college when I discovered that watches were not just tools but also made to be pretty and cool. I started buying as much as I could afford on eBay. I'm proud of those first few weird watches I got. None of them were very impressive, and it’s actually a bit sad to see how the case, straps, and materials on some of them have aged in less than 20 years.
AI: What was the first watch you bought that became a permanent part of your collection and how did you know it would stick around?
AA: I'm not sure the question applies to me as I don't get watches with the intention of ever selling them. I've gotten rid of a few watches here and there, but I don't like parting with them. Each has a meaning to me because it is connected to a memory. Getting rid of a watch is like giving up a time and place in my life.
AI: What was the worst watch you ever bought?
AA: I've had watches which broke quickly or which have aged very poorly - which probably count up there. I've not ever really been disappointed in a serious purchase as I do a lot of homework. With that said, what I think is more interesting is when a watch I didn't initially like grows on me. That happens from time to time.
AI: What do you think is an ideal size for a watch collection and why? How large is your collection, if I may ask ?
AA: That's a very personal question. I don't think anyone should have to talk about their size or ever have to defend it.
AI: Now turning to the industry...What do you think defines an in-house movement?
AA: Frankly I don't care. I never thought about whether or not a watch company made a movement entirely on their own until I started hearing about it over and over and over again. I frankly wish that watch brands stopped talking about it. I think it is a good idea to mentioned what parts of their movements and watches overall are different from a visual, technical, and quality standpoint. I strongly believe in communicating about all of that and helping consumers to distinguish between more or less interesting watch movements. Whether or not something is actually made entirely by one company or with the help of some suppliers... it never crossed my mind it could really effect the outcome of an otherwise well-engineered and built watch.
AI: We spoke before about my fear of the watch market increasingly becoming like the art one… Do you share this phobia?
AA: I'm not really worried about the watch market having similarities to the art market - if you are referring to hyper-inflation in pricing and sales which are more linked to market than inherent value. I think the sleazy part of the art market, just like the watch market, will always be there. It is up to you whether or not you choose to pay attention to it.
I constantly hear people share with me if I agree that this auction event or this brand marketing practices should be “banned” because it makes the industry look bad. I say, just stop looking. It is true that over the last few years a lot of the bad actors and liars in the watch industry have been getting a lot of public attention and noise. That to me is due to their novelty value and because the most established voices in the watch industry - including the brands themselves are not doing as much talking. This is related to the massive decrease in overall marketing spending. So the messaging space vacuum allowed for a lot of the less impressive parts of the investment world to come in and hawk wrist watches as the next best ‘cultured’ status symbol to tell fellow rich people in the least provocative way just how well you are doing. Wearing a super-priced, flimsy piece of 50-year-old steel on your wrist is just one big humble brag about how you can wear rusting technology on your wrist because it is cool and because you can afford such whimsies.
I choose to just ignore all that. I focus on the watches I like, from the brands I like, around the stories I like. Everything else I ignore as part of my naturally born right to judge behavior I dislike as beneath my attention.
AI: What do you think of so-called ‘watch investors’ and how they could contribute to the dilution of the watch market?
AA: I feel bad for whomever trusts these people with money. Watches are over the long run a terrible investment in the same way that all vanity items are. That is unless you want someone to have a fun heirloom to enjoy after you are dead. In that regard, watches are excellent investments. That doesn't mean you have to lose huge value on wrist watches. Today the barriers to easily and effectively sell your watch back into commerce are changing. That is a good thing as it helps people who want to liquidate their watches for some money do. With that said, it is normal for watches, like cars, to in most instances go down in value as opposed to up in value each time they are sold. High-demand collectors watches which are hard to get will always be around, but there will be nothing inherently special about those watches which you can't find in plenty of other watches out there.
In the past I've routinely talked about how from a consumer perspective it is a bad thing for speculators and scalpers to sell watches for above retail prices. This is a bad thing. It is a good thing for the value of a wrist watch to sunset over time as most luxury timepieces can easily find a home on three, maybe even four or five wrists until it is so beat up no one wants it anymore. Then wait a lifetime or so, pretend like a celebrity owned it while rescuing a bus full of kids while traveling in the North Pole and your heirs might be set for life!
The Laco RAD-AUX ideated by Ariel Adams
AI: How do you think the financing structure behind most microbrands affects their products and operations? And by financing I means crowdfunding.
AA: Crowdfunding is merely a tool for those who don't have enough money to pay for development and production themselves. As a tool it has proven relatively powerful, even in its application to wrist watches. I think the biggest lessons from the crowdfunding model is how today's consumer thinks. There is so much room to incorporate lessons from this into serious, luxury watch making. I am afraid it might take them the better part of a generation to do so. Eventually though people will see crowdfunding as just another type of sales and funding arm for the little guys. It entirely loses appeal once a brand gets large enough. Inherent in the ‘Kickstarter’ name, the concept is meant to start a company, not sustain it.
AI: What do you think of the preorder model in general, brands that sell their products before delivery to raise capital for manufacturing? Do you think this affects how they market their products? Or the quality of their products?
AA: The only thing new about pre-ordering in the watch industry is who is making the orders. While a number of brands today produce for a relatively speculative market, so much of watchmaking is predicated on established orders.
Today more of those orders are coming directly from consumers. Watch retailers have been the original pre-ordering engine for years. Baselworld was really an opportunity to show retailers prototypes of watches that they would then be asked to order for large sums of money. Those orders could then take months and sometimes years to deliver. Rolex continues to rely on this order as part of their larger and very intelligent financial risk allocation strategy.
If consumers don't want to pre-order a watch, they don't have to. It is very attractive for brands who can't afford larger productions, and most of the time consumers are made happy. With that said, any consumer is entirely free to vote with their dollars and simply abstain from ever pre-ordering anything.
AI: Under what structure do you think up and coming watch brands could thrive?
AA: In other contexts I've written about this exact question. The simple answer is that for the foreseeable future brands will have to embrace sales and marketing diversity. There is literally no one model that will work for all brands. This is because the future is a landscape of more differentiated brands which target different audiences. Today there are some people who still hate shopping for anything emotional online. For them, some type of traditional in-store retail concept must exist or a company will never get their business. A brand who chooses to invest in such a consumer will have to follow where and how that consumer naturally spends their money. It should always focus on adapting to the lifestyle of the consumer.
Other consumers want a direct relationship with a brand online, and to learn about a brand's products, personality, and events entirely from the brand itself. They might like to see the brand in other contexts as well, but a lot of younger consumers these days are not accustomed to buying from multi-brand retailers. They want brands to find them, court them, sell to them, and grow with them. For as many consumer types as can afford luxury watches, there must be brands, marketing, distribution, and sales techniques which fit their lives and patterns. Not the other way around.
AI: What would you like to see in microbrands? More original design? More technological innovation?
AA: I can't reasonably expect microbrands to do something which isn't practical like have more money or demand more from their manufacturing suppliers. I actually think people should think less about microbrands because these are not where most of the excitement in the industry should be coming from. Don't get me wrong, I love and support the idea of a watch enthusiast becoming a watch brand creator. This is a great idea. I just don't think that a bunch of one-human companies which are more passion and potential than current appeal to anyone who has experiences with really nice watches have what it takes to usher in this industry to the next era.
These great entrepreneurs are doing this because many of them find the traditional watch industry stagnant and would like to see something new. They also see huge holes in the market created by big brand egos who simply can't allow themselves to sell watches for such hideously low prices such as under $1,000. Microbrands exist because of current holes and dysfunctions in what is really a challenging place to make a product. The reality is that making watches is a very tough to do from scratch. Microbrands all share a relatively limited number of suppliers. Those suppliers once had a lot more orders from a shrinking larger industry. The microbrand orders are their desperation plan, not their bright future plan. For the time being there will be enough excess manufacturing capacity in Asia, and some parts of Europe and the US, to keep microbrands supplied with watches. Eventually the economics will shift and I'm not sure the same manufacturing capacity will be available to them. In the future the existence of microbrands, in my opinion, is entirely dependent on the progress made in small-batch machining and custom parts creation for watches.
AI: Any microbrands out there that you see making real strides? What do you like about them?
AA: I'm proud of any watch microbrand which is able to get their third, fourth, or fifth watch off the ground. If they can sustain quality and keep new designs coming and ideas flowing then they are probably doing a good job. I think small brands should be thought of as talent incubators, the best of which might be eventually given real money to help assemble a real brand that has continuity beyond one person's energy and commitment.
AI: What's your least favorite microbrand?
AA: More than once a week I get an e-mail about a new brand of a particular type which is interested in getting coverage on aBlogtoWatch. This type of new brand spends a lot of time talking about the money they have been already able to raise. Sometimes they list out consumer publications that they have purchased ads in as though that is supposed to sway me they are serious, and then proceed to talk about how their "modern, minimalistic" watches should be purchased because doing so tangentially supports some social cause. Or sometimes there is no social cause, but rather just a feel-good idea: ‘We are the brand about celebrating love and making the most out of each day.’
What irritates me the most is that the products are all within about 10 degrees of design from one another. It's like they heard you regrettably have to design a watch to go with your feel-good message brand, and they do so in absolutely the least respectable way. In other words, if I can't take your watch product seriously, I sure as hell am not going to take your social cause seriously.
AI: What do you think it takes for a new, legitimate, collectible watch brand to emerge in today’s market? What would you say the last brand that established itself in such a way was?
AA: Alarmingly few watch brand hopefuls ask themselves the question, ‘What problem does my product solve?’ A good watch is a tool. And tools are a mechanical solution to some problem. In my experience, a key reason why any legitimate watch lover is interested in wrist watches is due to their nature as a tool whether or not they actually need the functionality.
Watches which begin as the solution to some technical, stylistic, durability, etc..., need end up being the most satisfying in the long run. This is why we like diving watches, and pilot watches, and timing watches. They are all tools for some specific and sometimes elaborate purpose.
If a designer or watch lover has an idea for a need that isn't currently being served with a product in the market, then that product will do well provided that it is a good solution to that problem. If a brand instead sees another brand that is doing something well and wants to take a piece of that pie, then they need to be careful. Not only is mimicry certainly not the best flattery, but it often leaves business people flat on their face. So, in addition to producing watches which are solutions to real problems, what brand founders need to actually be true to themselves in all that they do if they are interested in long-term success.
AI: Thanks again for taking the time to speak to me, Ariel.
Interview by Andres Ibarguen.