• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Counterfeit

Persimmon

Well-Known Member
Property rights are one thing but I am with the person who posted this -

Shame on Burberry for destroying £28.6m worth of their products in 2018. Why not donate some of it to charity?

It is certainly ... a here today gone tomorrow world .. but why !!
 

zoomer

Well-Known Member
They have no responsibility to the public. Only to stockholders and the brand image.
 

johnwayne

Well-Known Member
Surely too they could flog off at much reduced prices via 'sales' or through outlet stores? Trouble with 'Charity' stores as such you'd only get dealers or eBay'ers buying low the try to make a fast buck or two online. If I was a shareholder think I'd be pretty pee'd off if they didn't offer me anything before burning it all plus had they sold it I'd have hoped for a bigger dividend!
 

SuinBruin

Well-Known Member
Surely too they could flog off at much reduced prices via 'sales' or through outlet stores? Trouble with 'Charity' stores as such you'd only get dealers or eBay'ers buying low the try to make a fast buck or two online. If I was a shareholder think I'd be pretty pee'd off if they didn't offer me anything before burning it all plus had they sold it I'd have hoped for a bigger dividend!
Right, except that discounted prices are exactly what they're trying to avoid. Artificial scarcity can drive demand and therefore price and brand exclusivity.

It has nothing to do with counterfeiting; that's just a pretext to avoid having to acknowledge that Burberry has misjudged the supply and demand calculus and would rather destroy its own goods than risk going more downmarket.

As other articles on this phenomenon have noted it also applies to other luxury goods, with Richemont buying back and destroying£430m (you read that right) worth of watches.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44885983

Rolex is right now a case in point of how a brand is successfully limiting supply to drive its branding. Rolex stainless sports watch models (Submariner, GMT, etc.) are in seriously short supply. They are going on the grey market for prices in excess of MSRP, and many authorized dealers are sold out with long waiting lists. Why doesn't Rolex make more to catch up with demand? Because it wants to maintain its brand image and desirability. It's crazy to me, but the Submariner I bought in 2009 is worth more now as a used watch than what I paid for it brand new.
 

johnwayne

Well-Known Member
Re Rolex, does make you wonder at their thinking behind Tudor, nice as they look I'd always be thinking its a sub-quality Rolex!
 

SuinBruin

Well-Known Member
I think Rolex is positioning Tudor as its entry-level offering, intended to capitalize on the insane popularity of vintage Rolex models and compete with Omega. With more availability and less than 1/2 the cost of a Rolex the Tudor vintage-inspired models should prove popular. Then those Tudor owners who move up in the world will naturally gravitate towards Rolex. Pretty smart and a win-win approach for Rolex as it's not even making enough of its own stainless sports line to satisfy demand.
 

Pilot

Well-Known Member
Rolex and Tudor have no ( technical, marketing ) link anymore and this since approx. 15 years.
Tudor ( and Panerai ) used to buy movements for a few of their watches but this is long over.
They are totally independent and each has its own movements and models since a long while ago.
 
Last edited:

Pilot

Well-Known Member
Rolex and Tudor are both owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation. And I think we all know which brand is the owner's favorite son.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariela...house-made-mechanical-movements/#52e16f1c1594
Agree...same foundation....but no model nor technical links ( anymore).
Plenty of examples like that in the business world..
A good one was the GM Hummer’s “new owner from China”. ( deal fell through in 2010)..this would never have meant that Humwees were to use chinese made gear or motors or whatsoever...
See also the Omega-Swatch Group..etc.
 
Last edited:

SuinBruin

Well-Known Member
Right, Tudor is not using Rolex cases or movements. But it would be crazy to think that they aren't coordinating their marketing approaches so that they (1) don't compete with each other and (2) try to maximize each brand's value and market segment at the expense of the nearest competitor (which is almost certainly Omega for both, since Omega sits lower than Rolex but higher than Tudor in the hierarchy of watchmakers).
 

Pilot

Well-Known Member
Competitors to Rolex : Jaeger, Blancpain, Panerai, IWC...
Tudor is not or was not present in the US for the last 25 years...not sure Rolex and Tudor coordinate...
But fair enough, your approach is legit.
 
Last edited:

colekwok

Active Member
Burberry has its own outlets, there is one in Hackney London. Something is wrong if they really have to burn off 28mil of their stock just for this year. There is also very little logic in burning your products off to avoid counterfeits. Counterfeiters can always obtain or purchase their legit products for copying purposes. If they have 28mil of leftover stocks in a 6-month period, there is also a huge problem with their sales/marketing dept and logistics. Not sure how true that is about the figures quoted.
 

SuinBruin

Well-Known Member
Competitors to Rolex : Jaeger, Blancpain, Panerai, IWC...
Tudor is not or was not present in the US for the last 25 years...not sure Rolex and Tudor coordinate...
But fair enough, your approach is legit.
Sure, other brands compete with Rolex. But I would be shocked if any of them came as close to Rolex as Omega. Jaeger et al. are known to watch guys; Omega has much broader brand recognition. Omega has TV ads, is affiliated with the Olympics, has much more famous "brand ambassadors," pays to be on James Bond's wrist, has the Moonwatch, etc. It's not particularly close to Rolex in terms of brand recognition and market niche, but Omega is doggedly hanging about in second place.
 

Pilot

Well-Known Member
Sure, other brands compete with Rolex. But I would be shocked if any of them came as close to Rolex as Omega. Jaeger et al. are known to watch guys; Omega has much broader brand recognition. Omega has TV ads, is affiliated with the Olympics, has much more famous "brand ambassadors," pays to be on James Bond's wrist, has the Moonwatch, etc. It's not particularly close to Rolex in terms of brand recognition and market niche, but Omega is doggedly hanging about in second place.
Fully agree
 

Ken at Aero Leather

Well-Known Member
Just thought this was interesting in view of some price increases recently. Intellectual property rights are very important for all manufacturers big or small.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20..._source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

That press release is pure bullshit and a very poor attempt to save face once the story leaked.
Their last few collections were laughable ........if one didn't want to cry over what had happened to a once legendary brand, well up to the 1960s at least.
These mad collections received rave reviews from the morons who sit in the front row at the catwalk shows.
Equally gullible trade buyers bought these ludicrous pieces but once in the retail stores, the public wasn't so stupid, they are, after all, spending their own money, not their firms, and they weren't about to waste it on looking stupid
The new ranges bombed in the stores................unsuprisingly
Burberry were faced with these stores slashing the prices to shift unsellable stock, thus devaluing the brand, cutting to the price that Chavs could afford wear them once more nearly killed the brand a few years ago, or worse still having them show up in Chartity Shops
Their only option was to buy back these unsold items from the stores who couldn't shift them, it's common trade practice to avoid a brand going into closing sales. The wholesale buys it back and resells it..........only these were virtually unsaleable (The design team was replaced in it's entirety recently)
The only difference is they've really shot themselves in both feet by destroying these pieces..................and, trust me on this, ......nobody in their right mind would want to copy any of this stuff.
Cutting the labels out would have been a start, passing theminto the recycling market would have been another, my money would be the PR team to be the next ones fired
 

Ken at Aero Leather

Well-Known Member
burberry-prorsum-burberry-.jpg
Burberry.jpg


Now don't we all want to look like this..........
Burberry-collaboration-shot-by-Gosha-Rubchinskiy-for-Burberry_003.jpg


My personal favourite, still waiting to see one "in the wild"
burberry-details-fall-2017-london-fashion-week-lfw-aw17-1304.jpg


Why not.............................................
wicker-man-1973-001-burning-man-00m-osw.jpg
 

Persimmon

Well-Known Member
5501ABFB-C738-4E86-B8E4-06F3D943595E.jpeg


It just annoys me when you can’t see the inside label.
So it is a Sat.
Or a Werber or that infamous labelled Goldsmith.
I do see the initials GR on the pocket -
Is that for Goldsmith replica ?
 
Top