Sticks And Stones – Watch-Making In A 2.0 World
“Before we start discussing your topic, Olivier, let me tell you how hard it is, sometimes, to read what I read on blogs & forums about my work”.
That’s how Mister X, a famous master watchmaker, started one of our recent interviews. I say interview but really they have become more or less weekly chats as opposed to formal Q & A sessions. Regardless, it goes without saying that I was quite surprised at hearing this confession. This watchmaker, in my eyes a master of his craft, has nothing left to prove and always struck me as a strong man. Well, at least I thought he was.
The Power Of 2.0
The fact is that most brands want to be able to gauge in some way the impact they are having on their consumers. Some even want to take it a step further and interact with these same customers, hence the role of the Community Manager. But let’s stop for a second and look at it from the other side: have you, even while you’re reading these lines, ever considered what impact your comments and web discussions could have on the watchmakers reading them?
“Only a few weeks after I presented my latest creation, which took me 3 years of hard work, I already had questions about what would be coming next”, continues Mister X, full of bitterness. “It seems the loudest voices are of those who know the least about our work”. We could almost go as far as to say that we detect a feeling of injustice in Mister X’s words.
Still, one must be willing to accept that introducing a piece to a mass market invites comment from others, including those without taste. On the other hand, master pieces of art are, in our humble opinions, deserving of well-thought out, decent comments that are reflective of the incredible level of work undertaken to achieve the final outcome. Perhaps though, in the increasingly anonymous world of 2.0 this is simply too much to ask?
The Final Word
Mister X’s frustration was maybe not legitimate, but it was understandable. Social networks imply a P2P communication, Peer To Peer, the power of which is oft underestimated. That’s why sometimes it’s good to remind ourselves of what the definition of a peer actually is; “someone who is equal to you”. In other words a fellow human being, who like you, is able to read and understand what is written. And to be deeply touched by it.
Category: Recommended Reading
“Only a few weeks after I presented my latest creation, which took me 3 years of hard work, I already had questions about what would be coming next”, continues Mister X, full of bitterness…
Why would the guy be bitter about people eagerly awaiting his next work of art? After all, in this business, you’re only as good as your next success – AND it beats indifference IMHO!
Masterpieces of art are meant to be enjoyed more then revered in my opinion – but that’s just me
Hi Jérôme,
I think Mister X thought, beyond this, was that this kind of watch enthusiast doesn’t take the time to discover the watch, read about it, grab information here and there, and, in the end, consider it just like a device, a mass market good.
Yes, you’re as good as your next success (you marketing man !). But, in our industry, also as good as what you’ve done. Which requires time and respect. IMHO.
Heh, ok
I can only hope Mr. X finds a way to cheer up eventually!
Even if the customer IS a person who has taken the time to discover the watch, read about it, and become enthusiastic about it, the nature of the “2.0 world” (and I’m not sure I like that term) is one of “why wasn’t I consulted?” – The internet makes us feel as if we can be consulted on just about anything. Instead of one-way media like traditional advertising, traditional publishing, traditional broadcast media, we have a vehicle for soliciting or receiving unsolicited feedback. Just like this comments board.
Some watchmakers are soliciting feedback to take into account on their next designs, others are making watches and hearing feedback after the fact, and potentially taking it in for their next project.
Masterpiece or consumer good, everything is subject to comment and feedback. That’s the nature of research and considering a purchase online, ingrained in us as so many sites permit customer reviews and ratings.
The only question is, would Mister X prefer comment before or after he has finished his 3 years of craftsmanship? He can certainly prevent comments on his work on his own sites, but he can’t do so elsewhere.
What he must do is determine how much value he assigns to these comments, and how much value he thinks his customers assign to them. If the answer to both is “very little,” then he has no problem. If the answer is “some,” then he has to decide whether he will live with that and continue making what he wishes, or if he hopes to address those criticisms, either by his own comment, or his forthcoming work.
@Victor makes a good point. You can’t just go off in your cave for 3 years, come out with a product on your own, and expect people to rant & rave about it when in fact you have not allowed them to participate or be involved in the process. Even if you’re such a great and famous design guru.
This is unfortunately the modus operandi of the watch industry – Now, I don’t know which watchmakers, if any, are soliciting feedback lately – I find that hard to fathom as the industry is beyond secretive but I suspect independents might pull it off.
In any case, Mr X doesn’t “get it” either
@jerome said “You can’t just go off in your cave for 3 years, come out with a product on your own, and expect people to rant & rave about it when in fact you have not allowed them to participate or be involved in the process. ”
Well, you can – but even if you’re a runaway success, you’ll still have vocal detractors.
There are a small number of independents who solicit input into the design phase, and those projects require strong leadership to accept and discard that feedback to keep the project on track. There have been at least four user-contributed projects designed in conjunction with the watchuseek forums that I can think of.
A few other watchmakers do pay attention to the criticism they receive from some bloggers, but most haven’t quite picked up on this as an idea, similar to Mister X. Even if they have picked up on it, if the development cycle is 3 years, it takes 6 years to catch up to feedback, and by then people have moved on. If the development cycle is faster, or you freshen a design that wasn’t well received quickly, this can help people feel as though they were considered.
The danger is in choosing who to pay attention; a watchmaker could end up listening to the opinions of people who were never really potential paying customers, which is why he must be a strong leader, with the ability to choose to make the design he wants to make after having considered the feedback received. This isn’t a democracy with voting. This is a benevolent dictatorship, where some votes count more than others, and the watchmaker’s vote counts as the second most important. Who’s of the utmost importance? The paying public.
@Victor – well said. I think you could make the same argument for many other industries
– In many ways that’s another friction point with “social media” at large, this “benevolent dictatorship” but you’re entirely correct IMHO.
Of course, the “public” isn’t something the watch industry has been very close to in the past either…but then again, if you look at the way Apple does things – it’s an absolute dictatorship (and not benevolent at that) it’s hard to criticize success.
@jerome – Apple is a unique situation. Apple has a clear vision of not only what they want to make (watchmaker) but also what common problems they’re attempting to solve in unique ways. They didn’t invent the MP3 player, but they invented automatically synchronizing and organizing music so you didn’t have to manually add each file yourself. They didn’t invent touchscreens or touchscreen phones, but they did invent visual voicemail and an interface that was consistently better suited to touch than anything before it. They didn’t invent app stores. But they did determine that only one curated portal rather than multiples makes it easy for the uninitiated to find useful software.
I could argue that Apple is a benevolent dictator, but that they know very clearly what benevolence they wish to bestow and won’t bend to critics who wish otherwise. Even so, they don’t make things that only suit their needs and wishes.
Love them or hate them, they’ve had very few flops in the past ten years. (G4 Cube, button-less iPod shuffle are the two that come to mind.) If you look at those, the reason they flopped is that the problems they were solving weren’t common, or they didn’t solve the problem adequately.
The G4 Cube was attempting to solve problems better solved by the Mac Mini. It was a small computer but cost too much. The Mac Mini solved it by being $500. The iPod shuffle with no buttons was attempting to move the buttons from the device to the headphone cable. No one really needed this, and it turned out to be more nuisance than anything.
A watchmaker has to be even more mindful of these sorts of lessons, if only because their product sells in fewer numbers to a fickle audience with a wide range of choices. I have no numbers, but I posit that a large number of those customers don’t buy with great frequency (there’s no annual refresh, or every-2-years-time-to-go-buy-a-new-computer urgency.) And there’s the difficulty of brand loyalty – with a timepiece you don’t necessarily feel committed to buy from the same maker each time, especially if that timepiece isn’t made by one of the makers commonly available in the local jewelry store.
The problem, in my humble opinion, is the security and anonymity provided by the net. The things people will say to someone in a forum are astounding considering those very same people, given the opportunity to voice their opinions in person, would tuck their collective tails between their legs. If Mr. X wants to continue to engage in social media, he needs to learn to not only put his own feelings on hold, but to also “separate the wheat from the chaff”, considering the good ideas and filtering out the garbage. All the while, he must remember that no matter how good your idea, there will always be detractor, and they are the ones who squeak the loudest. However, if Mr. X is simply upset about being asked about his future creations so early after the release of a new product, he may find it beneficial to either quickly grow some thick skin or go back to the cave. The online world can be a cold place and everyone is a critic.
@Peter – excellent post! You pretty much said it all, and said it well.
Best.
Is Mr. X suffering from depression here in general? Seriously though Mr. X has pointed out some things that I am sure many in the business would agree with. Though he might want to keep in mind that if a few people are critical about certain aspects of a design. All may not be lost. If it’s a lot people pointing out the same things though…