← The Real Time Show
Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:00]
Alon
Foreign.
- [00:06]
David
Micro Watch Brands need to Behave More Like Tech Startups this article is something that has been floating in my head for many years over a decade as I've been personally active as a professional in the watch industry since 1998 and in the tech sector since the year 2000. I've always loved the different dynamics in both sectors. In the tech sector I've co founded three tech startups, invested in a handful as an investor and mentored dozens of tech entrepreneurs and the thing I love the most is the innovation, the speed and volatility of the markets. In the watch industry, I've been fortunate to be born into it, working in both retail and wholesale ever since I'm a kid. I've always loved the fact it is a very traditional relationship based and with a long term scope. Both these worlds that I have lived in parallel in have collided for me since I became the first retailer in the world to be authorized by many high end Swiss watch brands to start E Commerce back in 2007. In 2014 I co founded watchbase.com, creating the world's first data bank where a database of wristwatches and another database of watch calibers can be cross referenced. And finally I had the honor to join the advisory board of Swiss Foundation Origin that brought blockchain and web3 technologies to the watch industry. But still more than a quarter of a century later, it seems the tech startup industry has moved at the speed of light and the watch industry is still in many ways stuck in the 20th century. It was very easy for me to choose the title for this article. Micro Watch Brands need to Behave More like Tech Startups. I did hesitate to call it just Watch Brands need to Behave More like Tech Startups. But I said let me focus on the smaller brands instead of generalizing too much. And I noticed that I've been saying this out loud. Dozens of entrepreneurs in the watch industry that contacted me as an investor in the watch brand. Although I've invested in many tech startups, I started noticing a pattern that I turned down every single pitch deck for investment in a watch brand even when I really, really really wanted to. My childhood dream was and still is to own a watch brand, to design watches and actually have them produced and sell them. But I just turned 46 and I'm still dreaming. Well, one element has become reality to design watches collabs with other brands. So why do I shoot down every single opportunity to invest in watch brands? I'm not talking about buying stock of publicly listed companies like Swatch Group, Richemont or lvmh. I'm talking about either entrepreneurs that have an idea and not even an MVP which stands for most viable product and seek funding or on the other hand even actual brands that exist for many years and have a proven track record with thousands of products sold and millions in turnover annually. In financial terms, I'm talking about pre seed funding, seed funding, post seed funding and even series A, B or C. And I did invest in all of these kinds of types of investments for the tech sector. While sitting down to write this article and reflecting back on all these opportunities I've passed on, I guess the red threads were a lack of innovation. These startups did not bring anything new to the table or b they don't have an exit strategy. Many of them did not even think of the concept of exit or c they can never become a 10 Xer and that's a term used to indicate you can get a return that is at least 10 times your initial investment or d the foundation did not become a CEO and lacks the social antenna to accept criticism. Often a founder is maybe a creative and not so much an all round manager that can actually lead. So this begs the question, did all these red threads in the tech startup I invested in prove the hypothesis positive? Well, the answer is hands down yes. In the last three years I've received so many pitch decks for new and existing watch companies that seek funding. I'm talking about investments as small as 100k and as big as 10 million. I currently have more than 7 options on my desk. I noticed that many of them have the same bottlenecks that made me wonder why do these companies not behave more like tech companies? But I came up with another idea. Why has no one ever started an incubator in the watch world like you see in the tech startup scene? A technology business incubator is a type of business that incubated which focuses on organizations that help startup communities and companies and individual entrepreneurs which use modern technologies as their primary means of innovation to develop the businesses by providing a range of services including training, brokering and financing. Much like actual incubators help a prematurely born baby live. A business incubator and a tech incubator helps tech companies survive in their earliest stage. Incubator programs help startups grow and gain traction in the market by giving them essential physical resources I.e. actual office space for example to crucial support like mentoring and acquiring real customers. The the most famous incubator is Y Combinator. If you're interested to learn more about it, just Google it Y Combinator alumni are Airbnb, Dropbox, Twitch, Stripe and many more. So if you think this is a good idea and you're up for it, to create a group that sets up this watch incubator, hit me up. I'm very much interested to do a deep dive and see if it's a viable idea, but I'm deviant here. Sorry. Let's get back to see why I think watch companies should behave more like tech companies, especially smaller brands like micro brands, but not solely microbrands. What valuable lessons do I think the luxury watch industry could learn from the tech startup world to enhance innovation, customer experience and business models?
- [07:41]
Rob
1.
- [07:42]
David
Embrace digital transformation Tech startups are at the forefront of digital innovation and the watch industry can benefit from adopting digital strategies throughout the customer journey. This includes utilizing digital tools for personalized advice, virtual try ons and improved post sales services. One of them that I can emphasize over and over, which I've been doing for over 25 years, is giving real time updates of all the after sales process of repairs and consumers watches. It is the rule and not the exception. Consumers hand in their watch at ads, mono brand boutiques or direct at watch brands HQs and they usually get condiff only once or maybe twice during the whole process. That seems like a black box. If it's not a warranty case, they'll get a price quotation and a rough estimate of when the repair is ready, an estimate that 99% of the time is off and in brackets 99% of the time late and never early and then you get a call or notification when it's ready to pick up, often without a good explanation of what has actually been done to the watch during that after sales process. 2. Focus on customer centricity Tech startups often prioritize user experience and customer needs. The watch industry can learn to put customers at the center of their strategies, creating seamless omnichannel experiences that blend digital and physical touch points. On a macro level, watch brands need to start asking openly what consumers want and actually make what they want. Then they need to shed their that feeling of superiority and arrogance. Brands do not feel equal or even inferior to the buyers. They often think they are God's gift to humanity and that consumers should thank them on their bare knees that they exist and that these consumers are allowed to buy their watches. I always say in every company that I'm involved in, we exist thanks to one single reason the consumer. Without them, you're dead in the water. Do anything and everything the consumer wants. 3. Leverage data and Analytics Tech startups excel at collecting and analyzing data to drive decision making. The watch industry can harness data to gain insights into customer preferences, optimize services and create more personalized experiences. I often and sarcastically say that the big watch groups are run by Excel managers, managers that live in an ivory tower and have no idea what actually happens in their markets where they sell their watches. So of course there are watch brands, almost all the big ones, that are specialists in leveraging data and analytics. I have hands on experiences with the Rolex Group as a retailer that are kings at doing this and as a longtime consumer of Patek Philippe. I know they leverage their data on a micro level, but these are exceptions to the rule. Too many watchmen think that reading comments on their Instagram post is enough market data. That being said, too many brands don't even read or even worse, comment on feedback that is left on their social media channels or on blog posts on other media written about their products. That's free market data. In this day and age of the Internet, you have so much free data. With the meteoric rise of AI, you have free tools to process and analyze this data as well. 4. Accelerate innovation cycles Tech startups are known for their agility and rapid innovation. The watch industry could adopt faster development cycles for new technologies and materials while still maintaining quality and tradition. The watch industry too often thinks they are solitary industry and are not linked to either the fashion industry or other parts of the consumer markets. As the watch industry is relatively slow to adapt to changes to the nature of the manufacturing facilities and setup, they almost always lag behind other industries. But I've many times called the watch brands ostriches that stick their heads in the sand during difficult times in the hope the storm will blow by. There is a sense of knowing it all, knowing it better because it's an old industry and because they've sustained so many wars, crises and downturns, they think they'll always prevail. But I always ask, what are you going to do when when wristwatches have the same destiny as pocket watches falling out of fashion? What do you do if Gen Z and Gen Alpha do not want to wear watches on their wrists anymore? Even when they don't wear smartwatches anymore? As old technology has shrunk, so much has been injected into our bodies. 5. Explore new materials and manufacturing Techniques Tech startups often push the boundaries of what's possible with the new materials and production methods. The watch industry can learn from this approach to develop innovative components and manufacturing processes such as 3D printing and advanced milling techniques. We've seen such a huge leap in the last two decades. Think of case materials, silicon in movements and hybrid techniques. But why was Dutch watchmaker Michiel Rolteris for a long time the only one creating 3D printed watch cases? Why did the Zenith inventor Calibre and the Parmigiani Fleurier Sans Fin watches never actually been produced? Why is the Freddy Constell monolithic with Dutch patent from the tech startup Flexis so difficult to make and in such quantities? Why don't we see real utility NFTs and open source blockchain solutions in the watch industry? 6. Embrace sustainability and circular economy Many tech startups prioritize sustainability and environmental responsibility. The watch industry can learn from this by implementing more sustainable practices and exploring circular economy models such as supporting the second hand market. There are of course many and great initiatives, but a big shout out to watch brand ID Geneve. But the big brands seem to do a lot. But in my humble opinion, it's too much of greenwashing and too much of window dressing. It's too little, too slow. Watch brands need to become more transparent, be more inclusive, more sustainable and work more together. So don't just talk the talk, but actually walk the walk. 7. Collaborate and form Partnerships Tech startups often collaborate with other companies to accelerate growth and innovation. The watch industry could benefit from forming strategic partnerships with the tech companies or startups to enhance their digital capabilities and reach new markets. Even within the big groups, brands compete with each other. It seems the sense of distrust and competition has been ingrained in the DNA of the watch industry for centuries. Although it's very ironic as the Swiss watch industry was formed as a network economy as the farmers in the mountains were snowed in during the winter and therefore started making spare parts for the watch industry. The term manufacture in the Swiss watch industry actually never existed. Industrialization and verticalization are something from the late 1970s. Although I love the fact that more and more watch brands teamed up to create watches together. Think of MB&F and Bvlgari, Frederic Constant and Christian van der Klao and H. Molserncy together with Studio Underdog. This was unthinkable several years ago, but still this is done as a marketing exercise. It isn't a holistic approach to create to push boundaries together, something that would be the sole purpose of a watch incubator. Maybe not such a bad idea in the end. By adopting these lessons from the tech startup world, the luxury watch industry can innovate and adapt to changing consumer expectations while preserving its rich heritage and craftsmanship. And from a financial point of view, smaller watch brands and or new players in the watch industry that seek funding don't think about what it's in for the investor. They always pitch from a point of view why it's good for them and often they present something that is 12 in a dozen. When asked why it seems copy paste, the answers are often because it's worked for them, it has to work for us. 0 on the scale of innovation and thinking outside the box Dear friends in the watch industry, please do me a favor and yourself a favor. If you have not read the books, start with why by Simon Sinek or From Zero to one by Peter Thiel. Please do. And keep in the back of your mind that you mention in your pitch deck why you are a 10x company and how investor can get their money back. Are you going for an ipo? Are you going to buy back their shares? Are you going to sell to a big group like lvmh? So Swatchu or Richemont? And since I'm on the topic of improving pitches, here are some friendly and free tips. Please keep the following format in Title Pitch Executive Summary the problem the solution why you do what you do how you do it why you need funding how much funding you're seeking Add a P&L plus a cash flow planning Please do add a SWOT analysis of both the company and the founders. Add a competition analysis Please do try to figure out what your USP is, your unique selling point. List who the management team is and add the LinkedIn profiles of all members. And always end with a slide where you can find all the contact details. Too often I get pitch decks sent that there are no contact details of the founders on it. Remember, investors want to talk to the founders. Hope you've enjoyed my second article. I've enjoyed writing it and recording it. Now David, Rob and I will sit down together and record the second part of this episode, the actual audicle analysis. Sit back, enjoy the ride.
- [20:24]
Unknown
Thank you for that Alon. A year in the making and it certainly shows. I hope everybody had their morning coffee before listening to that because there was a lot to wrap one's brain around. Are we going to be able to address every point? We're going to do our very very best. Welcome to the studio, both Alon and David for this audical analysis. How are you both?
- [20:41]
Rob
I'm good, thank you. This was indeed a long time in the making as you heard. I started a summer ago writing it had to digest it got a lot of other things in between to process and work around. But the idea actually is in my head already for over 12 years actually. But I'm very curious what you guys think.
- [21:07]
Alon
One thing that I take away, just an overall tone from your article, Alan, is that tech is a good thing because otherwise you wouldn't be saying that micro brands should have to act like tech startups. But what we've seen recently is that perhaps that is not always the case. Now I use tech tools obviously, but the business model seems to be we come into an industry and disrupt it by basically trying to negate all of the protections that are in place. We price things low while investors are funding us and then when we have the market cornered, we jack up prices with a product against that gets cut back more and more and more. And we've seen this happen several times as we're now in kind of the late stages of the tech boom. So is that something that you thought about and with that in mind, does that in any way sort of change your, your perspective on, on the article that you wrote?
- [22:04]
Rob
Good question. To be very honest, I came from a standpoint of a VC that's I started the article is a lot of people start in the watch industry and I'm not saying everybody should have an exit strategy, but usually when you do fundraising, and almost all tech startups need fundraising, they have a clear cut pitch deck. They usually start with a problem, then they try to answer the why. So why do they exist? Why do they do what they do and how they do it? Referring here to Simon Sinek winking. And then they are forced to think of an exit strategy, especially when you raise external funding. So I came from that angle and then I started trying to find similarities.
- [23:04]
Unknown
Or.
- [23:07]
Rob
Actually learning curves for the watch industry. So that's why it took me quite a while because I'm an old school watch guy. I don't think you should think of an exit strategy when starting a watch company or working in the watches. It's all about longer, Jevity. It's about long term, it's about the next generation handing down the reins. And not so much if it's a family company, but that begs immediately the question every founder or CEO needs to ask who her or himself? Who's my successor?
- [23:50]
Alon
Right.
- [23:51]
Rob
So to answer your point at the end of your very good question, David, the disruptor part of it, it's interesting actually we did not have that many disruptors in the watch industry. Besides obviously the smart tech that is available right now on our Wrists and the last biggest disruptor we have with Squarts, wasn't it?
- [24:18]
Alon
I would actually say no. I would actually, as I'm thinking about this, I think one of the main disruptions and we're already maybe moving way off what we originally planning. But I think the direct to consumer movement has been huge. That was one of the things that tech pioneered with companies that aren't always tech. I mean like Warby Parker, I mean, you know the type, they're not necessarily tech companies but they operate on a tech platform and I think micro brands have actually been pretty quick to adopt that. So I think when, when that movement started, I think might have been the first signpost that they, they were pivoting that way.
- [24:50]
Unknown
Yeah, there's a lot of good points already raised that take us a little bit further away from the original route of the conversation. But yeah, just to respond to a couple of things that you've already touched on, to me it seems like tech startups are much more short term focused because of the pace at which tech moves. It's like an idea for now and if you don't do it now, it won't ever be relevant. And then. Oh, just to touch on one term. Alon said he's coming at it from a perspective of a vc. If anyone wonders what that is, I believe it's venture capitalist. Right, Alon. So an investor.
- [25:22]
Rob
Correct. So from the finance angle things, it could be an angel investor, it can be venture capital. If you're up and running already, you'll have private equity, which the most famous case study we have right now going on is Breitling.
- [25:38]
Unknown
Yeah.
- [25:38]
Rob
Universal Geneva and they added Galair recently. And obviously, let's be total transparent, Richemont is nothing else than an investor. They call themselves Companier de financier Richemont.
- [25:52]
Unknown
Right.
- [25:53]
Rob
And therefore LVMH and Swatch Group are the same.
- [25:55]
Unknown
So I have two more quick points where I'm going to kick it back to David. One is just to touch on this idea of an exit strategy. Now it's very interesting, when you said it in the article originally I thought what on earth does he mean from a watchmaking perspective? I've never looked at watchmaking as something one would get into with the idea of getting out of it. It's sometimes I wish there was a way out, but I've not found it yet and I doubt I ever will. It seems like a rabbit hole down which we all are destined to keep falling. But then it comes back to the other overarching point. The really big point, and that is the why. The why is everything. The why is always everything. The why can be relevant no matter your industry, no matter short term or long term, doesn't fulfill a need. And that need does not necessarily need to be practical. That's an important thing to remember in watchmaking. Sometimes the need can be emotional. It can be to fulfill a desire or a yearning for something. And the why shouldn't be. Shouldn't often, from a business perspective, be personally focused. Like, I want to do this. That's the why. That's not a good enough why. Why should the product exist? What does the product do that is valuable and what is important? And when it comes to investors like richemont or LVMH even, do we believe that these moneybags want to be in watchmaking for watchmaking's sake, or is it really all about the bottom line? And isn't that the problem when it comes to a lot of new companies, including direct to consumer models? David, as you mentioned, the micro brands, sometimes the why is I want to be rich.
- [27:30]
Alon
I think that's a great point. I think MVMT was the one was bought up by Movado for like $200 million a couple years back. Daniel Wellington comes about. We could do a topic on this, right? Because we would tell you they're not great watches, but people buy them and presumably are very happy with those. And I don't want to rain on anyone's parade if, if they like them, even if as they get deeper into the hobby, they might reevaluate their choice. So I think, Rob, to answer your question, yes, And I just want to, I don't want to move this in another direction again, but I do want to piggyback on what we've talked about so far because we have done a good job of talking about this topic. So tech startups applied to watch brands in the context of watch brands. But as I was thinking about this, technology can actually be a lot of different things. It could be if you could 3D print a hairspring, for example, and make them for a penny each, I think that'd be a big deal. And that's very tech startup ish. If you could come up with a way of increasing customer loyalty so that someone who buys one Panerai buys another 10 or 15, that would be great too, right? So I just want to check with you both and Alan specifically. We're not talking about any idea applied to the watch industry. We're strictly talking about brands. Is that correct? And micro brands Specifically, I had to boil it down.
- [28:52]
Rob
So I tried to make it bite size. It wasn't as bite sized as I initially hoped for. So sorry, dear listeners, I tried to provoke. I put your hat on, David. You're the resident provocateur, obviously I tried to provoke, poke the bear and see what emotions this stirs up. So, yeah, I bolted down because today micro brands are the startups in the watch industry, aren't they? You'll see indeed the direct consumer. That is a little revolution if you look at the grand scheme of things, of watchmaking history and of retail. But Breguet used to sell also direct to consumers. Just think of the French royalty, for example. So that is kind of a repetition of history. Maybe I wanted to take it more into a bird's eye view perspective of saying those that start in the watchmaking industry are often micro brands or smaller brands or they start from scratch. They usually don't have funding. So when they go the funding route, they don't think of these things. You're 100% sure you could say, hey, if you're coming on board, I don't want to exit, I'm here to stay. And don't come on board. If you want to get rich, which is fine, you could do it to preserve a metier the hour, you could do it out of a charity point of view or just to preserve the trade or the watchmaking industry. So I took that corner and go from there and, and that was basically the trigger for me by saying, hey, why don't they think of these things? And. And then I took it further that they don't really focus on what makes them unique. And it's fine if you revive a heritage brand. I mean, we had Simon on the show with Moncer. We could study the archonaut case, which is a very interesting case if you want to Rob. And we could look at colloquium, which is trying to do things different. But is it really revolutionary? And do they disrupt things?
- [31:23]
David
And.
- [31:24]
Rob
And if we have time or we can do a part two. Very valid point. What if we just look at technical innovation in the watchmaking industry? Are they breaking the mold like these hairsprings? You're talking for $1. Back to you, David.
- [31:38]
Alon
I want to jump back to what you and Rob said previously. He made a great point. He mentioned brands that maybe aren't as legitimate in the watchmaking space. And so I'm sort of wondering if when we're talking about this topic of micro brands acting like tech companies, should we maybe we have A little bit of implicit bias because we're really saying the micro brands that we like. Because as I'm thinking about a company like Daniel Wellington for example, I think they did act like a tech startup and they are not granted the same level of status that yeah, an archonaut would be granted. And the founders presumably did get rich and it's still working very well for them. So I'm going to just jump right into it. Alan, like, would it be the case that depending on what you're looking for, the tech startup model is actually not what you should be doing? So if you're going for a deep connection with the watch business, do not do this. However, if you are trying to make a lot of money, this could be the blueprint that you follow. What do you think, Rob?
- [32:43]
Unknown
Yeah, I think that you're absolutely on the money there. I think that the whole tech startup concept when applied to watchmaking, sounds like the antithesis of the industry's reason for still existing. It sounds like a smash and grab because tech due to. And okay, you know, I'm a bit of a dinosaur, so forgive me if any of this sounds really clunky, but it's non physical nature. It can move and be developed extremely quickly. You don't run into the same kind of manufacturing bottlenecks that you do when you're trying to put together a hundred piece watch. You know, you don't have like, not obviously every bit of code has to fit with every other bit of code, but that's not quite the same as like communicating across borders and across oceans and having a physical part made that has to interact directly with another, another physical part that might not be made in the same place. And then these things have to be finished individually. There are always the possibility of QC failures. If you get a program or a script that works, it works. If you talk about micromechanics on extremely fine scale, like take the finest of the fine, like a ultra thin Bulgari octofenissimo tourbillon, A lot of those components, although meeting tolerances, won't work with one another because the tolerances are, relatively speaking, so important to each component's interaction with the one it sits next to. So we're talking about something completely different, something that I believe there are theoretical learnings to be taken from. But in practice, beyond the business model side of things, I struggle to see how it is so relevant to our industry. I love it.
- [34:28]
Rob
I love it, I love it. Well done, David. You flipped it 180 on me. Well done, Rob. I'M a dinosaur as well. So to go back to Daniel Wellington at mvmt, so movement, the American startups, they jumped on the fashion bandwagon. Quick buck made a quick buck sold. They did that.
- [34:49]
David
Indeed.
- [34:51]
Rob
I am biased. I did not think of them.
- [34:53]
David
Indeed.
- [34:54]
Rob
I was thinking mostly to provoke entrepreneurs that have that long term vision in mind, that want to add something, watchmaking history for the long term and they all bite the dust. What do I mean by that? They often lack guidance, training, knowledge, they go seek funding without a clear cut strategy and they go bankrupt, bust or they just don't make it. So they've never reached the heights of success that you might dream of when looking at a Daniel Wellington or mvmt. Or you maybe not dream of that success, but one thing is crystal clear. If you want to endure, you need to sell and you need to sell product. And if you take money from external parties, you need an roi. You need return on investment, you need to turn a profit. So I've seen too often that many entrepreneurs that start can't even pay their own salaries. So this article was written from a perspective to give back. That's what we do on the Real Time show. We want to share knowledge, we want to share passion. And that's why I ended my article with some tips and tricks. And I do want to extend those here in the analysis part of the episode by saying, hey, if you are an entrepreneur, reach out to us. We, we, we are happy to donate a few hours of mentoring. Now going back to stating that you should not go the tech route to rebuttal, maybe David is you see too often that people jump in heads first without even a business plan, which is fine, but not even within a napkin calculation or no safety net or no backup plan. So where I was coming from and the reason to provoke with this article is boys and girls, guys and ladies, please do a bit of homework, do some market research, think of why you have a reason to exist and why do you have a reason to exist in the long term? And often I see too often that people start without even thinking who would want to wear their watches? Now in tech, I know, David, you're thinking, hey, when Steve Jobs came up with the iPhone, iPad, AirPods or whatever, there was no market for them. He created the market, right? So I see your hands are up quite some time. I'm very curious what you're going to say and then I'll continue afterwards.
- [37:52]
Alon
I think everyone loves to think of the next Steve Jobs, but there's only one. So a couple things I want to say first is that I completely agree with you on doing your homework. I'm shocked that anyone would try and do something like this without mathing it out. If you were in that boat, as Alan said, drop us a line. You can drop me a line. I've got several spreadsheets where I've. I've priced a couple of these projects out before and the margins are thin. So I do want to say that. But what I also. The main point I want to make here is that are we maybe getting ahead of ourselves? Because if we think about tech. So you spend the money to bootstrap a project, it's hard enough to market it, but at least you know that to get people to try it, the barrier to entry is relatively low. I mean, it's basically just, here's the username and password, or make your own. You get a free month to use the product and then you can sign up and quit anytime. With a watch, you can't really do that because you have to purchase the watch and you don't really know if it's going to work. And that was the genius behind Warby Parker was we're going to send you a box with five models to try, and you pick your own. And we take all of the work and guesswork out of choosing glasses. And the watch industry, just as I see it, isn't really conducive to that. So if you can't get past that part, that very specific piece of the tech cycle, which is that very low barrier to trial, to entry for the customer, how can you then move on to the next steps? Rob, what do you think?
- [39:19]
Unknown
I think it's one thing having a low barrier to trial. You're absolutely right that that's relevant, but there's also like a, should we say a high barrier for need in watchmaking. Watches are extremely unnecessary. They are something that one buys to indulge a passion, to celebrate a moment, to mark some occasion in their lives or someone else's occasion. If you're buying a present for somebody, for example, sending out a box of glasses with acetate frames, you know, with no custom lenses in for people to try, great idea. Those frames actually cost pence to make. It's not really the point of that product. You can't do that with watches. You can send out 3D printed cases. We've actually started doing this with Archonaut, to be honest, because some of the problems we find when people, like look at the watches online, if they've not seen them in real life, which Many people haven't because we don't have many retailers and we don't go to that many events is that they don't know whether it will fit their wrist. So we send them a 3D print or like a old aluminum prototype just in the post and say there you go, try it on your wrist. And that can work. It does work when people are comfortable in seeing it in real life. But still, people don't need these things. Tech oftentimes is designed to make our lives easier. Okay, you can have games of course, that are just fun and that, you know, you can access them when you're on the train or when you're on a plane, or when you're sitting on the toilet or something. But you know, generally speaking, the things that have great success are things that facilitate necessary actions in our lives. Things like PayPal for example, or Sky Scanner, booking.com things. Imagine how crazy someone in the early 90s would have found it to talk to them about travel. You know, in the modern age it's like you don't even need, not only do you not need to change your currency anymore because of the euro within our zone at least you don't even need to have euros because you can have a multi currency wallet on your phone and you can just do these things immediately on your way to the airport, which you can buy a ticket for in the cab. You know, it's which you've booked on Uber. You know, the thought of like how much easier our lives is now because of tech is incredible. Just in that short period of time when you compare to how little watchmaking has changed over that same time frame. Now we can go down this rabbit hole ad nauseam. We could get stuck in it for days and days on end. I think if we're going to get through a lot of the interesting points that Alan raised, we should go to the actual points, the seven point plan, as it were, that he presented to us during the article and address each point individually and see what takeaways we have from each one. We may have touched on some aspects of each comment already, but let's just go through them in order and see what we come down with. So point number one, embrace digital transformation. Tech startups are at the forefront of digital innovation and the watch industry can benefit from adopting digital technologies throughout the customer journey. Now we mentioned that there are loads of ways that actual tech can enhance the customer journey. Not just being able to buy things online, but guarantees. For example apps, storage apps for one's collection, insurance apps, for example Talk to us about those.
- [42:33]
Alon
What do you think I'm going to be difficult again and say that perhaps some entrepreneurs in the watch industry have tried to apply these just because like the value really wasn't the service, it was, oh, we are using this tech and therefore we are of value. And what I'm thinking here is watch rental services which don't really seem to have taken off for various reasons. The probably not worth going on in this article about, but it just doesn't seem to have worked and it seems like the main focus there was, oh, we are using this platform to enable lending without as you said, Rob, asking, well, do people really want to rent watches in sufficient numbers as to make this work?
- [43:19]
Rob
I think the answer is yes, but you can't get the economics workable. I am a big fan of tech. I was at the forefront of E commerce for the watch industry. Now I took something very simple in Bullet Point one about embracing digital transformation. As simple as tracking after sales service. It blows my mind. I mean we're 25 years into the 21st millennium and we still can't have real time tracking as we can with our digital devices. We send in with an RMA number or whatever and to give an indication, I don't need it on a daily basis. It can be even on a weekly basis. But most brands just have a black box. You send in the watch, you have no idea how long it takes. Somewhere you'll get a quote or you don't and then you'll just get a notification when the watch is ready. So we've seen some of these examples right in the TRTS community as well. So that was a very simple example. I used to.
- [44:29]
Alon
I think that's great. I just actually, I agree with this. You Alan, are much closer to the business on, on that side than I am, of course. And I've heard also stories like that. So I mean, for anyone listening out there, that's idea number one from this episode is yeah, if you could build out a platform to make that as seamless as possible and then license that out to different brands, I could absolutely see value in that.
- [44:51]
Unknown
Talk to me about this second point. Alon. How do we distinguish this from the first focus on customer centricity. Tech startups often prioritize user experience and customer needs. I mean we're kind of touching that with the first one, are we not like, is it not all about that when it comes to like integrating some of the things we could learn from tech in the watchmaking industry?
- [45:09]
Rob
Definitely. I basically could have rewritten it and say stop being so fucking arrogant pricks. And that's bullet point too is what I meant by that. I, I think that maybe with the arrival of so many new entrants into the watchmaking industry, I.e. these micro brands which were founded by watch nerds and lovers and etc. That were maybe very consumer centric, but it still blows my mind that so many brands live in their ivory tower, have no hands on experience in the real markets, even when they have monobrand boutiques and they have no idea what's going on in the real world. How often do we still too often encounter brand managers, C level or even account managers that don't even read comments on Instagram or on Fora or watch blogs. They don't even know what consumers are thinking. So that's where point two comes from.
- [46:15]
Unknown
So you just run us straight into point three there, which is very handy and thanks for the segue. Leverage data and analytics. And at the end of that point you say that many, many C level or even like executive level people do not read these comments on blogs and magazines. But that's a very interesting thing to criticize. How much do you expect brands to listen to the masses, to observe?
- [46:45]
Rob
And what you mean by listen is act upon what they read or absorb, right?
- [46:51]
Unknown
That is what I mean, yes.
- [46:52]
Rob
So yeah, so I, I meant they don't even observe, they just live in an oblivious world where ignorance is bliss.
- [47:02]
Unknown
Yeah, but what drives that ignorance? Because isn't that it doesn't that suggest that they have data that they're leaning on? But it may not be the data they should be leaning on or it's data that is working for them so they lean upon it, what does that suggest to you?
- [47:21]
David
I am very much for.
- [47:23]
Rob
If you have a clear cut vision and you had thought about it and you have a strategy and you execute on it, good for you. But I want to do a step back. It can't be that when you live off consumers, and that's any brand that sells to either B2B or B2C because B2B are customers as well, is that you don't know what's going on, let alone trends in the market. Let's take an example of brands that still didn't get the memo were shrinking case sizes both in diameter and thickness. Or those brands that don't realize the stone dial trend is fizzling out. Or I can continue for hours.
- [48:11]
Unknown
Yeah, but hang on a second. Before you continue, you've just picked up on two things there that you will Come away believing if you read comments. But if you look at sales figures, you'll see they aren't true. We touched on this the other day, like, yeah, diameters are getting smaller than they were 15 years ago. Or at least there are more small options than there were 15 years ago. But they're not as popular as people think they are in actual practical terms. And stonedials are still selling like hotcakes. So these are trends that aren't true. They're purported by a vocal minority that brand managers should be aware of yet. But they can't be led by. Brands need to lead because they need to know what their why is. If someone criticizes in the comments section, they need to be able to say, I can answer that question with the why of the brand's existence. By is very raison d'. Etre. And if they can't, then they've got a problem. Otherwise, fuck them.
- [49:03]
Rob
Fair enough. But you know better than I do, your pipeline is not tomorrow and not in six months. And at 12 months, you're working probably three, four years ahead. How can you navigate an ocean without even a gps, let alone a compass.
- [49:22]
Unknown
A sextant.
- [49:25]
Rob
And Ulysses. Now they're maritime chronometers.
- [49:29]
Alon
Yeah, I was going to say that. The marine chronometer for sure.
- [49:31]
Rob
No, but you. But okay, fair enough. I love it, Rob. And you know that I always say a beautiful watch is a sold watch. The truth is in the sales figures, but it's also looking back in your rear mirror and not looking ahead. Right. So I always think you should balance out the two. And. And of course this is meant to provoke because the big groups are skewed to my side that they're too much in the data, where they just live in Excel and whatever AI tools they use today and actually don't even speak to consumers, that they understand that there are subcultures and there are people living in the shadows, that you can't put them into a box, so you don't even know what they want. Right. So. But David, please add on to this.
- [50:30]
Alon
No, just it sounds like this is idea number two. I mean, if there's a platform out there that somehow collects feedback from tweets, or I guess X comments, whatever they're called. Now Instagram fora and compiles those into messages for the CEO and then it cross references those with sales figures, and then it cross references those two things with your pipeline and says, okay, sales data and comments mean that you could actually slash 20% of your pipeline and focus elsewhere. You're basically taking the workload off decision making and automating it more based on data. I think that is actually pretty valid. I'm all for being artistic in the watch industry. I think it exists today primarily because of that it's a means of expression but it's a business, it's got to keep making money or otherwise the watch production stops. And so if there are a way to yet to make less nebulous the decision process, I think that'd be great. And to your point Rob, I have definitely talked about this a lot. People love to complain about the thickness of Tudor black base hasn't stopped from selling a truckload and everyone complains about hublot but if I were circumstances CEO I'd be like nope, I'm doubling down on this. Bring out the neon purple watches.
- [51:45]
Rob
So Tudor is part of Rolex Group. They are very very hardcore data driven and they did listen to the market, hence the 58 and the 54 and everything being slimmer and GMT. They are very much data driven and they wanted to do a lot of stuff in the Rolex brand where Tudor became their sandbox to play with bronze, titanium, blacked out ceramic. So there I have to put my foot down David but Mike to you rock.
- [52:19]
Unknown
Well I don't think Tudor did enough in that regard. I had high hopes for them and they showed flashes of real innovation or wild design but then they kind of just went back and just changed materials on very basic models. And yes, the Tudor black Bay sells despite his slab sided case, but it would be a better watch if it were thin, thinner and we don't have any data to suggest otherwise in that regard. So we'll go with what's available to us. But I come back to the why. Being the steerer of the ship, that's what navigates us through these waters. And it is also possible for a brand's why to be insufficient. It's possible for a brand to be wrong. It's possible for a brand to not have what it takes to exist. And so failure is always an option. As we like to say Archonaut. Interesting you both use the plural forward for forums online. I always used to like using that myself, but then I was chastised and told it was overly formal for the modern usage for online platforms specifically. But good on you both for maintaining correct Latin plurals. Let's move on to point 4, the acceleration of innovation cycles. Tech startups are known for agility and rapid innovation. Now instantly we see something that we don't see in watchmaking. There at all. Is it even possible though? We gripe about it all the time and we say, oh, we want innovation, we want true novelty. And we see some people in design recently taking some leaps and trying some stuff with the advent of form watches, as it were, with things like anoma and burner on coming into play. And oh, let's not forget Toledano and Chan, of course, our good friends Phil and Alfred doing wonderful work over there in America and Hong Kong. So let's think about that. Can it be done as quickly? Because I'm guessing. Well, I'm not guessing. I'm postulating. The answer is no.
- [54:00]
Alon
No, I disagree. And the answer was in what you said. We mentioned Hong Kong. I think we're being a little bit, without knowing it, we're being very western focused. But I think China's manufacturing capacity, which I mentioned, that we talked about the previous article, is unmatched. Unmatched. And maybe you both have more direct experience with this as well. But it almost seems to me like you can literally sketch something out on a piece of paper and within a week you'll have your kind of finished design nailed down and then within a month you might have a prototype and be moved to production. Like it, it really is kind of awe inspiring actually. The speed at which they can move is that, is that. Would you agree with that? If we look to that specific region of the world, can we say that they actually have really gotten down this fast production cycle?
- [54:54]
Unknown
No, not really. I think theoretically you're absolutely correct. But in practice, everything takes months to get right. You know, they can rapidly prototype something and depending on what you rapidly prototype in, yeah, you can get a pretty good read on whether it's going to work or not. A case, fine. A strap fine. A buckle fine. A component for a movement, not so straightforward. So it's, it comes down to what kind of innovation you're looking for. Are you looking for aesthetic innovation? Because I think, like I say, we are in a pretty decent era of that with those examples that I used. But bar the Berneron, which is a Swiss made all gold caliber or almost all gold caliber, there isn't really much innovation there other than the aesthetics and the aesthetics we can move quickly on. Yeah, no doubt about it. That's easy. They're benign, inactive components. Effectively they are essential, but they don't, they don't lead to the functionality of the watch from a mechanical perspective. So yeah, I don't know. Like when I think of innovation. Okay. Just to give an example of what I'm Thinking of. So you know where my head's at because I might be stuck in a little corner that I should be let out of. I'm thinking of the Freak. I'm thinking of like silicon. I'm thinking of the monolithic oscillator from Frederick Constant. I'm thinking of like the same fine from Parmigiani. I'm thinking of Defy from Zenith. I'm thinking of these things that have been mentioned previously is like true innovations. They don't happen overnight and they certainly don't get to the point where they're market ready overnight.
- [56:23]
Rob
That's the tech I was thinking of in watchmaking that can't be done overnight. But I think that the Swiss need to amp up their cycles because of what David said, that the Asians are breathing down their necks. And why did the freak come about? Because they pulled together. Why was caliber 11 invented in the end of the 60s and came to market Baselworld 1969 where Heuer Breitling, if I'm not mistaken, Buren indeed worked together. The Freak was also a joint project where Patek was, Rolex release, all worked together. And that's my point of something that might not have written down enough in this article. They need to come together. They need to work together. And that's why I think there is room for a incubator or a VC that has more of a holistic approach that can create synergy, especially on the R and D side of things as well. Besides on the finance side of things and maybe marketing as well. And obviously that is what Richmond LVMH sweatshoop are. Right? I mean they are not so much incubators, but they behave like a group to try to give facilities to these brands where they can move faster than when they're standing on their own. But I wonder sometimes how much synergy is there within LVMH and Richmond Swatch Group I guess keeps too much of a tight control. So you need to stay in your lane as a brand. So what do you chaps think of that?
- [58:20]
Alon
Yeah, I mean, tons of really good ideas there. I think the shared R D space would be awesome. Like if there were some kind of. Yeah. Workshop in Switzerland that entrepreneurs could go to and listen to talks and share equipment. I think that'd be great. But it also got me thinking about. And maybe we should have thought about this up front. But how do you define disruption? Because you can have disruption within a paradigm. So I think that could be quartz watches because you're just telling time differently. And that was Extremely destructive, actually. But then you have disruption within the paradigm of watches as art, which you get, like Rob said, the freak, or any one of these revolutionary watches. And that's disruption. Just because no one's done it before, but it's still the very same type of product. And I'm just maybe thinking aloud here. Both of those actually require very different approaches that are not tech focused. So tech, the guiding principle is move fast and break things. I think. Anyone? Elise Nardan. If you told them that, they'd look at you like you were nuts and, you know, you'd never be hired by them. Because it's just such a different philosophy.
- [59:35]
Unknown
Yeah, because it takes a long time to build things in watchmaking and very little time to tear them down. It's like, what do they say? A reputation is years in the making and seconds in the destruction. I've known guys that have come in to watch media especially. I won't mention any names or titles, but I've worked closely with someone who was in a position of power, a large media title, who came from a tech background. And he liked to preach this idea of move fast and break things. But then he very quickly became terrified of breaking anything. So we were moving fast and doing nothing. It was like driving a car on a travelator. You know, we're just standing in the same space. And it's very, very difficult to apply that velocity philosophy to watchmaking, especially with an existing brand. Now you could do it with micro brands, which is what the focus of this article is about, and they have done it with success, as you mentioned earlier, David Daniel Wellington or mvmt, for example, These brands that have just had incredible success in a short space of time and sold out because they had no other reason to exist, let's face it, they're not fulfilling any emotional desire, but they are almost filling the base need of a watch. We're providing somebody with something to wear on their wrists. We've kind of done point five in that conversation, which was about exploring new materials and manufacturing techniques. And I just realized I must have been heavily influenced by Alon's recording, because I mentioned nearly every brand in his list there in my rundown of the things I was referring to as true innovation. I do have to give a little shout out to Richard Hop Trough, who I think was probably before Michael Hawthorn Riggs on 3D print in watch cases. But Hawthorn Ricks has definitely taken it to another level and a level of refinement that I think really validates the whole concept of 3D printing in luxury watchmaking. Let's move on to point 6. Embrace sustainability and circular economy. Many tech startups prioritize sustainability and environmental responsibility. The watch industry can learn from this by implementing more sustainable practices and exploring circular economy models such as supporting the second hand market. The latter point is very, very interesting and very true. I see a lot of brands trying to at least present themselves as eco friendly. We've always talked about the risk and danger of greenwashing in the industry. Do you think it's getting any better? Chaps?
- [61:47]
Rob
I've been thinking about this a few days that I've tried to connect Cedric Bellon and I.D.
- [61:55]
David
Geneve.
- [61:56]
Rob
Didn't succeed. We met Pragma and I was joking around we should create an alliance. But then I was thinking the AHA is very interesting and I said why don't we set up a similar group for everybody who wants to focus more on sustainability?
- [62:16]
Alon
Yes. So I, you know, maybe I'm going to be provocative here again and I'm just thinking off the top of my head, but as much as I do believe that there is no small contribution in sustainability, everyone doing their little bit, it can add up to a lot. I believe this however, in the watch industry specifically. And one of my other passions is motorsports and this comes up a lot there as well. I don't know that it's the watches that need being made sustainable. I think it's, I'm going to say something very terrible here, but everyone flying in to go to a watch industry convention probably consumes a lot of fossil fuels and is not very sustainable, but it is an integral part of the business. So as I always try to do when I'm looking at problem solving, I say, okay, where do I want to end up and what is contributing to 80% of that? Because that's probably going to be low hanging fruit I can get too easily and I just don't, I just don't know that sustainability is there for me. I think you could create more value, more a positive way by not focusing so much on it directly but rather looking at it as a positive byproduct of something else, if that makes sense.
- [63:29]
Unknown
Yeah, I think you're correct there, David. I think that it's something that I think with the way that we're looking at manufacturing practices and distribution practices will improve as a matter of course over time. And that's not to say we should just ignore it. I think maybe crowing about it a little less until we're really somewhere meaningful might be more palatable for some of us. But it's good that brands are making changes, making strides in that field and making contributions where they can to minimize their impact on the world and on the industry itself.
- [64:03]
Rob
Of course we could maybe create a segue from six to seven by you, Rob, for example, answering my idea of creating more collaboration partnership between brands, taking the example of the alternative horological alliance and taking that for example, on topic of sustainability. But I would love to hear from you what you think brands could and should do more together.
- [64:34]
Unknown
So collaboration is kind of a specialist subject, I guess. Given how often we collaborate with brands on many projects in front of and behind the scenes. What do I think could be done to further and deepen and enrich in those relationships? Well, I like the idea very much of smaller brands banding together almost like a de facto group. You know, the British Watchmakers day showed us tens of brands operating very comfortably alongside one another with a very open channels of communication between one another, sharing ideas, sharing know how, giving themselves a boost basically. They appreciate the fact that there is space for most of them to exist. Some will fail, that's going to happen. But they're not going to fail because of this collaboration. I don't believe there is this we're better together mentality there. And they are competing against massive groups with massive bankrolls who are able to just steamroll the individual. The lame gazelle that finds itself separated from the pack as it were. Banding together, as Nicholas Bowman Scargo from Fears always said, is the same as a rising tide raising all ships. You know, when something is happening, a positive swell of interest in something like micro brands or the British watchmaking scene specifically, it benefits everybody associated with it. And there is that kindness and generosity between the makers who are very well aware that they are up against it to even survive, let alone make a decent crust. That boys this. I had a lot of saline analogies in there with swells and boys. That was quite good. I didn't mean to do that. That boys this relationship for the long term. What could they do even further? Well, sustainability is an interesting one. Could we see a situation where these brands don't just share intellectual property, but practical resources as well? Could they have their components made in the same companies? Could they have them shipped at the same time? Could they band together in a group that approached retailers as one and said look, if you take one, you take us all and then you will receive like an update of stock every so many months or when you've sold out of X amount percentage across the range to minimize those footprints after the manufacturing fact, what about sustainability? Well, I believe that there should be some kind of independent index for the whole industry to operate with and abide by. I would say something like a rating system. That is. I've talked to you about this before, haven't I talked to David about it before? About how it would be an interesting thing for us to establish a series of points of a checklist, effectively that a brand would need to meet or exceed for them to receive a rating. Let's say I said leafs, didn't I sell? If you're a five leaf brand, then you are, you know, given the gold star from the sustainability index. And we say that everything you do is okay and that you are a company that we can trust for long term responsible manufacturing. So there are things like that that I think would be interesting. I think that we're already seeing things in an event space where brands are banded together. And I don't know if it necessarily needs to be formal or whether it just needs to be a handshake agreement, but any way that they can collaborate to reduce their shared impact on the environment and to streamline their processes is a good thing.
- [67:54]
Rob
What does Arcana do with other brands?
- [67:57]
Unknown
Well, not loads directly, to be fair. I mean, we'll share knowledge and we'll gladly receive knowledge where necessary. We're not British, of course, so we're not part of this cohort. So we're somewhat on the outside of that discussion. There is a growing movement in Scandinavia, as you know, there are more and more brands popping up in, in that part of the world and we're glad to be one of the more visible ones there. Obviously, with James being part of the company, we have ties to a lot of companies, a lot of bigger companies like MB&F, like Debitune, like Linda Verdelin for example. We have direct route to anyone in those spaces if we wanted to ask them anything. But generally we just pursue our vision and our goal to try and be as creative as we can within the tight confines of running a small brand without investors. And there are good things on the horizon, creative innovations, I think. But you know, the watchmaking side of things is something I'd like to do more on. The sustainability things we're pretty good at because a lot of our stuff is made very close to Copenhagen. We make a lot of parts in Copenhagen and more in Gothenburg, where James is based, of course. And so I suppose in that way we're doing all right in that side of things as it is. But we could do better. We could always Be better. The price of the watches would go through the roof if we started making our own movements, of course. But one day, who knows? That could be a dream that I'd like to pursue.
- [69:29]
Rob
Does Archnaut behave like a tech startup?
- [69:31]
Unknown
Well, looking over the points that you've made and some of the things that we've raised today, there are elements in the way that we operate. I think Anders has a quite a techy mindset because he's not a watch guy and I'm the opposite, of course. I'm a dyed in the wool watch bloke, so I am often the conservative voice to his radicalism. We try and temper that and find a middle ground that satisfies both. And I think that on some of our communication processes and some of the ways that we organize things behind the scenes to make the customer experience better, we're a bit techy, but again, we don't have. We don't have huge amounts of cash rolling around. Our reason for being is to experiment with materials in ways that people have never done before and watchmaking and to innovate through design and. And science. But we don't have an exit strategy. The best thing I think we could hope for if we were to try and exit the industry would be if a Danish national company, like a hedge fund or something bought us. We're like, oh, they're making loads of money. I don't think. Would LVMH buy a brand like Arkanor? It's possible, but it seems unlikely. A few years ago I would have thought it was pretty likely that we could have been picked up by a big group, but I think groups are not doing that very often at the moment. I think that a lot of the big groups feel quite comfortable with the portfolio they have, or maybe should I say they feel quite uncomfortable with the portfolio they have. So they're not willing to take any risks and add any more headaches to it. I think the only other example we've seen of a brand as it were, becoming a group and buying brands is Breitling and what they've done with Universal Geneva and was it Gallet that they bought as well?
- [71:15]
David
Indeed.
- [71:16]
Unknown
And maybe with the British as well banding together to sort of become a group of itself. Maybe the way to be as a group with. But I'm not sure I can imagine any of the big names taking a flyer on a creative independent like Archonaut. Maybe if we were to be bought by anybody in watchmaking, we'd have more of a chance being bought by someone like MB and F or like Urwerk, or maybe even someone like Czapek or Moser, you know, more creative people that want to operate in a. A lower price point and have a little bit of a gloves off approach to experimentation where they could use us like the stunk works of their universe, like Rolex has sometimes done with Tudor. We've had no whispers or no indications that that's going to happen anytime soon, but we're open to it, I suppose.
- [72:03]
Rob
So does that mean you guys have an exit strategy? And if so, did you ever start setting up the company having an exit strategy in mind?
- [72:11]
Unknown
Well, no, no, no, not, not at all. There are exit possibilities. What Anders envisaged when he started the company was to create a generational label to make a name that he could hand down to his son. Now, he's upheld his part of the bargain, and since he started the company, he's had a son. So he's doing, he's doing all right on that side of things. He only managed that a year ago, but he's got plenty more time to have a few more just in case. The first one's not into watches, but that was his goal, to make something that would outlive us all to exist in a hundred years. That was his vision. And it may have been an idealistic and somewhat naive vision at the time, because he came to the industry with that mindset. He was not a cynical, worn out hack like me that might think, oh, maybe I can turn my decades of experience into one incredible project that's gonna bring me millions of dollars overnight, and then I can just check out and go and sit on a beach in Bali sipping Malibu and lemonade out of a coconut or something. I. That's. That's not where he came at it from. Do we have an exit strategy now? No, we don't want to get out. We like it. We enjoy watchmaking. We're here because we love it. You know, if. If a major financial institution or another watch brand came along and said, we want to buy your company for 20 million and we want to retain you both as like head of design and CEO, then we probably consider it. You know, we probably say, okay, well, we can check out, get some millions in the bank and still pursue the company that we love. But we'd have to be mindful in that moment. We'd have to know, because the reality of it is we wouldn't have as much power as we do now. And the main reason why I joined Archinaut when I did like three years ago was because I followed Jean Claude Biver's advice. Get as close to the top of the company as you. Any company that you can, where your decisions can affect its outcome, where your decisions will be the reason why it lives or dies. Don't go and become a cog in a machine. If you want to learn like go to the place that is on a knife edge. Make those decisions, fail, fail, fail, fail until you succeed. That's why I went there. And if we ever sold out, as financially comfortable as we may be, until we had another great idea and decided to pour all of our cash into a new watch brand, we would also lose a lot of the agency that we cover a great deal. And that gives us a lot of strength, a lot of emotional resilience and a lot of power to come to work every day, you know, because we know that if we succeed, it's because of something we did. And if we fail, then we just wear our failures and we start again. That's, that's how you got to be, I think.
- [74:43]
David
Amazing.
- [74:44]
Rob
Thank you for sharing very interesting insights to our dear listeners that have started a company are thinking of starting a company. David very generously offered to share his excels and models and I've seen a few and he's very good. Boys and girls, Rob and I are here for you as well, so feel free to hit us up. Nobody does the outro better than Rob, so Rob, the mic is yours. Thank you for listening everyone.
- [75:19]
Unknown
This was a pretty big article and audical analysis. One of our longest shows ever and to be honest, we still feel like we only just scratched the surface on this topic. There's a lot of, I think good learnings within the things we discussed, things that we can certainly dwell on a little longer and maybe fashion into useful advice for the future for all of us, not just those of us actively involved in watchmaking, but for any of you listening that hope to become part of this industry one day. If you do want to become part of the watchmaking industry, a great place to start is the Real Time show network, our WhatsApp community. You can join by sending us a message, any of us at all, either via the official Instagram account for the Realtime show, which is herealtime show via our email addresses, either Rob Alon or davidherealtime show or via the official contact form on the very official website www.therealtime.show. we'll be back soon with more top quality watch content and interviews with the innovators of this industry. Until then, stay safe and keep on ticking.