# lazy customer expectation setting



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

To keep this brief and get to the point:

1) Tag watch started playing up - phoned Jewellers, advised it needs a service

2) Quoted 6-8 weeks (probably 8 weeks) turnaround by Jewellers, and cost = Â£110

3) Phone UK Tag distributor - same story advised likely 8 weeks

4) Went into other Jewellers - same story - but had them send it off (at this point had to realise I wasn't gonna get it back quicker)

5) In the meantime, sent off my other watch (Sector) to have a new battery fitted as turnaround was only 2 weeks so cuts down my time without a watch to only 2 weeks rather than 8

6) Got my Sector back on Wednesday gone. On Thursday got a call from Jeweller - Tag is ready to collect - 2 weeks and 1 day from sending it off !!!

I could understand getting the watch back after 5 weeks on a 6-8 week estimate - but after 2 weeks !!!!!! Clearly they have no update on what the backlog is at all and just quote 6-8 weeks whatever. Christ its 2004 shouldn't we expect better service than that>!! :evil:

So I spend Â£32 on having a battery fitted in my Sector and the day after I get it back it goes straight back in the cupboard until the battery runs out again (same bloody time the Tag runs out no doubt!)

Grrr.

Damian


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

snaxo said:


> To keep this brief and get to the point:
> 
> 1) Tag watch started playing up - phoned Jewellers, advised it needs a service
> 
> ...


I can see the point of your flame, but disagree with you...

You have ended up with far better service than you were expecting. The fact that they communicated 6-8 weeks is beside the point, really...


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

Don't get me wrong - I am not unhappy with Tag themselves. They've done a great job and got the watch back to me quickly - which is actually a pleasant and nice surprise.

However, the UK distributor is advsing the turnaround time (this is where the Jewellers are getting their info from also I believe) and they are just quoting 'thin air' figures. Shite.

And I certainly don't agree it's beside the point - it IS the point.

Damian


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

:wink: Trick of the trade mate,pull the button out of your Sector watch it switches it off :wink:


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

pas_55 said:


> :wink: Trick of the trade mate,pull the button out of your Sector watch it switches it off :wink:


Really?! How far?! Or are you having me on !!!

Damian


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

That is the problem with silly expensive watches! They are so stupid that they still need batteries.

My Citizen is miles ahead and only need light to charge its batteries. So it never runs out of energy and it doesn't require any money to operate.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

:wink: No it's true.Just pull it out as if your changing the time check that the second-hand has stopped and that's it really :wink:


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

Cheers mate - superb tip !!! 

I'm glad I posted !

Damian


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

I only cost you Â£32 to find that out :wink:



snaxo said:


> Cheers mate - superb tip !!!
> 
> I'm glad I posted !
> 
> Damian


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

ah well better than not finding out at all. Atleast next time the Tag has to be sent away I'll have another working watch to fall back on ! 

Damian


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> That is the problem with silly expensive watches! They are so stupid that they still need batteries.
> 
> My Citizen is miles ahead and only need light to charge its batteries. So it never runs out of energy and it doesn't require any money to operate.


 Vlas your a fcuking cheap skate!
Having a decent, stylish watch, is no different than having a similar car. By your reasoning you should be driving around in a skoda. After all it drives from A to B right? Like a car, a watch not only has a basic function, but also instills a feel good factor onto the owner. It is a status symbol fashion accessory and a pratical object all rolled into one. A watch say's somthing about its owner so if yours says " Im a plastic cheap skate" and you are, then fair enough! :wink:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > That is the problem with silly expensive watches! They are so stupid that they still need batteries.
> ...


I agree with this. Actually I was reading in an article once that the only kind of "jewellery" a man can wear and look smart is a wedding ring and a nice watch. Anything more and he looks cheap.

My Citizen is very elegant and it paid about Â£150 for it a few years back. So it is not a cheap watch but not an overpriced one either. I found the Panerai watch in another thread very ugly and old fashioned. I do like Tag Heuer but they are big and heavy watches.


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

vlastan said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


StephenGreen - spot on 

Vlastan - mine is a Tag Heuer Kirium series - it is neither particularly big or heavy.

http://www.tagheuer.com/watches/detail.lbl?watch=WL111F.BA0701&search=s:5;F:15;T:0;C:s;

Damian


----------



## whirlypig (Feb 20, 2003)

snaxo said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > stephengreen said:
> ...


I'm gutted to say it but I'm with Vlastan on this one 

A watch is pretty much a one trick pony and it must be one of the more obscure fashion statements, a bit like designer underpants. That is unless you're like a colleague I used to have who was in the habit of telling everyone the brand and value of his car, suit and watch much to everyones delight. :roll:

It's a bit different to comparing cars, the TT is in part a style statement but there's more to it than driving A to B; it's how it drives, what the comfort is like, what options you've got to make the drive more enjoyable, etc. And a TT doesn't cost at least 10 times what a Skoda would cost.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

whirlypig said:


> snaxo said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


Hehehe. Agreed 

I bought the watch I have because Lisa liked it and I agreed. Checking the dial, its made by Kenneth Cole, and is just nice and plain. Chrono, but no bezel. Waterproof and tells the time. I've also found it to be highly accurate 

Having a decent, stylish watch doesn't necessarily mean buying a Â£2k, Â£3k etc "named" brand. If you took the Panerai name off, would you still think that earlier one was "all that"? Would you still pay the same money for it?

You hear people say "I want to buy a TAG" or "I want to buy a Breitling" - possibly because they subscribe to the values of that brand. They don't actually mind WHICH Breitling or TAG they buy - they just want to be seen with one... 

I can't help but laugh when people say "oh, my XYZ had to go in for service at the cost of <my watch> and it was expected to take 6-8 weeks..." Or even funnier, "my Rolex loses about 5 minutes a week, but I still love it" Eh? WTF is that all about? Truly style over substance there...

People buy expensive watches for one reason alone - they want an overt demonstration of their wealth. "Look at me, I have Â£500 spare to spend on a watch with the name "TAG" on it". Fair play to them if they can be honest about it. But to try and tell me that their TAG is somehow "better" than my watch (which keeps perfect time) is a bit of a joke, really. The car analogy REALLY doesn't work, as there is far greater scope to "enjoy" using a car. Spend enough money on a car and you get more back in return... spend more money on a watch, and you (seem to) get something which actually is WORSE at its core function (telling the time) and is much more of a fashion statement.

Each to their own... :lol:


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> People buy expensive watches for one reason alone - they want an overt demonstration of their wealth


Or perhaps just liking understated quality. I'm with Damian on this one. If you want flashy trash to demonstrate wealth then how about Jacob & co - utter rubbish. I like Tag for the engineering and Breitling for its Aerospace heritage. I'm no show off - i just like high quality items.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

coupe-sport said:


> > People buy expensive watches for one reason alone - they want an overt demonstration of their wealth
> 
> 
> Or perhaps just liking understated quality. I'm with Damian on this one. If you want flashy trash to demonstrate wealth then how about Jacob & co - utter rubbish. I like Tag for the engineering and Breitling for its Aerospace heritage. I'm no show off - i just like high quality items.


Maybe, James, but would you be happy to wear a watch which wasn't entirely accurate, just because of the brand name?


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

No i wouldnt - thats why mine is accurate


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

vlastan said:


> That is the problem with silly expensive watches! They are so stupid that they still need batteries.


Haven't you ever heard of an automatic watch?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

jampott said:


> coupe-sport said:
> 
> 
> > > People buy expensive watches for one reason alone - they want an overt demonstration of their wealth
> ...


I'm also with Damian and James on this one - but then I have a fairly nice watch. Disagree with your statement about paying more for a car makes it a better buy - it actually makes it a worse buy. Especially if you're buying new.

Depends where your priorities lie, but given the amount of money you've effectively lost by changing your Z so soon, I can't see how you could compare them. My watch is now about four years old and needs a service as it's started to gain time. This is partly my fault as I got it a bit too close to a powerful magnet . However, it's now worth more than I paid for it - so I could sell it and at the moment it would have effectively cost me nothing - not even batteries as it uses kinetic movement to wind it.

Also, with any luck, I'll be able to hand it down to my son (if I have one) and he'll be grateful for it. I doubt he'd feel the same way if I gave him a forty year old piece of tat.

Yes, of course, it's a status symbol as well, but a good watch will always have some value - and many will appreciate.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

coupe-sport said:


> No i wouldnt - thats why mine is accurate


Good man... I somehow guessed you'd say that, being an egg-head scientist and everything 

Can you explain how come a TAG watch is "better" engineered than others though?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

jampott said:


> coupe-sport said:
> 
> 
> > No i wouldnt - thats why mine is accurate
> ...


Precision engineered - with proper servicing it will last many lifetimes.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Kell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > coupe-sport said:
> ...


Anything will last a long time if you regularly replace all the bits that might wear out / break.

Reminds me of Trigger's broom in Only Fools And Horses :lol:


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> Can you explain how come a TAG watch is "better" engineered than others though?


Higher quality materials and workmanship. Don't ask me difficult questions - i'm in the middle of a meeting


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

coupe-sport said:


> > Can you explain how come a TAG watch is "better" engineered than others though?
> 
> 
> Higher quality materials and workmanship. Don't ask me difficult questions - i'm in the middle of a meeting


An interesting debate / dichotomy here... Are watches better engineered by craftsmen (jewellers) or by companies specialising in precision engineering, but not specifically watch movement making...?

As for things "lasting a lifetime", many 300+ year old timepieces (not made by TAG) are still going strong. They may lack the resistance to water and pressure that your modern timepiece has, and may require delicate winding rather than battery operation, but have still managed to last through the ages rather well...


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

coupe-sport said:


> No i wouldnt - thats why mine is accurate


Neither would I. And I wouldn't buy ANYTHING - no matter WHAT brand - unless I liked the look of it. I could win the lottery and I'd never buy a Rolex - just don't like the look of them at all ! Someone else may love them - we're all different.

As for showing off - mine spends most of the year under a sleeve so no one sees it apart from me when I look at the time!!

And the reason I bought mine? When my much loved grandfather died he left me some money, I wanted to buy one thing that I knew would last a lifetime and would always remind me of him (not that I need reminding as such but you know what I mean I'm quite sure). Simple as that. For example, I could have spent the Â£1000 on buying RS4 alloy's (which I always hankered after) for me TT of course when I had it, but they wouldn't have lasted me in the same way now would they ?! :roll:

What makes ME laugh is just HOW judgemental others can be without knowing me or having the FIRST clue about my true motivation for buying anything!!! Rudeness personified - lovely people - LOL.

This started off as a flame on 'lazy customer expectation setting' and now has mutated into criticising individual's personal purchase choices. Jez.

Happy Christmas!

Damian


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

jampott said:


> coupe-sport said:
> 
> 
> > > Can you explain how come a TAG watch is "better" engineered than others though?
> ...


Very true - but how many of those 300 yr old timepieces were made by recognised watchmakers and how many by A N Other? I have no figures to hand, but I'd imagaine a clock or watch in itself was a very expensive and well made thing at that time. Probably all made by hand and by the most skilled craftsmen. It's only us in the modern era that 'benefit' from the economies of scale and mass production to bring the costs down.

I'd argue that in buying a Kenneth Cole watch, you're actually paying more for the name than you are when buying a Breitling, for example. With Breitling, you're buying a watch with proven Aerospace heritage and pedigree. With the Kenneth Cole watch, you're buying a Â£10 watch that's been hiked up to Â£70-Â£80 because your man Cole is a fashion designer. Same as for Boss, Armani, et al. In my opinion, you're paying for the name alone and not genuinely getting a precision made item.

As it happens, I bought mine because I'd always wanted a nice watch and I bought Breitling, because everyone else was buying Tags. :? Breitling seems to be slightly more popular now, though that might be just the circles I now move in. 

At the end of the day it's whatever makes you happy. I was happy to pay the price for my watch as I'll keep it forever and get a lot of use out of it. I'm not happy to pay lots for a stereo because I don't listen to it often enough to appreciate it, and nor can I utilise it as I live in a terraced house - same as the whole Plasma TV thing. Could physically afford to get one, but I'd rather spend my money eleswhere.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Touchy, Damian, very touchy!!


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> With Breitling, you're buying a watch with proven Aerospace heritage and pedigree.


As someone who works in the aerospace industry I can tell you that we take advantage of every modern technology going ............ in other words we take advantage of modern electronics etc. Fly by wire is the name of the game ............. not brilliantly engineered mechanical controls that nobody can afford anymore.

I'm also an engineer and so, for me, a watch is something with which to accurately tell the time and remind me of the date with a quick glance. This is most effectively achieved with modern electronics and stepper motors for which no mechanical Rolex, Breitling et al watch can ever hope to match.

Therefore it follows that these watches are a complete anachronism and are worn as jewellery (or as some other 'statement') rather than time pieces ................... except that no-one can see the inner workings of most of these watches, just the outside. Logically, therefore, they are a complete and utter waste of money. By all means have a nice looking watch but it makes no sense paying ridiculous amounts of money for mechanical movements that can't be seen and appreciated when electronics are much cheaper, more reliable and more accurate.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garvin said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > With Breitling, you're buying a watch with proven Aerospace heritage and pedigree.
> ...


Hear hear!!

You have a nicer wrist adornment than I have, but not a "better" watch


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Did you or your wife opt for plastic weding rings?


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> Did you or your wife opt for plastic weding rings?


No, but at least they can be seen and appreciated for exactly what they are and, in our case at least, were not outrageously expensive.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

garvin said:


> r1 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you or your wife opt for plastic weding rings?
> ...


I understand your point - you're saying that the expensive watches are really design over substance.

A bit like a TT really then... :?


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> I understand your point - you're saying that the expensive watches are really design over substance.


Exactly, in my business we would say they were a triumph of form over function.



r1 said:


> A bit like a TT really then... :?


Hmmm, not really. Pound for pound the TT is pretty good value for money considering form, fit and function (although reliability could be somewhat better). One can always argue the balance between these three variables but the TT, IMHO, successfully balances all three quite well and is not outrageously expensive for what it is.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

garvin said:


> Hmmm, not really. Pound for pound the TT is pretty good value for money considering form, fit and function (although reliability could be somewhat better). One can always argue the balance between these three variables but the TT, IMHO, successfully balances all three quite well and is not outrageously expensive for what it is.


I disagree. If you're going purely on substance rather than percieved image, badge etc..the TT falls below many cars on a pound for pound basis.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> I disagree. If you're going purely on substance rather than percieved image, badge etc..the TT falls below many cars on a pound for pound basis.


Hijacking thread and veering completely off the original topic  ......... just what are these 'many cars' that can outdo a TT for substance across form, fit and function for substantially less money?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

It's easy! Take the list price of your car and go through the back of something like CAR magazine and you'll find quite a few that on paper are 'better' but dont' have that something that makes people love the TT.

Off the top of my head (and I'm guessing here on the prices) a CTR (Vs the TTC), an Elise (Vs the TTR), the S2000, the Z, a couple of Skodas, blah blah blah...I'm boring myself here!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

r1 said:


> blah blah blah...I'm boring myself here!


You are boring us too as well now. :roll:


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> r1 said:
> 
> 
> > blah blah blah...I'm boring myself here!
> ...


Fuck me, from Mr Talks-Shit-For-A-Living. :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > r1 said:
> ...


Sorry but I don't fuck blokes. :roll: :lol:


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> It's easy! Take the list price of your car and go through the back of something like CAR magazine and you'll find quite a few that on paper are 'better' but dont' have that something that makes people love the TT.
> 
> Off the top of my head (and I'm guessing here on the prices) a CTR (Vs the TTC), an Elise (Vs the TTR), the S2000, the Z, a couple of Skodas, blah blah blah...I'm boring myself here!


Easy eh! I think the cars you mention may have some apsects that better the TT but are not as rounded e.g. an Elise - no room, no comfort, stripped out; S2000 wet handling nightmare, usual Honda rev-the-thing-to-death engine; Z - have you seen the inside of one of those things, road roar is deafening and only matched by the sound of the gearbox; Skodas ......... now you are just taking the piss!


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> whirlypig said:
> 
> 
> > snaxo said:
> ...


Tim,

You don't happen to have a photo of your Ken Cole watch, as by a strange coincidence, Judith bought me a Kenneth Cole watch last Xmas & i'm sure they don't have a very wide variety.

As a side, i've never been into very expensive watches, as i usually think they're possibly fake anyway (nothing against people who are into watches), but i have a Â£300 Seiko that has never let me down & is used every day, then the Kenneth Cole for evenings out etc. as its slimmer that the Seiko & looks a little more dressy.


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> As a side, i've never been into very expensive watches, as i usually think they're possibly fake anyway (nothing against people who are into watches), but i have a Â£300 Seiko that has never let me down & is used every day, then the Kenneth Cole for evenings out etc. as its slimmer that the Seiko & looks a little more dressy.


Well old Chinese proverb for you Paul - man with one watch know what it is, man with two is never sure ;-)



> Sorry but I don't fuck blokes.


Touche, Lord V ;-)

And as for the watch "thing", I'll repeat garyc's point that are more moving parts in an expensive watch than in a car. And also if reliability is going to be the yardstick by which we measure the value of something, then we would all be driving Honda Jazzs (or whatever comes top of these poll things), and not performance cars. We all put up with the quirks and foibles of highly engineered products to be able to enjoy the "luxury" end of the market. I enjoy having a nice watch, I enjoy driving a nice car 8)


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Paul,

bloody small world, mate 

Lisa chose mine, but I paid :lol:

I found a piccie on the web. Not a great shot of it, as it looks darker than it is. The face is almost a slate grey, and apart from the chrono stuff, its very very plain.










I do like TAG watches, but ultimately I don't think they are worthy of their price tag, but respect to those who buy one.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

IMO choosing a watch comes down to this. First make sure your not paying for a "name" rather than substance ( armani, gucci...) 
Secoundly make sure your not paying for materials not conducive to the operation of the watch ( gold diamonds...)
and finaly make sure that the price paid reflects a fair price for the quality of materials, workmanship, and movment used. This as far as im concerned means paying between Â£1-2k from manufactures like Tag, Omega, and breitling. I know of plenty of people wiyh Rolex's that though made out of 18k gold dont keep time, and others, with Armani's, that have mineral glass! The moral being that you dont always get what you pay for, but, you will never get what you havn't.


----------



## droopsnoot (Sep 5, 2002)

Going back to the start for a second, I agree that for some companies, "estimate" should be phrased more accurately as "guess" or "wild stab in the dark". Our photocopier used to be on a contract which costs a certain amount per sheet, and if we didn't tell the company what the copy count was, they would send a bill with an "estimated" copy count on it. The only thing was, the estimate bore no relation to any historical usage figures, and so was not an estimate at all - it was just a plain guess.

(Didn't notice this when it was a current thread, sorry).


----------

