Are our expectations killing creativity in watchmaking?

The Vianney Halter Art Deco Metropolis - Photograph ©Idea 33 Media

With two major trade shows - Watches & Wonders and Geneva Watch Days - along with countless regional events, watch brands face tremendous pressure to release novelties at both shows, if they participate in both. This precedent is a double-edged sword: while it offers collectors and consumers new watches to choose from and add to their collections, it forces brands to work faster than their research and development timelines might dictate. This risks burning out the most creative minds and diluting the brand’s identity by resorting to minor updates like dial or case material swaps.

Over the last three years of attending watch trade shows, particularly Watches & Wonders and Geneva Watch Days, I have found myself wondering if the semi-annual release cycle was a good precedent or if it has killed off some of the creativity within the watch industry. Expecting brands to have novelties for two shows, and likely a third release throughout the year seems like a heavy burden to place on the shoulders of the brands. Furthermore, does it currently work?

Creating a watch, especially for an independent brand, is a labor and creativity-intensive process that goes far beyond the initial sketch, mechanical design, and production. Crafting a watch that truly reflects a brand’s identity takes time. It goes far beyond sourcing and assembling components. An independent watchmaker will spend years developing their mechanical signature and design identity. In the current quest for novelties, I wonder if we are losing those unique features that make independent watchmaking so special?

The industry’s fast-paces release cycle, and consumer expectations, leave little room for the deep, thoughtful work that is required to create a watch that stands out. Instead of allowing innovation to flourish, brands are forced to prioritize convenience - resulting in superficial changes instead of groundbreaking designs. 

The watch industry, with an insatiable thirst for newness, waits for no one. Collectors have come to expect new offerings at every show, whether a completely new watch, or a slight variation on  an existing one. The precedent has been set: We expect multiple releases annually from our favorite brands. 

For independent watchmakers who have spent their career developing their own identity, the pressure to create something new every 365 days can feel like an unbearable burden. This is doubly true for new independent brands. The consensus among watch collectors seems to be that a new release from a new brand should be followed up in 18-months with a second model. After a successful launch, collectors want to see continuous development, even if just a prototype. Yet, the expectations can ruin the creativity of a brand that launched to critical acclaim. The risk of being out of sight and out of mind is real, but then so is the risk of releasing a watch that is not true to a watchmaker’s vision and identity. 

Independent watchmakers, who value the time to create, test, and refine, deserve the opportunity to develop and express their ideas fully. Rushing the creative process not only risks compromising the quality of their work, but also threatens the long-term value of their brands. Unlike fiction authors who can develop a formula and release a new book every year, watchmakers need the time to address the issues that arise when they are pushing the boundaries of the craft.

This raises an important question: Are we, as collectors, media, and consumers, expecting too much from the brands we love? I believe the answer is yes.

The watch industry’s current release cycle is well established: a spring release for Watches & Wonders and a late-summer release for Geneva Watch Days. While some of the industry players like Richard Mille, march to the beat of their own drum and release watches as they are ready, many brands feel compelled to stick to this twice a year release schedule. Many brands only participate in one release cycle annually at Watches & Wonders. Even on a 365 day release schedule, the pace can lead to the dilution of creativity, and I would argue for many brands it has. 

If we want to continue finding reasons to be captivated by watchmaking, we need to adjust our expectations. Independent brands in particular, should be given the space to to release new models on a timeline that prioritizes creativity, innovation, and quality over quantity. I would argue that a release schedule every 12-28 months would strike a balance between allowing watchmakers the necessary time to create, while still satisfying our demand for novelty.

The responsibility for maintaining creativity within the watch industry lies not just with the brands, it lies with collectors, journalists, and retailers. By allowing brands and watchmakers the time they need to bring their vision to life, we can ensure that each new release is a piece worth celebrating, and worth writing about, rather than a product to fill a spot on a shelf. 

The magic of independent watchmaking is being surprised by the unexpected. Let’s give the artists the rime they need to create the unexpected, and delight everyone along the way.