Editor’s Note
The recent withdrawal of several major brands from the world’s premier watch fair has exposed significant underlying tensions. This article examines the structural challenges facing the industry’s most iconic event.
The booth of Patek Philippe, one of Switzerland’s representative luxury watch brands, was also located on the right side of the central aisle in the main hall. Its magnificent glass booth displayed movements and other products manufactured by the company, with a level of luxury that seemed unbelievable for a short-term fair held just once a year.
“The time has come!” Some must have thought. As already reported in this magazine, following the postponement of Baselworld to January 2021, a series of withdrawals by major brands representing the watch industry were announced in mid-April. Let’s first review this sequence of events.
On April 14, 2020, Rolex, Tudor, Patek Philippe, Chanel, and Chopard announced their withdrawal from Baselworld. These brands stated they would not exhibit at Baselworld in January 2021 and would instead jointly host a new watch fair in Geneva in early April of the same year. Simultaneously, the Baselworld secretariat (MCH Group) issued a statement. It stated, “The unavoidable postponement of Baselworld 2020 and the new dates were defined in collaboration with the main exhibitors… Currently, the companies that have announced their transition, including Rolex, supported the postponement to January 2021.” While the withdrawing brands claimed “the secretariat unilaterally decided on the postponement,” the secretariat countered that it was “decided through consultation.” Furthermore, the background of the withdrawal also seemed to involve the issue of “non-refundable exhibition fees already paid for 2020.” The reason for labeling it a “postponement” rather than a “cancellation” might be this, but regarding this, the secretariat stated, “Discussions regarding the financial arrangements for the cancellation of Baselworld 2020 are currently being proposed,” indicating the issue was still under discussion. Reading this gives the impression that some room for repairing the relationship between the withdrawing brands and the secretariat remained.
Furthermore, on the 17th, the LVMH group (Tag Heuer, Hublot, Zenith, Bulgari) also announced its withdrawal from Baselworld. An excerpt from the release sent by the LVMH group explains the reason:
Given that the Swatch Group, which owns Omega and Breguet, had already withdrawn from Basel since 2019, the additional withdrawal of Rolex, Tudor, Patek Philippe, Chanel, Chopard, and LVMH’s Tag Heuer, Hublot, Zenith, and Bulgari would leave the core of the main hall completely hollowed out. Moreover, Japanese brands Seiko and Citizen, which announced their withdrawal before Baselworld’s postponement announcement, might also end up withdrawing from the postponed April 2021 fair. This is indeed a serious situation. It’s hard to imagine any brands capable of filling the void left by these major players.
Rolex, which had long secured the prime position on the left side of the central aisle in Baselworld’s main hall. Next to it sat the booth of its sibling brand, Tudor. No one would have imagined the day when these iconic logos would disappear from Basel.
“Watches & Wonders,” scheduled for April 2020, was announced as canceled on February 27. Instead, new releases from participating brands were introduced on the official website, and message videos from brand CEOs became available for viewing.
www.watchesandwonders.com
Ultimately, the brands that formed the core of Baselworld—Rolex, Patek Philippe, Chopard, Chanel, Tudor, and the LVMH group’s Tag Heuer, Hublot, Zenith, and Bulgari—announced they would host a new watch fair in 2021 together with the FHH (The Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie).
This new fair is said to be held at “Palexpo,” the exhibition venue adjacent to Geneva Airport, which is also the venue for Watches & Wonders Geneva (renamed from SIHH), concurrently with Watches & Wonders. However, it remains unclear whether “W&W” and the new fair will fully merge.
However, just as this article was being finalized for publication, a new release arrived from the Baselworld secretariat. Summarizing its content: “On May 7, 2020, the Baselworld secretariat in Switzerland and representatives of the exhibitors reconciled regarding the canceled Baselworld 2020 and decided not to hold the fair planned for January 28 to February 2, 2021.” Furthermore, it stated they would “decide on possible follow-up formats by summer and provide information on the new concept and schedule.”
In other words, they reconciled with the brands that had announced their withdrawal, canceled the plan to postpone Baselworld 2020 to January 2021, refunded the exhibition fees (this amount seems to have been kept low), and will discuss a new format for the fair, deciding and announcing it by summer.
However, it did not address whether the brands that announced their withdrawal would fully return to Baselworld or whether collaboration with W&W in Geneva was back to square one. Therefore, the future remains uncertain.
In any case, it is undeniable that the traditionally Basel-based watch fair has reached a major turning point. Even without the global spread of the novel coronavirus, such a situation would have arrived sooner or later.
However, simply moving the location to Geneva and hosting a luxury fair exclusively for major brands is not a simple solution to all problems.
Fundamentally, behind the declining status of watch fairs lies the rapid development of web media. Nowadays, press releases and high-resolution photo data can be obtained instantly online without going to Switzerland. Actual watches can be shipped by air from Switzerland to countries worldwide within days, and brand CEOs or marketing personnel can travel around countries with samples, displaying them at local launch events. Indeed, some brands already conduct new product launches in this manner.
If this form of new product launch becomes standard, the very raison d’être of watch fairs becomes shaky. In fact, “Watches & Wonders,” which gave up on holding its 2020 event, has begun disseminating the latest information, such as new product details and messages from CEOs for each brand, on its official website. Looking at this, one might not need to go to Switzerland at all.
However, this format might make it difficult to broadly promote watches as a culture. Also, it’s questionable whether everyone can fully understand watch data and specifications written in English or French, or messages from CEOs and developers primarily speaking English. In other words, online new product launches may not be the best means.
Today, watches are more than just practical items; they are traditional crafts and a kind of hobby item. Moreover, their appeal extends beyond just the wealthy to a broad range of people. How can we help these people understand the charm, excellence, history, and cultural breadth of watches more deeply? This is something not only fair organizers and exhibiting brands but also we in the press need to reconsider.
Since Gressive is also a web media, it’s natural that information dissemination via the web is our main focus. However, to allow readers to verify the emotions gained online at actual retail stores, we constantly exchange information with watch stores nationwide and create articles to encourage everyone to visit watch stores. Simultaneously, we support launch events and exhibitions held at retail stores in various ways and engage in activities to foster interest in watch culture.
Having overcome the Quartz Crisis of the 1970s and even incorporating smartwatches, interest in “watches” will never disappear. Therefore, regardless of what form Swiss watch fairs take, information dissemination should continue. What will become of Baselworld? Including such bystander curiosity, Gressive intends to continue collecting and delivering information related to the wonderful culture of watches.
