# Thoughts on Hodinkee's "All Watches Should be Unisex"?



## docvail

Good morning!

I'm Chris, or "Doc" to many on the forum. I own NTH Watches. You may remember me from my 2018 thread, "Help a Brutha Out?"









Help a brutha out?


Hi there, I'm Chris, or "Doc" to many who know me from the affordable watches sub forum. I own microbrands Lew & Huey and NTH. My wife and some of the other women I know have been bugging me to make a ladies watch for a few years, yet I've held off for many reasons. However, I've been thinking...




www.watchuseek.com





About a month ago, a friend in the industry sent me a link to this piece in Hodinkee -









Second Opinions: All Watches Should Be Unisex – And Here's Why


In the first installment of her new monthly column, Cara Barrett says it's time to retire our outdated gender norms.




www.hodinkee.com





My initial reaction was a weird feeling of being blamed for something I didn't remember doing. You know that feeling, maybe. Initially confused, then defensive, perhaps dismissive. Being put on the defensive can stop us from really listening and understanding.

Then today, I saw someone posted a pic of a watch from Stella, a recently-launched microbrand, owned by a woman, which is unusual in my observation, and likely the main reason the brand stands out in my mind. I remember seeing posts from the owner, Marcella Dolan, in some Facebook watch groups, leading up to the launch of the brand.









Stella Watch Company | Independent watch brand | United States


Stella Watch Company is a New York based independent brand. Stella watches are designed in New York and manufactured in Switzerland.




www.stellawatchcompany.com





The watches don't strike me as particularly masculine, but certainly not very feminine either, when I look at their size (40mm), or style, which is just every day casual, with denim and linen texture dials, not overly dressy, nor overly toolish.

The brand messaging and imagery doesn't hide, but also doesn't seem to emphasize that it's a woman-owned business. The image gallery on the Stella site has a lot of burly, tattooed wrists, suggesting male gender roles.










In short, there's nothing I see which screams "Unisex! We're inclusive! Anyone can wear these!" which seems to be at least somewhat suggested in the Hodinkee article as being lacking in the industry, which is admittedly dominated by men, and largely focused on men.

My only point about Stella is that although I haven't asked Marcella for her view, her brand's messaging and imagery suggests she and I have taken a similar approach in trying to shape a brand image without any overt projection of gender roles applying to the product.

If she perceives things differently than I do, perhaps more like Cara Barrett from Hodinkee, because I'm a man and they're both women, the difference in our views isn't obvious when we compare the messaging and imagery of our respective brands.

It got me thinking about the Hodinkee article again, leading me to take another look at it.

Less defensive now, I tried to think of how often I saw brands intentionally labeling or subtly marketing watches as being specifically for men or women, such as website search filters which include gender labels, and ads clearly communicating the intended customer, versus how often brands omit such labels and messages.

I also considered the relative value of NOT using gender roles in marketing, in order to be more inclusive, versus the value of using those roles deliberately, in order to reinforce an effective marketing message, such as the way Omega wants guys who buy the Seamaster to imagine themselves as James Bond, an uber-male archetype.

Men often buy what makes us feel more masculine. I imagine it's the same with women, buying what makes you feel more feminine, though I think women often may be more comfortable wearing something designed for a man than most men would be wearing something meant for a woman.

My sense of things is that most watches appear to be designed with men in mind, but aren't necessarily labeled or marketed that way, but rather just as products. The gender roles may be implied in or inferred from the designs, or the marketing, but not explicitly conveyed in words or labels.

But the article seems to suggest that the industry is overly focused on gender roles, and should move towards more homogeneity in products, where everything would be explicitly, or at least understood to be unisex. No more gender roles in search filters, no more labeling watches "men's" or "ladies", and I assume no more subtle suggestions regarding gender in product marketing.

But I wonder if that's what we all would want. I think product diversity, with a greater variety of designs, targeting the tastes of smaller market segments, is a good thing. Why can't we have everything from a very manly-man design to a very girly-girl design, with lots of less gender-specific stuff in the middle of that spectrum?

I'm honestly unsure what my own opinion is, but I think that's it - variety is a good thing. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't pretend to understand women. Maybe the industry is more offensive than I realize, and gender-specific product design and marketing should be retired.

As the owner of a small brand with limited product variety, I think an argument can be made for covering all bases. We don't want to do anything to push any potential customer away, if that's what happens when we apply gender roles to the product. But we also want the marketing of the product to be effective, which can mean being more clear and specific about the intended customer, or what the intended customer should feel when they think about the product - a sense of adventure, ruggedness, whatever.

Like I said up top, I felt blamed for something I didn't do, because for the most part, at least until 2018, we never used any gender-based labels to categorize or describe our product. It never even occurred to me. We were just making "watches", for whomever wanted to buy them.

Most of my customers are men, but I know women have bought and worn our watches, even some of the larger 42mm-44mm models. My wife and godmother both own some of our older, 40mm models, and only have ~6" wrists.

But for years, women I knew and met would suggest I make a "ladies watch", which suggests that we had a mutual, often implicit (unspoken) understanding that the watches we've been making were designed with men in mind. I understood their requests to mean they wanted something specifically designed for a woman, something more "girly", whatever that means.

In 2018, I decide to dip my toes in that water with two designs we marketed specifically as "unisex", the Dolphin, both 40mm, one silver, one magenta (pink, if you like).


















Everything about the design - the handset, the shape of the markers, the colors, even the name, was carefully chosen to soften the toolish aesthetic of our previous models, most of which were inspired by military-issued diving watches. We came here to solicit opinions before we started working on it, and I got several female members' opinions on it before we sent it for production.

Most people didn't take much notice, but one guy on IG did go out of his way to lambaste us for it. I'm still not sure what point he was making, but it seemed to be, "Ugh, another man adding bling to a watch and trying to get women to buy it. When will they learn?"

But you be the judge -

__
http://instagr.am/p/BmPm5pon53I/

I have no idea how many Dolphins were purchased by women. I'm sure some were. My mother, wife, and two of my aunts each have one. The silver sold better, which wasn't entirely unexpected, as it's the more gender-neutral color. But I was surprised by how many manly-men have bought and love the magenta. They post pics with pride, and I've never seen anyone sneer about those guys wearing a "ladies watch."

I view it as an experiment, with inconclusive results. I don't think we gained a lot of new customers because we went out of our way to design and market a watch as "unisex". The Dolphins didn't sell much better or much worse than most of our other models. If the market is starving for something, I don't know what it is, but the Dolphin didn't appear to be it.

I don't know if Cara at Hodinkee speaks for all, most, many, or any women in the market. But I wanted to ask women here - what's your take on all this?

Do you have strong feelings about companies that are still labeling their watches as being for "men" or "ladies"? Is "unisex" just a euphemism for "intended for ladies, but men might like it too?" Should the industry homogenize everything as unisex, or keep doing what it's doing, or go the other way, with even more product diversity, suggesting even more clearly defined gender roles for the product?


----------



## hi_beat

If "unisex" means "anyone should be able to wear a watch they like and be respectfully treated in appreciation of their unique personality and style", then I agree. If it means "watches should be non-differentiated with respect to size and design aesthetics" then I disagree. I admire Stella's designs and was not aware it is a woman-owned business. I also love the magenta Dolphin, just wish it were a little lighter, softer shade of pink. For the record I am male, and wear watches in a variety of styles and sizes ranging from 34mm to 56mm.


----------



## docvail

I suppose I could sum up my long OP by asking how we define "inclusive".

The Hodinkee piece seems to suggest that a one-product-for-all approach is inclusive.

My feeling has been that having lots of different products, i.e. "something for everyone" is inclusive, and more choice is generally a good thing.

The Hodinkee article calls the industry to task for not doing something, or doing something it shouldn't be doing. Likewise, my focus is as a business owner, trying to think about how this issue should be incorporated into the product planning, imagery, brand messaging, etc, as all that informs the market perception and brand identity.

I'm not here to police how people treat each other in the real world, or on social media. That's above my pay grade. I'm just trying to make my way in the industry, build a business, and sell a product. I don't care who buys it, and I'm open-minded enough to consider alternative views about how brands like mine should be positioning it.

So...yeah, what do the women think of all this, since it was a woman who called the industry to task for not being inclusive enough? Is she right? Should everything be "unisex", or is variety the spice of life?


----------



## fellini212

Great thread idea.

I'd have to read back across Cara's previous work, but the first big breakthrough in unisex/omnisex watch design happened nearly forty years ago, didn't it? Seems to me part of the point - or at least result - of the original Swatch was to erase some of those men's watch / women's watch cliches.

That said, I think the success of things like the new Rolex OP range reflect some increased sales to women. But I'm not sure colorways _alone_ really dissolve gender imperatives in sales and design. Sizes? Sure, that's part of it.

But in the same way that the tattoo has been completely mainstreamed over the last thirty years among both men and women, old notions about watches as gendered jewelry have changed, too.

Looks like women just want more and better choices:









NY Times article on women watch buyers


If you haven't seen this, it's very interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/fashion/watches-women-gender.html?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage




www.watchuseek.com





Cultural assumptions have crumbled. Younger women aren't as hobbled by expectation or reluctance or bias. Any standard stainless steel sport watch or field watch or diver with a diameter between say, 34 and 38mm is going to look just as good on woman's wrist as on a man's. Beyond that size will be some greater considerations of scale - ie, the wearability of a 42 mm watch on a 6-inch wrist.

Do women want dive watches as their all-purpose GADA? Men _have been taught to want them_ for the last 60 years. So maybe a big part of this is marketing. Or a willingness to un-design the dive watch. To repurpose the all-purpose watch.

What does an all-purpose watch for a woman even look like? Is it any different than a man's ? I'm guessing it very much depends upon which individual woman we're talking about.

A beautiful, well-made watch will be just that, whoever the wrist belongs to.


----------



## scuttle

The less conservative someone is, the more likely they are to wear a smart watch. Realistically microbrands are about selling pieces of shiny metal to a decreasing number of men.


----------



## Watchbreath

Maybe for your 'chip implant'.


----------



## fellini212

I'd be interested to see how much G-Shock / Garmin / etc. crossover there is among runners and other athletes in the specialty watch / timer / stopwatch category.

And I think another dimension of this discussion has to be weight.

Lots of collarpopping fratboyz happy to puff ruminatively on their Cohiba and brag that their 10000m WR sub knockoff weighs 265 grams.

Women have more sense.


----------



## RJMonterey

Unisex or not, my wife simply will not wear a 40mm or larger watch as it does not fit the width of her arm and as she tells me, "I'm not a blingy twenty something that wants a oversized mans watch dangling about my arm simply as jewelry"

That said, I think there are many watches that work for all genders depending on the individuals style or in my case, lack of.


----------



## docvail

Seriously, why are all you dudes in the Ladies watches sub forum, answering questions meant for the ladies?

If this goes the way my last thread here did, I can confirm the ladies don't like that.

This message isn't angry, that's just my thumbs typing furiously.


----------



## BSOregon

In the age of Smart watches, mechanical and quartz watches are essentially functional jewelry; accessories that speak primarily to emotion and style.  Watch companies are foolish if they fail to recognize that gendered marketing has become anachronistic and will turn away as many potential customers as it will attract. Ms. Barrett is entirely correct in noting that marketing to everyone based on lifestyle rather than gender stereotypes is much more effective. "Military", "action", "adventure", "rugged", "tool" watches do not need to be gendered any more than do "cosmopolitan", "sharp", "sleek", or "beautiful". Marketing by style and function rather than gender, and potentially producing across a range of sizes will attract a far larger audience.


----------



## Medusa

I prefer small, medium and large or a mm size designation on most watches, especially when size or color is the only difference. 

I don't think a small a diver should advertised as a women's watch based on size.

I do not like labeling watches as men's or women's watches unless it was the designers intention to do so. 

If a designer says its a heart shaped pink watch with diamonds designed specifically for women, so be it. That's what it is.


----------



## workingleather

hi_beat said:


> {If "unisex" means "anyone should be able to wear a watch they like and be respectfully treated in appreciation of their unique personality and style", then I agree. If it means "watches should be non-differentiated with respect to size and design aesthetics" then I disagree.}


I think this sums it up nicely.


----------



## SLWoodster

Agreed. There have been a similar conversations in every type of marketed consumer or luxury goods through the decades as social norms and cultural gender norms evolve. Men just need to do a bit more thinking and use some empathy prior to speaking against this because it's regular evolution that also happened with men of different generations.

My SO is an attorney who loves the outdoors, runs marathons, and even dives. When we went shopping for a watch she quickly skimmed over the Cartier, lady Datejust and headed toward Rolex Explorer and Submariners. In fact her dream watch is a "tropical" submariner. Objectively, she is more of an adventurer, diver, and working professional than the majority of men who buy sports watches.

She does ask why these watches are only marketed toward men. She simply didn't want a gold, sparkly, bejeweled 28mm-31mm Rolex just as men decades ago began to stop wearing 33-35mm gold leather strapped watches and shifted toward "jumbo" sizes of 39mm in stainless steel. Men began to aspire to different things than the generations before. They identified with and aspired toward accomplishments in exploration, sports, outdoorsmanship more so than the traditional the gold-laden, castled gentry.

Not that there aren't men who still love 36mm two tone datejusts today, there is just a rising demographic who think, feel, aspire differently. Similarly, there are still women who love a mini gold quartz cartier tank. But, many women prefer "unisex" watches over women's watches just as people in the 70's and 80's who began to prefer "luxury sports" watches over luxury watches.

It's quite logical.



fellini212 said:


> But in the same way that the tattoo has been completely mainstreamed over the last thirty years among both men and women, old notions about watches as gendered jewelry have changed, too.
> 
> *Looks like women just want more and better choices:
> 
> Cultural assumptions have crumbled. Younger women aren't as hobbled by expectation or reluctance or bias. Any standard stainless steel sport watch or field watch or diver with a diameter between say, 34 and 38mm is going to look just as good on woman's wrist as on a man's. Beyond that size will be some greater considerations of scale - ie, the wearability of a 42 mm watch on a 6-inch wrist.*
> 
> Do women want dive watches as their all-purpose GADA? Men _have been taught to want them_ for the last 60 years. So maybe a big part of this is marketing. Or a willingness to un-design the dive watch. To repurpose the all-purpose watch.
> 
> What does an all-purpose watch for a woman even look like? Is it any different than a man's ? I'm guessing it very much depends upon which individual woman we're talking about.
> 
> A beautiful, well-made watch will be just that, whoever the wrist belongs to.





RJMonterey said:


> Unisex or not, my wife simply will not wear a 40mm or larger watch as it does not fit the width of her arm and as she tells me, "I'm not a blingy twenty something that wants a oversized mans watch dangling about my arm simply as jewelry"
> 
> That said, I think there are many watches that work for all genders depending on the individuals style or in my case, lack of.


----------



## PCCM

I think in general when discussing high fashion, the eye is attracted to more “androgynous” looks and shapes. That’s how I’ve always seen omega’s designs, and it’s one of my favorite brands to look at, but it never does much for me on my wrist. A speedmaster, I’ll look at for hours on photos but every time I try one on my wrist, I just get overwhelmed with “Meh.” I think the intention behind assigning gender to watches is really more a function of classifying to organize inventory. You have to start somewhere. Not to say it works though, like when I saw the orient bambino I loved it but it was too big for its design. Months later I found out there was a smaller “ladies” bambino that I might have actually bought.


----------



## SLWoodster

Disagree.

You guys are missing part of the point here. Here's an edited version of that sentence...

"watches should be non-differentiated with respect to size and design aesthetics _without the designation of gender_" and they could be because men and women can like the same aesthetics.

Many often like the smaller version of something. I think the datograph should remain 39mm but it does not need to be labeled for women. I think the daytona should remain 40mm or smaller, but a smaller version does not need to be labeled "for women."



workingleather said:


> I think this sums it up nicely.


----------



## mleok

docvail said:


> I suppose I could sum up my long OP by asking how we define "inclusive".
> 
> The Hodinkee piece seems to suggest that a one-product-for-all approach is inclusive.
> 
> My feeling has been that having lots of different products, i.e. "something for everyone" is inclusive, and more choice is generally a good thing.
> 
> The Hodinkee article calls the industry to task for not doing something, or doing something it shouldn't be doing. Likewise, my focus is as a business owner, trying to think about how this issue should be incorporated into the product planning, imagery, brand messaging, etc, as all that informs the market perception and brand identity.
> 
> I'm not here to police how people treat each other in the real world, or on social media. That's above my pay grade. I'm just trying to make my way in the industry, build a business, and sell a product. I don't care who buys it, and I'm open-minded enough to consider alternative views about how brands like mine should be positioning it.
> 
> So...yeah, what do the women think of all this, since it was a woman who called the industry to task for not being inclusive enough? Is she right? Should everything be "unisex", or is variety the spice of life?


I agree, in that I don't think a one-size fits all approach is more inclusive than having a variety of options. Where I think the main issue is that watches are often differentiated by size and design, and what often happens is that more feminine designs tend to be offered in smaller sizes, and more masculine designs tend to be offered in larger sizes, and it would be interesting to see both feminine and masculine designs offered in a variety of sizes.


----------



## 357-Mag

First time I ever heard the term unisex was when CK One came to the market in the 90s. A scent that both a man and a woman could wear. It's been nearly 30 years and you know what? There are still colognes being made for men and perfumes for women. CK One is still around but it's popularity died out and it never really changed the demographic.

Anyone who has been in product development can you tell you it takes a lot more effort to find out what men and women like and dislike. There's that saying that men are like dogs and women are like cats, and to an extent it's true. To find a middle ground (unisex) is sort of a lazy experiment that leaves out the core of what makes the sexes different.


----------



## TedG954

WOW. And I never even knew that Mr. Potato Head shopped at Hodinkees. 

Transgender watches? I don't even like left-handed watches. Sheesh.


----------



## fellini212

Jenni is very smart. This might be a good resource for the thread.


----------



## dirtvictim

Maybe it's a simple as someone deciding for themselves if they like something and just use it without identifying why.


----------



## John Frum

Build and market your product to whomever buys. Market research and reality may not match the zeitgeist.


----------



## Sussa

It sure would reduce the amount of time I spend looking for watches if I could narrow the results by case diameter and design features (e.g., gems or not) rather than having to sift through both men's and women's sections to make sure I didn't miss something I'd like. 

I have 42 watches in my collection and only two are specifically marketed to women - Victorinox INOX V and Hamilton Ladies Jazzmaster. A good number of the rest are dive watches, including two NTHs (Tikuna and Santa Cruz), and a few large non-divers (Citizen Nighthawk, Bulova Lunar Pilot, Visitor Duneshore Shallows). With clothes, watches, whatever, I wear what I like without regard to how it's labeled. But I also rock a blazer and tie and think gender norms should be relics of the past. 

That said, representation matters. Seeing someone who looks like you in an ad for a product you like matters. Seeing a cool watch on a hairy, 8" wrist does not help sell it to me. But I also don't see myself in an image of a woman wearing high heels, dress, and make-up, so I can recognize the tricky spot marketers are in to be inclusive. How do you cover the spectrum of gender identity and personal expression to make everyone feel included? Some brands have done it, but they either have a massive marketing budget or a mission to be inclusive.

Is the watch community welcoming to women? Sometimes, but sometimes I think guys don't realize how un-friendly they can make a place. Every time someone posts a photo of a woman wearing a watch and a bunch of dudes comment "what watch?" you're creating an unwelcoming environment. Every time someone asks for suggestions for a watch for a woman and you ignore the requirements given to recommend an Apple Watch or quartz fashion watch, you're creating an unwelcoming environment. 

I don't read anything in Cara's article as assigning blame, just wishing things were different. Well, maybe a little blame to the men who think a woman who dares to exist on the internet deserves harassment, but that goes well beyond watches.


----------



## docvail

Let me take this a different direction...

When I was in sales and traveled around a lot, I couldn't help noticing how the marketing images and messages changed based on environment. If I was in a neighborhood where all the barber shops and hair salon windows had posters showing people of color, I assumed that was because I was in a neighborhood mostly populated by people of color. I once recall seeing a barbershop in the suburbs advertise "we cut black hair!", which struck me as unusual, but likely effective, given the suburb wasn't uniformly white.

Does anyone take offense when hair-care services or products are specifically aimed at a particular race? I think just the opposite. My observations suggest people want to feel like a product is meant for them, because it was made by someone who understands their unique needs, desires, etc. Maybe it would be offensive if the product marketed for black hair was from a company run by a white guy, and the depiction of the intended customer was some sort of caricature, but otherwise, products aimed at specific ethnic groups are a huge business, and I don't see anyone protesting.

Conversely, I recently spotted an ad in my Instagram that caught my attention, because of how many comments it had. It was for a performance-based digital ad agency, so, being an ad agency, you'd think they'd be effective at advertising.

When I started to read the comments, the bulk of them seemed to be women and people of color noting that the ad was a series of 6 short videos, all featuring hipster white guys in their 20's and 30's. The comments made it clear that the ad wasn't effective, for them, because it didn't show any women, or people of color.

My point is - is this a sword that only cuts one way? Does anyone here deserve to be cut? Who? Why?

The Hodinkee article isn't the first time I've been made aware that the watch industry is primarily run by men, 90% of the market appears to be men, and women have often felt like their choices were limited to blingtastic jewelry watches, or wearing a "man's" watch.

I don't hear men complaining when watches are labeled as being for "men" or "women". I think I understand why women in this hobby, or just women who like watches, would be disappointed in the limited choices they have, but...there's the rub.

Nothing is stopping any woman from buying a "man's" watch. There's no stigma to wearing a man's watch, as far as I know, the way there might be if a man wore a "ladies" watch. Although many brands do label watches as being part of a "man's" line or a "ladies" line, many brands don't. Like mine. We just make watches. I'm not telling anyone who they're for, or who can wear one.

Literally ANY watch could be a "ladies" watch if a woman wants to wear it. Literally EVERY watch is "unisex" if the brand selling it isn't going out of its way to tell people, "this is for MEN only!"

Hodinkee has tremendous influence over the market, and thus the industry. As the owner of a brand, I might need to pay attention here. When Hodinkee has a post from a woman making the case that all watches should be unisex, I'm confused, and have questions, such as...

*1. What's a "man's" watch, or a "lady's" watch, if the brand doesn't label them as such?*

It's a legit question. Many brands don't use such labels. Why would anyone, man or woman, look at any watch, and instinctively apply a gender label to it? It raises questions about what biases we have regarding product design, regardless of our gender.

Case in point - I spent years having women tell me I should make a ladies watch. I never made a "man's" watch before that. I just made watches. If asked, I'd say I have some female customers, but most of my customers are men. But it's not like I would pull up my website on my phone and show these women the watches I was selling. Without even SEEING them, they labeled the products "men's" watches, by default, when they told me I should make a "ladies" watch.

Why?

When I show my watches to women, they frequently love them. I don't say, "let me show you a man's watch you might like," before I show them. I just show them. But the fact remains, there's an automatic assumption that the product is meant for a man.

That would seem to suggest that regardless of what labels brands use, or don't use, it doesn't matter. The design is what it is, and we apply our own labels to it. That's not the industry's fault, is it?

It tells me that WOMEN have their own preconceived notion of what a "ladies" watch is, that most watches aren't it, and yet, there's also this push-back against watches being specifically marketed for "ladies" or "men".

*2. Is "Unisex" just code for "strong enough for a man, but made for a woman"? Are unisex watches the horological equivalent of Secret antiperspirant?*

That seemed to be an accusation leveled at me when we made a "unisex" watch. The logic seems to be, "unisex" isn't really "for either gender", but really "for a woman, but don't call it a 'ladies' watch."

I don't entirely disagree. It also seems like the consensus is most ladies watches are just smaller, bedazzled versions of men's watches, and the ladies are fed up with it. That's why we DIDN'T do that with the Dolphins. We kept them 40mm, left off the bling, and didn't stop with a "pink" dial, and instead made sure we had an objectively neutral dial color - silver - so that we wouldn't catch hell for just slapping some pretty colors on an existing design and expecting women to buy it.

Surprise! Dudes loved the pink. I'm as shocked as anyone. Most people who bought the Dolphin were men, not women. So if women want "unisex", where were they on the Dolphin? If women want a "ladies" watch that wasn't just a smaller, bedazzled man's watch, we gave it to them.

*3. Are men REALLY that uptight, to the point that we're the driving force behind the industry's hesitance to be more "inclusive"?*

Seriously? If men need to be told "this is a man's watch", who's buying all the watches from the brands that aren't telling them that? Are we all walking around wearing the Lady Speedstick of watches, without realizing it?

We never told anyone our watches were "men's" watches, and 98% of our customers are men. The one time we specifically said something was "unisex", we caught hell for it - FROM A MAN.

The women seemed cool with the Dolphin being called "unisex" whether they liked the design or not. Maybe men are more uptight.

*4. If labeling a watch as "men's" or "ladies" is past its sell-by date, fine, but what's the industry supposed to do to be more "inclusive", when those terms are retired once and for all, if much of the industry isn't even using them any more, but the market's biases persist in imposing gender roles on the products anyway?*

I am sincerely confused. This whole thing sounds like an exercise in acting outraged over something that barely exists. Yes, the industry largely caters to men's tastes, because men make up the vast majority of the market, and there seems to be a lot less confusion about what men want from the industry.

If we stop labeling watches as "men's" or "ladies", then I'd think we don't need to call them "unisex", since that would appear to be the default. If there's only one gender label to apply to the product, then no label need be applied at all, it seems to me.

Speaking on behalf of the industry, I'm very confused about what women want, given the mixed signals, and articles like the one in Hodinkee, compared to what I see as objective reality - i.e, most brands are just selling "watches", and it's the market which is applying the gender labels, based on what everyone understands about design, without it needing to be spoken.

Quoted from the opening paragraphs of Ms. Barret's post in Hodinkee:
​_*"I have always preferred watches with a little heft. A little grit. Sure, I love the occasional dainty diamond for special occasions. But usually, what I want is something that makes me feel strong."*_​
Stop there. You want heft? Lots of watches have it. You also like the dainty bedazzled stuff? Okay, it's out there. You want to feel strong? I get it. It's something brands try to convey with their marketing of certain watches. But how do they do that, in a way that doesn't send the "wrong" signal?

Put a female explorer in the ad, most men won't notice the watch, or if they do, will tend to think it's a ladies watch, which is counter-productive. Put a man in it? Now you did it, you're not being inclusive enough. Prepare to be excoriated. Leave humans out of it entirely? So, no more "lifestyle" marketing? No depictions of anyone running the Iditarod with the Tudor Ranger, be they male or female? Seriously?

A friend and competitor, Isotope Watches, recently released a diver, and all the marketing featured a world-class female free-diver from Europe. I didn't see anyone - men or women - commending him on featuring a strong female figure in the marketing of the watch, which wasn't labeled as being for either a man or a woman, nor was it specifically labeled "unisex". I can't help but wonder if an ad campaign featuring some well-known tough guy or ruggedly handsome actor wouldn't have been more effective, given most of his customers are likely men.

How is a marketer to win this game?

*"When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like. It's enough to make me wonder: Why are these considered "men's" watches at all? Why aren't they just...watches?"*​
Again, stop there. No one stopped her from buying a "man's" watch, or pressured her into limiting her choices to "ladies" watches. Which watches are we talking about, specifically, when she says they were "marketed to men"? How were they marketed to men, EXACTLY? Did the ad say, "the all-new MAN'S Spymaster, from Omicron"? Or did it just have a picture of Sterling Archer wearing one, sending the subliminal signal to men, and women, "this is a man's watch"?

Like I asked above, if the brands didn't specifically label them as MEN'S watches, isn't SHE the one intuitively applying that gender identification to an inanimate object? Could it be the watches ARE "just watches", but their designs, and the market's instinctive, pre-conceived notions about what a "man's watch" looks like creates the consensus which makes us all - men and women - see them as such?

*"It's crazy to me that the watch industry continues to make this distinction at a time where more and more brands - and more and more humans - are ignoring traditional gender boundaries. The category of "women's watches"' seems especially pointless."*​
Stop there. "The industry"? Not all of it. Maybe not even most of it. Are you telling me the entire industry is hell-bent on limiting sales by being too restrictive in their product labeling? Really?

And, does the category of "women's watches" seem especially pointless, when so many women - INCLUDING HER - are disappointed in the lack of choices for women's watches? Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, here, but read her first couple sentences again, and tell me where my inference is off-base.

She likes the occasional "dainty" diamond-crusted jewelry watch (clearly intended for "women", whether labeled as such or not). And she notes the absence of "conventional ladies pieces" in her collection, effectively admitting that there's something she, if not all of us intuitively understand as being "a watch intended for a woman". I think it's reasonable to infer she's disappointed in the limited choices in "women's watches" which might make her "feel strong".

If she likes dainty watches intended for women, and laments the lack of a diverse range of not-dainty women's watches, that would seem to imply there should be MORE women's watches, not LESS. Why completely eradicate the category by making everyone embrace "unisex"? How's that going to please more women, or men?

Help a brutha out.


----------



## suskompany

imho the quicker we accept that we're different the quicker we can embrace those differences. feels like we're going to the other extreme now and that will introduce new problems


----------



## TaxMan

Come up with some size ranges, call them XS, S,M,L,XL. People buy whatever they want.


----------



## Histrionics

Honestly, I think its completely stupid to differentiate between men's watches and women's watches. 

Worth noting that the two newer brands that have the most success over the past 20 years are Nomos and Grand Seiko (arguably), and neither differentiate their watches by gender.


----------



## dfx1

I wish all the advertising would disappear too so I can get some of these watches cheaper.


----------



## Sussa

Chris, I honestly don't know why someone would ask you to make a ladies watch unless they meant more stereotypically feminine colors or bling. You don't explicitly market to men. I can safely say neither NTH watches nor the L&H Spectre I used to own have put excess hair on my chest, lowered my voice, or made my ovaries descend to the outside.

Even women can have internalized sexism and misogyny. We live in a world where the default is male (for extra credit, read the book "Invisible Women"). To put it in statistical terms, for some people the null hypothesis is "X is for men." The alternative hypothesis is "X is for women." They need proof that X is for women, otherwise the null hypothesis stands. You need no evidence for the null hypothesis to stand. By deliberately stating that something is unisex, the alternative hypothesis is confirmed.

Also, because the watch industry is male-dominated, or at least perceived to be, maybe it's assumed that all watches are for men unless otherwise specified. And maybe it's assumed that these men's watches are going to be big, bulky, heavy, and butch. A lot of assuming there, sure, but that's how pre-conceived notions work.


----------



## docvail

Histrionics said:


> Honestly, I think its completely stupid to differentiate between men's watches and women's watches.
> 
> Worth noting that the two newer brands that have the most success over the past 20 years are Nomos and Grand Seiko (arguably), and neither differentiate their watches by gender.


Worth noting that many of the least successful brands over the past 20 years have also avoided differentiating their watches by gender.

We should avoid drawing conclusions based on limited data, or inferring causality from what may just be coincidence.

Also, there's a ton of marketing science which suggests that differentiating products along demographic lines isn't just not stupid, it's actually extremely effective.


----------



## Bird-Dog

No time to read the whole thread or the referenced article right now, but the words _"Get woke, go broke" _keep coming to mind for some reason.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> Chris, I honestly don't know why someone would ask you to make a ladies watch unless they meant more stereotypically feminine colors or bling. You don't explicitly market to men. I can safely say neither NTH watches nor the L&H Spectre I used to own have put excess hair on my chest, lowered my voice, or made my ovaries descend to the outside.
> 
> Even women can have internalized sexism and misogyny. We live in a world where the default is male (for extra credit, read the book "Invisible Women"). To put it in statistical terms, for some people the null hypothesis is "X is for men." The alternative hypothesis is "X is for women." They need proof that X is for women, otherwise the null hypothesis stands. You need no evidence for the null hypothesis to stand. By deliberately stating that something is unisex, the alternative hypothesis is confirmed.
> 
> Also, because the watch industry is male-dominated, or at least perceived to be, maybe it's assumed that all watches are for men unless otherwise specified. And maybe it's assumed that these men's watches are going to be big, bulky, heavy, and butch. A lot of assuming there, sure, but that's how pre-conceived notions work.


I think your opening statement is right. The women who've asked me to make a ladies watch wanted something which more closely conformed to a preconceived, universally understood, and willingly accepted stereotype of what such a thing would be. Otherwise, I'd have more female customers, and fewer women telling me I should make ladies watches.

I feel weird saying this, but I kind of feel like I'm championing the cause of female enthusiasts here, inasmuch as I don't think women here really care so much about doing away with gender-labels on products, and certainly don't want all watches to become overtly "unisex", since that would almost certainly mean fewer, not more watches women would like.

What would the archetype of a truly "unisex" watch be? 40mm? Neutral-colored? No bling. Not pretty. Not toolish, either. Would it make anyone, male or female, feel "strong", if that's something either a man or a woman would want?

Ms. Barret may not be speaking on behalf of all women. She might actually be speaking to the unspoken desires of some men, who want more androgenous designs, but don't feel empowered to advocate for them, if they fear some sort of social blowback would follow if they called for the abolition of "men's" watches, or admitted they've been wearing "ladies" watches.

When I look at all the guys wearing pink Dolphins, none of whom strike me as gender fluid, I'm kind of proud of them. They're not worried about what people will think of them wearing a pink watch, nor are they put off by the fact we labeled it "unisex", if that really is just code for "women's watch".


----------



## docvail

TRUE STORY - 

Not that long ago, I got into the short-lived habit of calling a watch I thought was particularly sexy a "panty-dropper". 

I didn't literally think anyone would be removing undergarments at the sheer sight of it. I was just saying, it's a beautiful watch. "Panty-dropper" is just an expression, devoid of any intrinsic gender roles, until someone applies one, unless we all agree that we all do.

I posted a "panty-dropper" comment to a FB group, and some young man took umbrage. He basically called me an over-the-hill, insensitive sexist for using the term "panty-dropper", and suggested I consider what any women who saw my comment would feel reading it.

My reply was pretty straightforward, "Did you just assume the gender of someone wearing panties?"

Anyone can buy and wear panties if they want. But it was a young, presumably "enlightened" MAN, not a woman, who ONLY envisioned women wearing them, and assumed my heterosexuality, and presumed to speak on behalf of all women, that my comment was offensive on its face.

I could have just as likely been hoping some dude wearing panties would have dropped them at the sight of my watch.


----------



## Ron1

It's a fluff piece, ignore it.

_* Almost every watch I own is at least 36mm and automatic or made for men. Not a single one - not the AP Royal Oak 15450, not the Rolex Day-Date Ref. 1803 - strikes me as overtly masculine*_

The lady says it right there, if it's not masculine how is it made for men? Appears to me the author has more of an issue with how the watches are marketed. And on that she has a point.
People like what they like, having smaller sizes available seems to solve the problem..but you're running a business, is that financially viable? It's not sexist to market your product towards your main customer base. I'm betting they make a lot more Barbies than Ken dolls.

P.S Apologies for posting in your thread, I'd of PM'd if I could of.


----------



## docvail

Ron1 said:


> It's a fluff piece, ignore it.
> 
> _* Almost every watch I own is at least 36mm and automatic or made for men. Not a single one - not the AP Royal Oak 15450, not the Rolex Day-Date Ref. 1803 - strikes me as overtly masculine*_
> 
> The lady says it right there, if it's not masculine how is it made for men? Appears to me the author has more of an issue with how the watches are marketed. And on that she has a point.
> People like what they like, having smaller sizes available seems to solve the problem..but you're running a business, is that financially viable? It's not sexist to market your product towards your main customer base. I'm betting they make a lot more Barbies than Ken dolls.
> 
> P.S Apologies for posting in your thread, I'd of PM'd if I could of.


No apologies needed. I think the women of this sub-forum have opted to sit back and watch the men make a$$e$ of themselves.

Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## Sussa

docvail said:


> Let's entertain the idea of abolishing gender-specific product labeling. Think about what that means. It will require all of us, men and women, to learn and accept not just new labels, but all new sizes. There will be no more "men's size 10 shoe", or "women's size 6 dress".


I actually think this would be awesome. Why are my Chuck Taylors a size 7.5 if you identify as a man, but a 9.5 if you identify as a woman? It's the exact same shoe and the exact same dimensions! And please, for the love of all that is holy, can we let women buy pants with waist and inseam measurements instead of arbitrary size numbers that vary wildly by manufacturer? I don't think we need to abandon the word "dress," just accept that people of all gender identities can wear dresses.


----------



## Karlskrona Watch Co

All watches can be worn by anyone. I find the gender distinction superfluous.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> I actually think this would be awesome. Why are my Chuck Taylors a size 7.5 if you identify as a man, but a 9.5 if you identify as a woman? It's the exact same shoe and the exact same dimensions! And please, for the love of all that is holy, can we let women buy pants with waist and inseam measurements instead of arbitrary size numbers that vary wildly by manufacturer? I don't think we need to abandon the word "dress," just accept that people of all gender identities can wear dresses.


Fair enough. Let's say as of tomorrow, shoe sizes are unisex.

What's your new size going to be? I'm a men's size 10, my wife's a women's size 7. At least one of us is going to have to learn a new size scale, maybe both of us.

I'm all for women being able to buy pants with waist and inseam measurements, if we can get all the "men's" pants manufacturers to start cutting pant legs and seats using the same pattern as part of this deal, so I'll know I can jam my formerly-well-muscled a$$ into any 34" waistband, without fear the legs won't accommodate my thighs, or that I'll split the crotch when I bend over to tie my shoes, whatever size they'll be, since they probably won't be a men's size 10.

While we're at it - why can't women just buy men's pants, if only men's pants have the waist and inseam measurements, not that those are doing men much good anyway? Looking at you, Levis, and all the rest, and your constantly shifting, impenetrable code for how jeans will fit?

Is a women's "petite" any less fathomable than Levi's 586? "Petite" would seem to be more descriptive, on its face, and thus would require less time reading a label than what I spend scrutinizing the descriptions of Levi's number-coding system every few years, when I buy new jeans.

At least no dress companies are labeling dresses "Zaftig". I'm starting to get self-conscious, nearing my 50's, and still preferring "baggy" jeans. I feel like I'm shopping for a clown costume.

I don't know about shoes, but I suspect even sneakers are at least somewhat like pants, in that the measurements mean less than understanding the bodies meant to go into those garments differ in shape based on their gender, and that different, gender-specific terminology would not only logically follow, but would be useful for all concerned.

And I wasn't joking about "dress" becoming a verboten term. If some young punk on the internet, presumably part of the woke generation, still assumes "panty-dropper" is sexist, because he assumes only women wear panties, it only stands to reason that words like "panties" and "dress" will be phased out and replaced with more politically-correct, inclusive (and almost certainly less intuitively descriptive) terms.

I'll still be using panty-dropper, regardless, because I've found it useful in identifying who around me is smart enough to understand metaphorical / figurative speech, and who's just on high-alert for PC dog-whistles.


----------



## SLWoodster

I respect you for listening and trying to figure it out.

I don't think you have to take blame here. The self-victimization is not helpful.

There's simply a rise of female collectors who really don't care for traditionally "ladies" watches and don't find the marketing messaging to be speaking to them. Sometimes they just want smaller, proportional sizes of the same products that made it to the moon, 24 hours of le mans, summited everest... There is still a contingent of female collectors, watch buyers who want the kinds of watches that are traditionally labeled as "ladies".

If it helps, it's not dissimilar to men who were tired of being depicted as cranky rich old guys with gold wrist watches and then in the 80s, 90s wanted to be marketed to as outdoorsmen. Hence "luxury sports" was created. Two words that had been crazy taboo to be put together in the 70s. There's still a contingent of men who want that bling even today.

Of course you're in a unique position of actually being a brand. So maybe this is a market opportunity. If you can find this segment and market to them correctly with a product that they want, then you'll win. But consumers are fickle too right? You can totally build something that is exactly what they said they liked and then they don't buy it. Or maybe that's not your audience.

In any case, I don't see the need to take offense or see this as a great big heresy in design categorization. Just an acknowledgment is fine.



docvail said:


> I know you quoted someone else, not me, but I want to respond to the point you've made.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I see myself as very empathetic when it comes to how female enthusiasts experience this hobby. I think I've proven it, with my posts here, at least the ones in my earlier thread. I'm not sure I'm winning hearts and minds with this one, but we'll see.
> 
> I'm very data-oriented, so it was immediately apparent to me that the industry largely exists to serve the desires of men. All anyone need to is search Amazon or eBay for "ladies" watches, and see the drastic decrease in search results compared to any search for a man's watch.
> 
> But what vexes me here is just what I said. I've had women who were NOT enthusiasts tell me I should make a ladies watch, without even seeing the watches we made. When they did see the watches, even if they liked them, there was still something there which said "this is a man's watch", to them, regardless of the fact I never applied any such labels.
> 
> Okay, I'm a man, designing watches according to my tastes, and what I think are my customers' tastes, and most of my customers are men. It logically follows that the watches would "look" like "men's" watches, without anyone needing to be told as much.
> 
> But again, that's not the industry's fault, or in this case, mine, is it? How is a man designing a watch that he likes, and other men would like, demonstrating a lack of empathy towards women?
> 
> (Especially this man, who listened to the women around him, solicited their input, and tried to make something women would like, yet without insulting them by making a rhinestone-studded hello kitty watch.)
> 
> My wife has 3 NTH Subs, only one of which was intended as a "unisex" (which might actually mean "ladies", apparently) watch. She's had a Santa Cruz for 5 years, and lots of women compliment her on it. I know she gets complimented on her Holland, and her Dolphin. If she was constantly explaining to them, "yes, I am a woman, but this is actually a man's watch", I'd know it by now.
> 
> Not one woman has ever mistaken the Santa Cruz or the Holland as a "ladies watch", as far as I know. Maybe it's happened with the Dolphin, because it's pink, but as far as I know, she's never had any women ask her, "is it a men's watch, or unisex, or what?" It seems to me that most of us usually know who a product is for just by looking at it, if the product designers did their job right.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have a "ladies watches" sub-forum here. As far as I'm aware, the women who populate it aren't offended by the gender-specific label, and it also doesn't appear men are put off by it, given all the dudes posting in this thread.
> 
> Within this ladies watches forum, I've read many comments from women lamenting the dearth of choices and styles in ladies watches. The Hodinkee post seems to echo that, sort of, before proceeding to make the case that all watches should be unisex, which would seem to be the exact opposite position, and contradict the female enthusiasts here, and the women I know, and herself, in her opening paragraph.
> 
> Well, logically, that doesn't make a lot of sense.
> 
> Let's entertain the idea of abolishing gender-specific product labeling. Think about what that means. It will require all of us, men and women, to learn and accept not just new labels, but all new sizes. There will be no more "men's size 10 shoe", or "women's size 6 dress". There probably won't be any such thing as a "dress", since the word will likely be deemed anachronistic and intolerant, sexist.
> 
> The "little black dress" will be a "relatively smaller, open-bottom (no pant legs), monochromatic one-piece garment", until we can find a term that is less of a mouthful, yet completely inoffensive.
> 
> It'll still be a dress, though, whatever you call it.
> 
> Ultimately, I like to actually LISTEN to women. What I've heard women say isn't "we want UNISEX designs", but rather, "we want more WOMEN'S designs". But also that a "ladies watch" isn't just a smaller, prettier, more brightly colored and bedazzled men's watch.
> 
> And yet, when we pass the ladies datejusts and oyster perpetuals in the AD, the ones with the smaller cases and pastel colors, we all know who they're for, don't we?
> 
> Without the ladies datejusts in the world, if all watches must be unisex, not just in name, but in style, then all watches will be more homogenous, but I guarantee that will please women less, not more.
> 
> Imagine the world without the little black dress. Do women want to wear a neutral-colored set of coveralls to their next cocktail party? Do men want that?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I think I disagree with Hodinkee on this one. Let the watches be what they are. Decide for yourself if you like it enough to wear it. Quit projecting your own gender-role biases onto the products, and by extrapolation, the industry, because that includes me, and I'm tired of catching heat for $hlt I didn't do.


----------



## workingleather

SLWoodster said:


> Disagree.
> 
> You guys are missing part of the point here. Here's an edited version of that sentence...
> 
> "watches should be non-differentiated with respect to size and design aesthetics _without the designation of gender_" and they could be because men and women can like the same aesthetics.
> 
> Many often like the smaller version of something. I think the datograph should remain 39mm but it does not need to be labeled for women. I think the daytona should remain 40mm or smaller, but a smaller version does not need to be labeled "for women."


Ok yes this is a fair statement.


----------



## docvail

davestradamus said:


> All watches can be worn by anyone. I find the gender distinction superfluous.


I think I agree, but it would seem to raise some obvious questions. If all gender distinctions in watches are superfluous, because anyone can wear any watch, why is there a discussion about labeling all watches "unisex"? Why would so many women lament the dearth of choices in "ladies" watches, if the entire panoply of watches are available as choices for them?

I get that size matters. Women are less likely to want a larger watch. No doubt comfort has something to do with it. But setting such practical considerations aside, how we judge the "fit" of a watch on someone's wrist is entirely arbitrary, determined according to prevailing trends, the same way men's lapel widths and ladies hemlines are.

If, for the sake of argument, all watches were 40mm, or 42mm (pick any number), we'd gradually get used to seeing that size on everyone's wrist. Familiarity would become acceptance, then expectation, and finally, we'd come to see it as appealing, rather than thinking a 44mm PAM looks monstrous on a woman's thinner frame.

So, it's not just about women's current preferences regarding case size. There's more to it than case size. Women clearly have different tastes than men do. Otherwise, women would make up more of every brands' customer bases, not just the customer bases of those brands known for making "ladies" watches.


----------



## docvail

SLWoodster said:


> I respect you for listening and trying to figure it out.
> 
> I don't think you have to take blame here. The self-victimization is not helpful.
> 
> There's simply a rise of female collectors who really don't care for traditionally "ladies" watches and don't find the marketing messaging to be speaking to them. Sometimes they just want smaller, proportional sizes of the same products that made it to the moon, 24 hours of le mans, summited everest... There is still a contingent of female collectors, watch buyers who want the kinds of watches that are traditionally labeled as "ladies".
> 
> If it helps, it's not dissimilar to men who were tired of being depicted as cranky rich old guys with gold wrist watches and then in the 80s, 90s wanted to be marketed to as outdoorsmen. Hence "luxury sports" was created. Two words that had been crazy taboo to be put together in the 70s. There's still a contingent of men who want that bling even today.
> 
> Of course you're in a unique position of actually being a brand. So maybe this is a market opportunity. If you can find this segment and market to them correctly with a product that they want, then you'll win. But consumers are fickle too right? You can totally build something that is exactly what they said they liked and then they don't buy it. Or maybe that's not your audience.
> 
> In any case, I don't see the need to take offense or see this as a great big heresy in design categorization. Just an acknowledgment is fine.


Much of my commentary here is deliberately intended to spur further discussion. Please don't assume I mean 100% of what I say. I'm often playing devil's advocate. I didn't take offense from the article. My initial reaction was confusion, then outright dismissal, then an attempt at fair consideration, circling back to confusion, ending in garden-variety disagreement, without any offense taken.

You make a good point, though. While there are some smaller-sized movements, for the sake of making smaller-sized watches, the choices get much more limited when you start to add complications, like chronographs. I'm not sure how small a Speedmaster could be. Is there a scaled-down chrono movement that would allow Omega to make a 32mm Speedy? I think not. Even the smaller chrono movements are pretty large. So there's some practical limitations at play here.

I think any given woman's tastes in what watch they want to wear will vary day-to-day more than a man's. Case in point, the Hodinkee article opened with an admission that she occasionally likes wearing a dainty-diamond studded piece, but most of her collection leans more to the sporty side. Whereas many men's collections seem to be an exercise in recurring attempts at perfecting a single theme - the all-black dive-watch collection is real.

But that's why I disagree with the point the article makes. If men like a little variety in their collections, I'd think women would want even MORE. And if women have complained about their relative lack of choices, they certainly wouldn't be clamoring for LESS, which is exactly where I think the "we're all unisex now" movement logically leads.

Logically, if we stop calling watches "ladies" watches, that would seem like it would lead to fewer watches being designed with women in mind. How does that improve things for women?

I resisted making a "ladies" watch for five years. What put me over the edge was a bright young woman I spoke to, working phone support for the company that hosted my website. When I told her that my customers were well over 90% male, she said, "they all have wives or girlfriends, don't they? And wouldn't a lot of those guys like to get their special lady a good watch, like the ones you make, rather than all the crap being marketed as 'ladies watches' on Amazon?"

I was somewhat hoping we could make the case that our male customers should get a Dolphin for their wives or girlfriends. I figured any female collectors who bought one would just be a bonus. And if we did succeed in increasing our female customer count, or if we just saw a lot of demand for watches like that, I planned to make more watches with women in mind.

I didn't foresee that most people buying the Dolphin would be men, and buying them for themselves. Within that context, my only consideration is which designs appeal more to men. Sorry, ladies, but that's business.

Clearly, I don't know what women want. Except for my wife. I know exactly what she wants. She's made sure of it.

I tried. I'm happy enough to have ended the harassment I was getting from the women in my life. Here, I made the Dolphin. Take one, enjoy it, and let me get back to doing what I'm good at - making tool watches, mostly for dudes (but leaving the door open to any women who want one - you're all welcome in club NTH).


----------



## KCZ

Hi Doc,
I remember your "Help a Brutha out" thread and we had a long discussion about making watches for women. I loved the look of your magenta watch, but I didn't buy one.

This brings me to the first argument against unisex watches...*size. * I, and a lot of other women, won't buy a 40mm watch. I didn't buy yours, and I won't buy a Stella, Abingdon, Gucci, or any other giant watch that's made and marketed for women. I don't want a hockey puck on my wrist. They're heavy, annoying, and get banged and caught on things. Personally, I also find most of them styleless and tasteless, just like the current fad of giant jewelry pieces. The top end of my watches is 36mm. I might go 38mm in a dress watch if it was thin. (If I actually planned to dive with a diver, that's about the only time I'd go larger.) I also don't wear anything <32mm except for 2 very dressy watches because tiny watches are too hard to read.

The second consideration is the *aesthetics*, and this applies to both the watches and their straps/bracelets. This area is very dependent on personal opinion, but while women here frequently complain about the lack of color choices and complications in women's watch offerings, generally we don't yearn for watches with a tool appearance. I personally won't wear leather or rubber straps because they make my wrist sweat, so all these unisex watches better come with an 18mm bracelet or I'm not buying it. And then there are the materials and design. I like MOP and a little bling. What percentage of these unisex watches are going to offer me that?

I see the author's whole argument as trying to eliminate watches that might appeal just to women and only permit us to buy watches that have men's stamp of approval, instead of expanding women's offerings with things we do want (refer back to color choices). Under her plan, we'll only see watches that will sell to men. This is a huge step backwards for female watch enthusiasts.

I currently own about 2 dozen watches. The largest is 36mm, only two are unisex, and only one is a "men's watch." It took me a long time to find them because women's choices are much narrower than men's (witness the threads started by men here looking for a women's watch with X, Y, and Z, only to be told just three models exist and two aren't in his price range). If I really wanted to wear 40mm watches, I could have bought men's watches already and saved myself a lot of time.

I like these. Could I still have these under the proposed unisex plan?

Two-tone, 32mm, awesome MOP in real life, and diamond markers.









Pretty colors. Unless you guys like this, I'd never be able to buy it.









This is Armida's only 36mm model. Would this offering exist under the unisex plan, or just their 40+mm models?









Could I still buy a yellow gold watch to wear with a diamond bracelet for dress-up?









This James Bond 50th Anniversary Seamaster was marketed as a "unisex" model. It was sold in the 36mm I bought, as well as a 41mm model.









JMO, worth what you paid to read it.


----------



## Wrist Hardware

This conversation is super enlightening as a brand owner.
I just started my own watch brand and I’ve had multiple women ask if I’ll be making a watch specifically for women. I think that there’s an untapped female market for micros to market to, but I do acknowledge that there’s no place in this hobby for telling people what they should wear depending on how they identify.


----------



## docvail

KCZ said:


> Hi Doc,
> I remember your "Help a Brutha out" thread and we had a long discussion about making watches for women. I loved the look of your magenta watch, but I didn't buy one.
> 
> This brings me to the first argument against unisex watches...*size. * I, and a lot of other women, won't buy a 40mm watch. I didn't buy yours, and I won't buy a Stella, Abingdon, Gucci, or any other giant watch that's made and marketed for women. I don't want a hockey puck on my wrist. They're heavy, annoying, and get banged and caught on things. Personally, I also find most of them styleless and tasteless, just like the current fad of giant jewelry pieces. The top end of my watches is 36mm. I might go 38mm in a dress watch if it was thin. (If I actually planned to dive with a diver, that's about the only time I'd go larger.) I also don't wear anything <32mm except for 2 very dressy watches because tiny watches are too hard to read.
> 
> The second consideration is the *aesthetics*, and this applies to both the watches and their straps/bracelets. This area is very dependent on personal opinion, but while women here frequently complain about the lack of color choices and complications in women's watch offerings, generally we don't yearn for watches with a tool appearance. I personally won't wear leather or rubber straps because they make my wrist sweat, so all these unisex watches better come with an 18mm bracelet or I'm not buying it. And then there are the materials and design. I like MOP and a little bling. What percentage of these unisex watches are going to offer me that?
> 
> I see the author's whole argument as trying to eliminate watches that might appeal just to women and only permit us to buy watches that have men's stamp of approval, instead of expanding women's offerings with things we do want (refer back to color choices). Under her plan, we'll only see watches that will sell to men. This is a huge step backwards for female watch enthusiasts.
> 
> I currently own about 2 dozen watches. The largest is 36mm, only two are unisex, and only one is a "men's watch." It took me a long time to find them because women's choices are much narrower than men's (witness the threads started by men here looking for a women's watch with X, Y, and Z, only to be told just three models exist and two aren't in his price range). If I really wanted to wear 40mm watches, I could have bought men's watches already and saved myself a lot of time.
> 
> I like these. Could I still have these under the proposed unisex plan?
> 
> Two-tone, 32mm, awesome MOP in real life, and diamond markers.
> 
> Pretty colors. Unless you guys like this, I'd never be able to buy it.
> 
> This is Armida's only 36mm model. Would this offering exist under the unisex plan, or just their 40+mm models?
> 
> Could I still buy a yellow gold watch to wear with a diamond bracelet for dress-up?
> 
> This James Bond 50th Anniversary Seamaster was marketed as a "unisex" model. It was sold in the 36mm I bought, as well as a 41mm model.
> 
> JMO, worth what you paid to read it.


OMG! THANK YOU!

And I couldn't agree with you more. I wouldn't want to be forced to accept 38mm as an upper-end size limit any more than you'd want to accept 40mm as a lower-end size limit.

Vive le difference, I say. Down with unisex. Let there be more ladies watches, not fewer.


----------



## Morris Day

Dear Lord. What's so hard to understand that men and women are different and tend to like different things. There is such a thing as "masculine" and "feminine" no matter how often, and how loud the "woke" mob likes to argue otherwise.

With that said, wear what you like.


----------



## samdj615

I'm in Thailand so I follow a few local shops on Instagram. Sometimes they advertise for "Boy's size" Rolexes. I gotta laugh or cry at that one because who's buying a Rolex for a 12 y/o so he can lose or wreck it? Watches just need the mm designation and that's it. Any gender designations is solely for marketing and selling more watches. Doesn't seem like that's the direction of our future marketplaces so just change it.


----------



## dirtvictim

TaxMan said:


> Come up with some size ranges, call them XS, S,M,L,XL. People buy whatever they want.


I prefer an extra medium.


----------



## Sussa

This seems to be coming down to each person’s opinion on what unisex marketing would look like. The argument seems to be that unisex would mean one of the current gendered design styles would dominate. It’s either 28mm pink MoP diamond encrusted watches for everyone, or 48mm G-shocks for everyone.

What if there continued to be the exact same watches produced, but they were never categorized as men’s or women’s? Would the perception that there aren’t enough options for women change?

It would take awhile because there are deeply-seated ideas of what is masculine and feminine and who gets to own those labels. But I see people, especially Gen Z, rejecting the gender binary more and more and being more fluid with expressions of femininity and masculinity. And it’s wild how much that seems to bother some of you, but that’s getting off topic.


----------



## KCZ

Sussa said:


> This seems to be coming down to each person's opinion on what unisex marketing would look like. The argument seems to be that unisex would mean one of the current gendered design styles would dominate. It's either 28mm pink MoP diamond encrusted watches for everyone, or 48mm G-shocks for everyone.
> 
> *What if there continued to be the exact same watches produced, but they were never categorized as men's or women's? Would the perception that there aren't enough options for women change?*
> 
> It would take awhile because there are deeply-seated ideas of what is masculine and feminine and who gets to own those labels. But I see people, especially Gen Z, rejecting the gender binary more and more and being more fluid with expressions of femininity and masculinity. And it's wild how much that seems to bother some of you, but that's getting off topic.


You can change the labels any way you want, but unless you can change the wrist size conferred by the X and Y chromosomes, it's not going to change the fact that producing the exact same watches as before isn't going to make any more options available for women.


----------



## mauhip

I haven't been watch collecting long enough to have a clear opinion on this yet but:

1) I own a lot of 'mens' (sold in the men's section of a website/shop) watches that I really like.

2) There are a lot of men's watches I really like and would like to buy but are too large for me. (35-38 is my ideal size)

3) There are some of women's watches I like and would buy if they were larger and didn't have diamonds on them.

Sent from my moto g(8) plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Buramu

I tend to agree with the main points of the article. I also think a few people here who derive their masculinity from wearing an oversized 46mm diver will disagree


----------



## Sussa

KCZ said:


> You can change the labels any way you want, but unless you can change the wrist size conferred by the X and Y chromosomes, it's not going to change the fact that producing the exact same watches as before isn't going to make any more options available for women.


Are wrist sizes determined by chromosomes though? There seems to be plenty of men who have 6 or 6.5" wrists, which is what my XX chromosomes have given me. I've seen men with smaller wrists and women with larger. The Venn diagram of XX wrists and XY wrists (apologies for excluding the many other possible combinations) isn't just a circle, but it probably has a decent amount of overlap.

What does it mean to have more options for women if it's more than aesthetic preferences stereotypically assigned to women?


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> This seems to be coming down to each person's opinion on what unisex marketing would look like. The argument seems to be that unisex would mean one of the current gendered design styles would dominate. It's either 28mm pink MoP diamond encrusted watches for everyone, or 48mm G-shocks for everyone.
> 
> *What if there continued to be the exact same watches produced, but they were never categorized as men's or women's? Would the perception that there aren't enough options for women change?*
> 
> It would take awhile because there are deeply-seated ideas of what is masculine and feminine and who gets to own those labels. But I see people, especially Gen Z, rejecting the gender binary more and more and being more fluid with expressions of femininity and masculinity. And it's wild how much that seems to bother some of you, but that's getting off topic.


There's the rub - that's basically where we already are. Most watches are NOT labeled as men's or women's already.

I'm still confused about the point being made in the Hodinkee article.

Is she saying that the ladies Datejust shouldn't be called a ladies watch? Is she saying that designs developed with men in mind shouldn't be marketed to men, and designs made with women in mind shouldn't be marketed to women?

She seems to be saying all of that. So, okay, where does that lead?

Does it lead to more men buying a 32mm pink-dialed Datejust, and more women buying a 50mm PAM? Maybe, but I doubt it. It seems like any man or woman confident enough to make those purchases would already be making them, flouting the pre-existing notions of "men's" and "ladies" watches.

Does it lead to even fewer options that women would actually like, now that brands are no longer trying to design watches specifically for either gender, but perhaps for both? Maybe it does, and if it does, I think that would be disastrous, in many women's opinions.

The product labeling issue doesn't seem to be the real problem for real women.

What surprises me about her position is how it so clearly contradicts my own experiences talking to both women who aren't enthusiasts, and women who are. I've never heard any of them complain that watches were specifically labeled as being for men or women.

I have heard women complain that there aren't nearly as many options available to them as there are to men (despite men saying a woman can just wear a man's watch), and that too many ladies watches are basically dumbed-down and/or feminized versions of men's watches.

What does that mean?

I think it means that there aren't enough watch designs being developed specifically for women. I think it means that men running these watch companies are too often making the assumption that women just want a smaller and/or prettier man's watch.

I think it means that women are correctly finding that trend towards larger case sizes has left them with fewer options that they actually like, just based on the size, regardless of the styles, product labeling, or the marketing, and what they suggest regarding gender roles.

Just as one example - consider how many Seiko SARBs there have been. Now let's ask, what's the analog for the Seiko SARB line, but aimed at women?

The SARB range is mostly ~38mm, arguably small enough for women, if a man is doing the arguing. The fact that they may not be labeled "men's" watches may not be enough to get women to buy them, if gender-labeling is the real issue. Maybe the real issue is their size and styling, which says "men's watch", regardless of the fact Seiko isn't marketing them as such, specifically. The SARB line could be labeled "unisex", but what does that change in reality, for women?

If the watch industry stops thinking about women as unique customers, with desires different than male customers', and instead adopts a "unisex" mindset, viewing men and women as potential customers for the same designs, I think the reality that >90% of the market is biologically male will inevitably lead brands to make fewer watches aimed specifically at women, designs women will actually like, not more, and the emphasis on "unisex" will push more women away, rather than bringing more in.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> Are wrist sizes determined by chromosomes though? There seems to be plenty of men who have 6 or 6.5" wrists, which is what my XX chromosomes have given me. I've seen men with smaller wrists and women with larger. The Venn diagram of XX wrists and XY wrists (apologies for excluding the many other possible combinations) isn't just a circle, but it probably has a decent amount of overlap.
> 
> What does it mean to have more options for women if it's more than aesthetic preferences stereotypically assigned to women?


Great questions, all of them.

As a manufacturer, what I would expect to find is that my almost entirely male customers' wrist sizes generally seem to follow a typically shaped bell-curve distribution, with the average being right around 7". But we would still have outliers, and a roughly equal number of them on both sides. For every guy with a 6" wrist, I should hear from one with a 8" wrist.

But what I actually notice is that I get more guys on the higher side of that 7" average, around 8", and sometimes 9", than I do guys on the low side, around 6". The low side seems to cluster around 6"-6.5", just 0.5"-1" lower, and it's extremely rare that I hear of men with wrists smaller than that.

But not only do I get more guys on the high side, the high side extends further, not just 0.5"-1" larger, but 2"-2.5". I just had a customer tell me his wrist is 9.5". I've never had a customer tell me his wrist is 4.5".

So when we order watches with bracelets, I typically tell my vendors to make sure the bracelet can be sized from 6" up to 9" - 1 inch smaller than the expected average, but 2 inches larger. I make sure we have extra links available for the extra large wrists. I've never had to think about the extra small wrists.

I don't have enough female customers to know the numbers, but my smaller sample size of women's wrists suggests the average is somewhere around 6", the same size as my 5'4" wife's wrist, and roughly the same size as both of my aunts' wrists, who are around the same height, though one is more fuller-figured, with a wrist closer to 6.25"-6.5". My 5'3" mother's wrist is slightly smaller, at 5.5"-5.75", and my 5'6" sister's wrist is 6.25"-6.5".

Assuming the women in my family are typical of the averages, there is a good bit of overlap with men there, between 6" and 6.5".

But we should consider how many men with smaller wrists will still lean towards larger men's watch sizes, based on their styling, and how many women with larger wrists will still lean towards smaller women's sizes.

I get more men with 6"-6.5" wrists buying my watches than women with 6"-6.5" wrists, so while case size has something to do with this, it isn't the only factor. Styling matters, too, I think.

I suspect that a woman with a larger wrist will still prefer watches which suggest femininity, and a man with a smaller wrist will still prefer watches that suggest masculinity, regardless of the respective case sizes of the watches.

The fact that we make watches that can be fitted to a 6" wrist hasn't increased the number of female customers we have, or stopped women I know from suggesting I should make a ladies watch. My inference is that case size is only part of it, and that styling matters too.

For the non-enthusiast women I know, I think they're less concerned with mechanical movements and specs, less able to judge quality in a watch, and probably less aware that there are generally fewer choices for women's watches.

But the female enthusiasts seem very aware, and more likely to be seeking alternatives which don't exist in abundance - less "girly" styles, with mechanical movements, legit specs, good quality, etc - basically all the things male collectors take for granted.


----------



## Sussa

docvail said:


> But the female enthusiasts seem very aware, and more likely to be seeing choices which don't exist in abundance - less "girly" styles, with mechanical movements, legit specs, good quality, etc - basically all the things male collectors take for granted.





rubyroseopal said:


> I wouldn't make watches unisex. I would rather leave them unlabelled by gender (one of the watch brands does this, I think maybe Oris?) or if they prefer to keep gender labels, have some watch sizes appear in both categories (ex. 36 mm, 40mm).


This is where we start to have the overlap, at least for enthusiasts. Going back to a Venn diagram of watches men and women, we can say that there are watches that will most likely only interest women or a fringe segment of men, and some that will only interest men and a fringe segment of women. But what about the rest, and what percent of the watches on the market does that encompass?

Once you reach this overlapping segment, asking consumers to describe their ideal watch will probably yield as many different answers as there are respondents. So why try to categorize them? I don't think any retailer should have three sections - men, women, unisex. If we keep the binary gender labels, having this overlap segment of watches appear in both searches makes sense and would open up the possibility that someone would fall in love with a watch they might not have otherwise seen. Because while there are some people who will freely overlook labels, how many consumers think a product won't meet their needs based on the information architecture of a website?

I keep kicking around this idea of totally gender-neutral clothes shopping. We'd have to find some way to accurate describe a cut or fit, which means it probably wouldn't work. Could we organize by measurements and recommended body shape? Would people find it even harder to find what they want? Fun thought exercise.


----------



## one onety-one

Unfortunately, the Hodinkee article reads like a political screed dressed in a watch conversation, invoking virtue signaling touchstones such as _"strong, confident women"_ (as opposed to the other kind[?]), _"outdated norms"_ and of course _"getting with the program"_. I'm not sure it sheds much useful light on the OP's query.

What I do know is that I've always been able to walk into a retailer and look at any display case I choose, without needing to announce my gender to anyone and I'm sure that option is open to anyone and everyone else. I have walked into stores where the watches were grouped in what might be considered a gender targeted manner and, for me at least, it is a better shopping experience than I have at stores that mix watches together with little organization beyond brand. If you feel women are an underserved demographic, or more to the point, an underdeveloped stream of revenue, and you think it is worth the money, market images of women wearing your watches, seek out their testimonials, etc.



docvail said:


> Seriously, why are all you dudes in the Ladies watches sub forum, answering questions meant for the ladies?


It came up in my "What's New" notifications, and I found it interesting after reading.



Sussa said:


> I actually think this would be awesome. Why are my Chuck Taylors a size 7.5 if you identify as a man, but a 9.5 if you identify as a woman? It's the exact same shoe and the exact same dimensions! And please, for the love of all that is holy, can we let women buy pants with waist and inseam measurements instead of arbitrary size numbers that vary wildly by manufacturer? I don't think we need to abandon the word "dress," just accept that people of all gender identities can wear dresses.


Sizing of garments has been developed by the industry, likely not based in patriarchal tyranny, but rather in studied analysis of the design of the garments and the average physiological differences between the intended user.


----------



## docvail

Another aspect of this which just occurs to me today...

Just because women make up half the population, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're half the market for any product. The market for any product will vary from 0% / 100% - male / female to 100% / 0% male / female. The market for watches appears to be at least 90% male, if not 95%.

Even if we agree that is at least somewhat the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy - brands making fewer watches for women results in fewer women in the watch market - we shouldn't assume making more women's watches will lead to a proportionate increase in the number of women in the market. It may be true, and in all likelihood is true, that there just isn't equal potential for watch sales between the genders, and the product skews more towards men. This creates some real challenges for brands, which are not to be dismissed to quickly.

For instance, if a brand wants to offer a watch in two different sizes, they have to make a minimum number of both. You can't order 500 of the larger size, but only 50 of the smaller size, if your MOQ is 500. You have to order 500 of each, minimum. Making two sizes could easily mean doubling your investment in inventory production, which might not make sense, and potentially doubles your marketing budget, as you'd want to target both men and women with different ads in different places.

If the market is likely to remain 90% male, 10% female, and the smaller size is intended for females, plus that segment of men who prefer the smaller size, you first need to figure out how many men that would be. Whatever number you come up with, you'd need enough scale and sales volume to rationalize making at least 500 of each size, but likely some larger multiple of the larger size. Let's say it's an 80-20 mix. For every 500 of the smaller size, you have to make 2000 of the larger - potentially for every model you produce. The numbers get very large, very quickly.

That means that only a larger brand, with enormous scale, and selling in much larger volume, should even consider making watches in multiple sizes. I only know of one small brand even semi-consistently making models in multiple sizes, Straton. They only do it for 2 models, and the sizes skew larger - 40mm and 44mm, both more "male" sizes. Chris Ward was making their Trident in 38 and 43, but have since reverted back to making all the variants in one size, 40mm or 42mm.

But, assume a company can rationalize 2 sizes per model, then ideally, the percentage that each size being made represents of the total production should precisely align with the percentages of people who would prefer each size. But that's not easy to predict in advance.

I know some brands make watches in two sizes. What I hear from brand owners and retailers is that one size always outsells the other. Very often, the larger size outsells the smaller size. Imagine you're the retailer - which size would you order more of? That leads to the retailers and the brands getting stuck with not enough of one size, too much of the other.

Eventually, it leads brands to make fewer models in 2 sizes, as they gradually kill off the slower-selling variants in order to just make one size, which is so much easier to manage, from product development to distribution and marketing, especially if you realize the market for that one remaining size is predominantly one gender or the other.

Those sorts of considerations and practical realities end up driving decisions during product development, which inevitably leads to how the products are labeled, marketed, and sold. The reason we don't make a 38mm dive watch is that I'm not confident it would sell as quickly as our 40mm dive watch, and I have to consider that when making decisions about what products to make. If we focus on larger sizes, we can't help but tailor the marketing to the most likely customer, which is going to be men.

The resources I invest in making something smaller, that doesn't sell as well, could have been invested in making something larger, that might have sold better.

It doesn't entirely excuse those larger brands for not making more choices that women like, but it does help explain it, I think. Even the larger brands have to consider the cost of developing each new model. The models with the largest upside sales potential, lowest total investment cost, and lowest relative risk are going to make the most business sense. If the design and development costs are equal, I would bet that the marketing costs for women's models are higher, whereas the sales potential is higher with men's models.

So, even if we do away with gender labeling of the product, which seems to already be the existing trend, it doesn't mean we'll see more watches in smaller sizes, or more investment into designs developed with women in mind, nor does it mean there'll be more investment into figuring out how to sell more watches to women or get more women into the watch market.

Although, it certainly is possible that doing away with those gender labels on the product might solve any remaining challenges stemming from customers' avoidance of products with the "wrong" gender label. I don't really know how big a problem that is though. It would seem to me that if there aren't as many watches being made for women AND being labeled as "women's watches", then there can't be very many men opting not to buy them. And it seems less likely that a woman would rule out buying a "man's watch" due to that label alone, if she otherwise likes how it looks and fits.


----------



## Racer88

docvail said:


> But the article seems to suggest that the industry is *overly focused on gender roles*, and should move towards more homogeneity in products, where *everything would be explicitly, or at least understood to be unisex*.


That's a statement from a person (the author of the article) who clearly has NO CLUE about the market place. The industry should focus on WHAT SELLS.... not what "should sell" according to the delusional proclivities of social justice warriors. That is, of course, unless that business / industry values virtue signaling over profitability and long-term viability.


----------



## KCZ

Sussa said:


> Are wrist sizes determined by chromosomes though? There seems to be plenty of men who have 6 or 6.5" wrists, which is what my XX chromosomes have given me. I've seen men with smaller wrists and women with larger. The Venn diagram of XX wrists and XY wrists (apologies for excluding the many other possible combinations) isn't just a circle, but it probably has a decent amount of overlap.


On the average, men have larger bones, muscles, tendons, etc than women, and therefore their wrists are larger. I think the obesity epidemic in America has skewed wrist sizes and the Venn diagram considerably. OTOH, just because a woman might have a 7.5" wrist doesn't mean she wants to wear a men's watch.



one onety-one said:


> What I do know is that I've always been able to walk into a retailer and look at any display case I choose, without needing to announce my gender to anyone and I'm sure that option is open to anyone and everyone else. I have walked into stores where the watches were grouped in what might be considered a gender targeted manner and, for me at least, it is a better shopping experience than I have at stores that mix watches together with little organization beyond brand. If you feel women are an underserved demographic, or more to the point, an underdeveloped stream of revenue, and you think it is worth the money, market images of women wearing your watches, seek out their testimonials, etc.


I've walked into retailers too and looked at every watch display, but I spend far less time in front of the "men's" display cases just because there's nothing in there that's a size I'd want to wear.


----------



## fellini212

Interesting NY Times piece in response to the Cara Barrett essay.









Forget ‘Ladies’ Collections.’ Women Watch Buyers Want More Options. (Published 2021)


They are frustrated with the industry’s reliance on outdated gender classifications and sexist marketing campaigns.




www.nytimes.com





_Even Switzerland's most masculine and traditional watch brands are coming around to bypassing gender. Last July, Hublot introduced the Big Bang Millennial Pink as an overtly "gender neutral" timepiece. And in September, Patek Philippe came out with the Ref. 7234G, a no-frills white gold Calatrava Pilot Travel Time in a new 37.5-millimeter format designed to have, the brand website said, "a subtle presence on the wrist."_


----------



## docvail

Racer88 said:


> That's a statement from a person who clearly has NO CLUE about the market place. The industry should focus on WHAT SELLS.... not what "should sell" according to the delusional proclivities of social justice warriors. That is, of course, unless that business / industry values virtue signaling over profitability and long-term viability.


The fact that Hodinkee is based in Manhattan, it has occurred to me that the view they express may be representative of that particular bubble. There may be some aspect of virtue-signaling to this, or perhaps she's merely expressing a view she sincerely holds, without intending to signal any particular virtue, but it may be her view may not align with the mainstream very well. My suspicion when I started this thread was that it doesn't align with the views of most female enthusiasts, only based on the comments I've read from female enthusiasts.

That said, if Manhattan is a bubble, I think it's fair to say that the people running most big watch brands, especially the Swiss ones, are living in an even more esoteric bubble, one which is just as physically, and likely even more mentally removed from mainstream market tastes and preferences.

Even if Ms. Barrett's views reflect a set of values typical of people in that NY bubble, I still think she's onto something, vis-a-vis how the industry deals with the challenge of selling watches to women, or, if we want to add to that, the newly created challenge of selling watches to anyone who is gender fluid / non-binary, and the increasing likelihood that brands will need to at least appear to be making an effort at inclusivity and sensitivity, regardless of the practical realities of the market into which they sell.

Even if the market remains 90% male, 10% female, with some sliver of a percentage of either of those groups being non-binary / gender-fluid, it won't do for a luxury brand to appear insensitive, especially if their own customer base skews towards NY thinking, with similar values. I suspect Vacheron (just to pick a luxury brand at random) might fear a values-based boycott more than a smaller brand, like mine, which doesn't target the same market segment.

Turning away from Ms. Barret, towards the big Swiss brands, my observation has been that they have become thoroughly detached from reality, stubbornly provincial and Euro-centric in how they run their businesses, and as such it isn't too surprising to find some evidence of lingering chauvinism in the products they make, and how they market them.

What outght to concern everyone is this - Hodinkee is the world's largest, most influential watch blog. It has the power to influence the industry. The industry big-wigs are just as, and possibly even more detached from mainstream tastes and sensitivities than the staff at Hodinkee is. It isn't hard for me to imagine Hodinkee laying the track that the industry then runs on, like the tail wagging the dog.

To be more specific - if the industry thinks Hodinkee speaks for the market (and I think many in the industry think that), it follows that the female staff would speak for the female segment of the market. If Hodinkee's writers, and the people commenting on those posts, are all echoing the same refrain - that the industry needs to shift, quickly, towards a gender-neutral paradigm, for both product design, and marketing - and the industry begins acting according to that new mandate, I think it will be disastrous, for men, women, and the industry.

I truly believe the answer here is more product diversity, in general, not less, perhaps combined with smarter thinking about the way watches are made for and marketed to women in particular, as they are the minority gender within the market, and predictably under-served by the industry as a result. I don't think the answer is necessarily a combination of doing away with all gender-labels for products, combined with pressuring brands to design and market products with androgyny as the guiding principle.


----------



## Racer88

docvail said:


> The fact that Hodinkee is based in Manhattan, it has occurred to me that the view they express may be representative of that particular bubble. There may be some aspect of virtue-signaling to this, or perhaps she's merely expressing a view she sincerely holds, without intending to signal any particular virtue, but it may be her view may not align with the mainstream very well.


Definitely agree that Manhattan is a bubble.



docvail said:


> I suspect Vacheron (just to pick a luxury brand at random) might fear a values-based boycott more than a smaller brand, like mine, which doesn't target the same market segment.


It would be foolish, IMO, to cave to such fears, as the represent a TINY (but vocal) group. Such attempts at "canceling" have often had the exact opposite result (see Goya Foods and Chick-Fil-A).



docvail said:


> It isn't hard for me to imagine Hodinkee laying the track that the industry then runs on, like the tail wagging the dog.


Hodinkee sells watches. Period. It's a retailer.



docvail said:


> if the industry thinks Hodinkee speaks for the market


It certainly doesn't. Hodinkee is a purveyor of watches, and literally nothing more (at this point).



docvail said:


> I don't think the answer is necessarily a combination of doing away with all gender-labels for products, combined with pressuring brands to design and market products with androgyny as the guiding principle.


Agreed!


----------



## digivandig

docvail said:


> Great questions, all of them.
> 
> As a manufacturer, what I would expect to find is that my almost entirely male customers' wrist sizes generally seem to follow a typically shaped bell-curve distribution, with the average being right around 7". But we would still have outliers, and a roughly equal number of them on both sides. For every guy with a 6" wrist, I should hear from one with a 8" wrist.
> 
> But what I actually notice is that I get more guys on the higher side of that 7" average, around 8", and sometimes 9", than I do guys on the low side, around 6". The low side seems to cluster around 6"-6.5", just 0.5"-1" lower, and it's extremely rare that I hear of men with wrists smaller than that.
> 
> But not only do I get more guys on the high side, the high side extends further, not just 0.5"-1" larger, but 2"-2.5". I just had a customer tell me his wrist is 9.5". I've never had a customer tell me his wrist is 4.5".
> 
> So when we order watches with bracelets, I typically tell my vendors to make sure the bracelet can be sized from 6" up to 9" - 1 inch smaller than the expected average, but 2 inches larger. I make sure we have extra links available for the extra large wrists. I've never had to think about the extra small wrists.
> 
> I don't have enough female customers to know the numbers, but my smaller sample size of women's wrists suggests the average is somewhere around 6", the same size as my 5'4" wife's wrist, and roughly the same size as both of my aunts' wrists, who are around the same height, though one is more fuller-figured, with a wrist closer to 6.25"-6.5". My 5'3" mother's wrist is slightly smaller, at 5.5"-5.75", and my 5'6" sister's wrist is 6.25"-6.5".
> 
> Assuming the women in my family are typical of the averages, there is a good bit of overlap with men there, between 6" and 6.5".
> 
> But we should consider how many men with smaller wrists will still lean towards larger men's watch sizes, based on their styling, and how many women with larger wrists will still lean towards smaller women's sizes.
> 
> I get more men with 6"-6.5" wrists buying my watches than women with 6"-6.5" wrists, so while case size has something to do with this, it isn't the only factor. Styling matters, too, I think.
> 
> I suspect that a woman with a larger wrist will still prefer watches which suggest femininity, and a man with a smaller wrist will still prefer watches that suggest masculinity, regardless of the respective case sizes of the watches.
> 
> The fact that we make watches that can be fitted to a 6" wrist hasn't increased the number of female customers we have, or stopped women I know from suggesting I should make a ladies watch. My inference is that case size is only part of it, and that styling matters too.
> 
> For the non-enthusiast women I know, I think they're less concerned with mechanical movements and specs, less able to judge quality in a watch, and probably less aware that there are generally fewer choices for women's watches.
> 
> But the female enthusiasts seem very aware, and more likely to be seeking alternatives which don't exist in abundance - less "girly" styles, with mechanical movements, legit specs, good quality, etc - basically all the things male collectors take for granted.


I think unisex marketing can be as simple as offering a smaller bracelet/strap option that would allow a woman (or a man with slender wrists) to wear the watch the way it was meant to be worn, rather than having to immediately switch out straps. I own a Fitbit Inspire HR which, I think, is truly unisex because it came with two straps, one for M/L wrists, and another for S wrists. I can wear it with one strap, my wife can wear the same device with the other. By contrast, while every watch in my current collection of 12 can be worn by my wife, none of them were marketed toward her (or as unisex) because none of them fit her on either their stock bracelets or straps. To wear them, she would have to buy her own strap(s), and would not be able to use the bracelets some came with.

Along the lines of this conversation, over the years, I've bought my wife watches, specifically ladies watches of the reduced diameter style. Typically she would smile, thank me, and then put them in a drawer, never to be seen again. I even found a vintage Seiko diver that looked like a mini-MM300 (which I thought was very cool) which I purchased and offered to her, but she politely declined. Since she is a big Snoopy fan, last year I thought about buying her the 40mm Timex Marlin with Snoopy at the typewriter on the dial. I was hesitant because (a) she never likes any of the watches I've bought for her, and (b) if she didn't like the smaller diameter watches, she probably wouldn't like 40mm. Heck, 40mm is about _my_ limit for non-dive watches. But, I figured if she didn't like it I could flip it for a minor loss, no big. Lo and behold, she loves the watch! Of course, she could not wear it on the stock strap, so I swapped it for a grey Perlon-style strap from Crown & Buckle. AT 40mm, when I bought it, I assumed the strap wouldn't fit her and therefore assumed it to be a "men's" watch, even though it is a Snoopy watch. I think I wouldn't have necessarily made that gender assumption (or even given it much thought) had there been a small strap option.


----------



## MaDTempo

scuttle said:


> The less conservative someone is, the more likely they are to wear a smart watch.


That's a funny assumption. My two watch enthusiast coworkers and the marketing director of my favorite local AD are all pretty liberal and none of us would buy a smart watch methinks. Of course, law of small numbers applies.

I'm a man. Doc, this is a fascinating thread, horologically, sociologically, ontologically and epistemologically (see above reply). Thanks for posting.


----------



## fellini212

The Rise of Unisex Watches | Timex


The Rise of Unisex Watches | Timex




www.timex.com


----------



## Sussa

The merchandising team at mygiftstop.com apparently thinks "kids" is a gender, so I guess it's just anarchy when it comes to categorization of watches.


----------



## KCZ

This is all just appalling. After decades of limiting women's choices in women's watches, we're now told by manufacturers and bloggers that we should like men's watches relabeled as unisex. Gee, thanks.


----------



## mrv

I totally agree. As a woman, I hate everything labeled "unisex", because it's usually ugly, heavy, bulky, and not feminine. I don't want to look like a man, or look like I got a hand-me down old watch from my husband because he can't afford to buy me a real women's one. I'm 5'6" and have 6 1/2" wrist, my watches are usually 24-26 mm, nothing ever more than 32 mm with crown. I love smaller, really feminine watches 20 mm or even less - they look awesome on the wrist, are lightweight, comfortable, and elegant. No men's watch would do that!! Men's watches are too heavy and their center of gravity is in the wrong place for a woman, so they constantly slide off the top side of my wrist, plus I get carpal tunnel syndrome just from wearing anything heavier than 50-60 gram (men's watches can be 100 gram or more, especially mechanical). Even when a men's watch is lightweight and flat, it's still won't sit right on a small wrist (and believe me, I tried men's Constellations and Raymond Weil pieces, and it was awful, they are simply not made for a woman). The only brand that used to make beautiful feminine watches used to be Omega's Constellations, but now even they are bulkier and uglier. I don't blame them because ugly is in fashion now and they need to sell watches, but I stopped buying them, while I have several from the 80s-90s. Ebel is more or less OK too, but they are not as comfortable and kind of all the same.

Also, as a woman I feel disrespected by all this "unisex" stuff, as if it's not enough for them to be a woman, you need to be somebody else to buy their stuff??? A sexless, genderless? unidentified gender? person?? Why should I buy it when it's marketed without any respect to my gender? Do these people have a problem with women?? Are they too lazy to develop an item a real woman would like?? Is it a simply business decision, so they're hoping to save money? I really don't care, and I will simply never buy it, because I find it not worth my attention as a consumer.


----------



## one onety-one

fellini212 said:


> Interesting NY Times piece in response to the Cara Barrett essay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget ‘Ladies’ Collections.’ Women Watch Buyers Want More Options. (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> They are frustrated with the industry’s reliance on outdated gender classifications and sexist marketing campaigns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Even Switzerland's most masculine and traditional watch brands are coming around to bypassing gender. Last July, Hublot introduced the Big Bang Millennial Pink as an overtly "gender neutral" timepiece._


Interesting that Hublot would market a watch as gender neutral, not in blue, green, red, cream, gold, grey, but in the most traditional of feminine colors - pink. Come on guys, _get with the program_.



docvail said:


> There may be some aspect of virtue-signaling to this, or perhaps she's merely expressing a view she sincerely holds, without intending to signal any particular virtue...


Not necessarily mutually exclusive



Sussa said:


> The merchandising team at mygiftstop.com apparently thinks "kids" is a gender, so I guess it's just anarchy when it comes to categorization of watches.
> 
> View attachment 15776924


I've never heard of mygiftstop.com before but that made me laugh a little.


----------



## mrv

one onety-one said:


> Interesting that Hublot would market a watch as gender neutral, not in blue, green, red, cream, gold, grey, but in the most traditional of feminine colors - pink. Come on guys, _get with the program_.


It may be marketed for gays or something, but this is not a woman's watch. Once I tried 'unisex' perfumes - ewww, typical strong masculine scent with cringy, annoying, suffocating high notes. Again, I believe it was made without women in mind, but for people of certain sexual orientation or with gender problems.


----------



## fellini212

The language of these things fascinates me. For example, which is worse as a marketing term:

"unisex"

or

"boyfriend watch"?

Both of which appear as categories in that Timex blog I posted.


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> The language of these things fascinates me. For example, which is worse as a marketing term:
> 
> "unisex"
> 
> or
> 
> "boyfriend watch"?


Unisex is worse, in my opinion, for various reasons.

I've never heard anyone self-identify as "unisex". Not even someone who is non-binary. Unisex is a label which suggests a product bland enough to satisfy everyone, but not distinctive enough to truly thrill anyone.

My marketing guy and I have an unofficial motto - I'd rather be someone's shot of whisky than everyone's cup of tea.

Boyfriend watch is derivative of boyfriend jeans, both part of a trend in women's fashion - women wearing products with a size or fit that suggests they were made for a man, but in fact were meant for a woman. The underlying suggested narrative is that she "borrowed" her boyfriend's jeans, or watch.

It would be interesting (to me at least) to see how women react to those sorts of terms and products, based on their age. The first time I heard the "boyfriend" term in fashion was from my younger nieces, in their 20's at the time. I'm pretty sure my mother, now in her early 70's, was oblivious. I can't remember if my wife (40's) knew it already when that discussion was happening (which was another in which the women in my life wanted to talk to me about the watches I was making).

Clearly, the younger women didn't find the term, or the underlying suggestions offensive or insulting. But I wonder if more mature women might.

While we might think of women my mother's age as being more conservative, dowdy, or more likely to defer to the men in their lives, we should remember women that age were at the forefront of the women's movement, the generation which wanted to "ban the bra", the first generation of women who aspired to be more than housewives and mothers. My mother was a force of nature, not to be messed with, well into her 60's.


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> Unisex is worse, in my opinion, for various reasons.
> 
> I've never heard of anyone self-identify as "unisex". Not even someone who is non-binary. Unisex is a label which suggests a product bland enough to satisfy everyone, but not distinctive enough to truly thrill anyone.
> 
> My marketing guy and I have an unofficial motto - I'd rather be someone's shot of whisky than everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> Boyfriend watch is derivative of boyfriend jeans, both of which are part of a trend in women's fashion - women wearing products with a size or fit that suggests they were made for a man, but in fact were meant for a woman. The underlying suggested narrative is that she "borrowed" her boyfriend's jeans, or watch.
> 
> It would be interesting (to me at least) to see how woman react to those sorts of terms and products, based on their age. The first time I heard the "boyfriend" term in fashion was from my younger nieces, in their 20's at the time. I'm pretty sure my mother, now in her early 70's, was oblivious. I can't remember if my wife (40's) knew it already when that discussion was happening (which was another in which the women in my life wanted to talk to me about the watches I was making).
> 
> Clearly, the younger women didn't find the term, or the underlying suggestions offensive or insulting. But I wonder if more mature women might.
> 
> While we might think of women my mother's age as being more conservative, dowdy, or more likely to defer to the men in their lives, we should remember women that age were at the forefront of the women's movement, the generation which wanted to "ban the bra", the first generation of women who aspired to be more than housewives and mothers. My mother was a force of nature, not to be messed with, well into her 60's.


Agreed. 'Unisex' is a leftover product category from the 70s that pleased no one then or now.

And that's what we're mostly talking about here, I think, product categories that expand personal choice rather than narrow it. Which is a function of language and description.

Is your mom a watch-wearer? If so, what does she favor?


----------



## docvail

I really appreci


fellini212 said:


> Agreed. 'Unisex' is a leftover product category from the 70s that pleased no one then or now.
> 
> And that's what we're mostly talking about here, I think, product categories that expand personal choice rather than narrow it. Which is a function of language and description.
> 
> Is your mom a watch-wearer? If so, what does she favor?


She wasn't a watch-wearer per se, but has been wearing a magenta Dolphin since they were released in late 2018. Unfortunately, she has early-onset Alzheimers, and was never familiar with automatic movements before then. I think she doesn't wear it much anymore, because she forgets how it woks.


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> I really appreci
> 
> She wasn't a watch-wearer per se, but has been wearing a magenta Dolphin since they were released in late 2018. Unfortunately, she has early-onset Alzheimers, and was never familiar with automatic movements before then. I think she doesn't wear it much anymore, because she forgets how it woks.


Sorry to hear it, my friend. We went through that with my mom. Hang in there.

When she wore a watch, she wore a tiny, unadorned mid-50s stainless steel Longines._ Her_ mother wore a nurses watch at work, but never anywhere else.


----------



## docvail

I really appreciate hearing from women in this thread. What I'm hearing isn't surprising to me. It aligns with what I've seen posted here before.

My takeaway is that women's tastes in watches encompass a broad, diverse range of sizes and styles, from quite small and feminine styles to larger yet typically more modestly sized (up to 38mm-ish) watches which aren't obviously "ladies" watches based on their style or size alone.

The issue for many women, especially collectors, is that there are very few under 38mm-40mm sporty-tool watches which aren't a bit insulting in their designs and marketing, and that many of the watches being marketed for woman are low-spec, lower quality, and very often overpriced quartz pieces.

I know the Swiss and Chinese movement manufacturers have some smaller size mechanical movements, but since I prefer to work with Japanese mechanical movements, I wanted to see if Miyota and Seiko had any smaller calibres available, which would enable a brand to make smaller pieces, not just 36mm-38mm, but something 10mm less, no bigger than the high 20's (mm).

Movements are typically listed in lignes, but there are charts to convert those dimensions to mm. We have to add something to their diameter as an estimate for what the movement spacer and case wall would add, in order to impute the minimum size of a watch using those movements.

So, a typical, three-hand mechanical movement you'd find in many men's watches would be 11"-12" (lignes, not inches). That converts to roughly 25mm-27mm. I think they would fit into a watch no larger than the low 30's (mm) range, depending on what sort of WR spec we want. More WR would typically drive the diameter upward.

Sadly, Miyota has zero smaller-diameter mechanical calibers, only quartz. Seiko has 4, but really just 2, since the only differences here are date only versus day/date. The NH15/NH16 is 10.5", or ~24mm. The NH05/NH06 is 7.75", or ~17.5mm. But there's a problem here - these smaller diameter movements are thicker than the larger diameter movements. All other things being equal, they'd force the watches to be thicker.

Looking at the websites of ETA and Sellita, the choices in movements clearly expand with the sizes. ETA has just 6 automatic calibres 10.5" or smaller, but 26 that are 11.5" or larger. But similar to Seiko, the differences appear to be minimal. Their two 7.75" calibres appear to be the same, with date vs day/date being the only difference. There doesn't appear to be any visible difference (on their face, at least), between their two 8.34" calibres. Also like Seiko, the smaller calibres tend to be a bit thicker than the larger calibres.

What does that mean? Well, the manufacturers developed those calibres over time, so we may be looking at the end-result of historical trends, suggesting men have historically been the primary market for watches. It may also be the case that shrinking the size of mechanical movements is impossible beyond a certain point, due to some components needing to be at least a certain size. I suspect that's why the smaller diameter movements are thicker - out of necessity. But that's well outside my scope of knowledge here.

All that said, and regardless of why it is, the fact is there aren't very many mechanical movements small enough to make a much smaller watch, much less a much smaller and much thinner watch. 

And, given the fact that men seem to dominate both the industry and the market, and the trend towards larger humans and watch sizes, I don't foresee the situation changing. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


----------



## Sussa

fellini212 said:


> The language of these things fascinates me. For example, which is worse as a marketing term:
> 
> "unisex"
> 
> or
> 
> "boyfriend watch"?
> 
> Both of which appear as categories in that Timex blog I posted.


Both? Both are bad.

Unisex is etymologically incorrect based on it's common usage. Uni = one, where the application tends to imply "both." It should be ambi-. It also conflates sex (biological) with gender (a social construct more closely aligned to one's outward presentation or style). Gender-neutral is more accurate, but does that appeal to anyone from a marketing perspective? Maybe enbys.

I've never seen anything that's marketed as "boyfriend" whatever actually look like something that would be typically stolen from a boyfriend. There are usually still strong stereotypically feminine design cues, like cropped length or slim cut jeans. Also, it's heteronormative, but I'm just a woke SJW


----------



## mrv

"Boyfriend" jeans is just another name for straight (not too tight) jeans. There's nothing 'man's' about them, the cut is not men's, and they don't fit like men's (men's jeans have large waist and small thighs, 'boyfriend' jeans just sit higher on the waist and are more loose). So, this is just a marketing name and these jeans are still designed and made for women, not men, and not for weird people with gender problems. And there's also 'boyfriend cardigan' that really resembles grandpa's cardigan, but again, it's made for a woman's fgure, not for a man. So I don't have any problem with these 'whatever' names they come up with....


----------



## docvail

Apropos of this thread, this landed in my inbox 2 hours ago...










There's so much to unpack here...

First, I read the entire email, twice, and didn't see any mention of this being a "man's" watch, nor are there any images of the watch being worn by a man, or even on any human wrist. There's nothing in the text to suggest a gender for the intended customer.

My first thought on reading the name was that ombré looks like "hombre", the name of the 1967 Paul Newman western, and Spanish for "man".

But, when I Googled it, I found it's actually a French term for one color transitioning to another, light to dark, or vice versa. All the images at the top of the search were of women's hair, suggesting the term is now in wide use among women, at least within the context of hair color styles.










Now it gets interesting.

As a man, I was completely unfamiliar with the term "Ombré", within any context, but it appears to be used here as a description of the dial. And yet, if women are more likely to know that term, they might be inclined to think the watch would be for women, at least before they see it, or its size, or the headline of the email.

When you see the headline, particularly the words, "Handsome, Powerful", it would seem to suggest a man's watch. And sure enough, it's 42mm.

Even after we've taken away the gender-specific label of "men's watch", and even if we want to argue that there's nothing stopping any woman from buying this watch, I can't imagine very many women would, given its size, even if they like its style.

Calling it "unisex" doesn't seem necessary here, since it was never labeled "for men". But even if we did label it "unisex", that wouldn't seem to make it any more appealing to women, and might actually make it less appealing, since it seems many women don't really like the "unisex" term.

I'm starting to see a developing sub-plot here. Labeling men's watches unisex doesn't seem likely to get more women to buy them, but perhaps labeling women's watches unisex would get more men to buy them, by removing the lingering stigma attached to a man wearing a "ladies" watch.

Whether or not and why women would or should care about how those men feel, I can't say. My hunch is most women here wouldn't care, and would rather just see more choices in watches aimed at women, with smaller sizes, better designs, and less sexist innuendo in either the design or the marketing.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> Both? Both are bad.
> 
> Unisex is etymologically incorrect based on it's common usage. Uni = one, where the application tends to imply "both." It should be ambi-. It also conflates sex (biological) with gender (a social construct more closely aligned to one's outward presentation or style). Gender-neutral is more accurate, but does that appeal to anyone from a marketing perspective? Maybe enbys.
> 
> I've never seen anything that's marketed as "boyfriend" whatever actually look like something that would be typically stolen from a boyfriend. There are usually still strong stereotypically feminine design cues, like cropped length or slim cut jeans. Also, it's heteronormative, but I'm just a woke SJW


Why is the "boyfriend' term bad, within the context of women's fashion?

I think we all agree that the products in question were designed for women to wear, but something about their design differentiates them from other products in the same category, enough to warrant a unique and at least somewhat-descriptive term, though how descriptive it truly is appears debatable. Perhaps it's only descriptive by way of inference - some aspect of the design typically associated with designs for men.

As an alternative interpretation, perhaps it's not the design of the product, but the category itself that is usually associated with men, such as the "boyfriend cardigan" - the implication is that cardigans are traditionally something only men wore.

But I don't think the term's use is limited in that way, because jeans and watches are NOT products which were not traditionally only worn by men.

Either way, I don't see why the term is bad, on its face, unless we object to it because it's heteronormative to suggest women wearing products designed for women might have a boyfriend.

Although, logically, if the "boyfriend" might now possibly be a biological female who identifies as male, that would seem to raise the question about how heteronormative the term actually is.

And, logically, couldn't those products also be worn by biological men, but who self-identify as female, or non-binary, and who might also have a significant other whom they refer to as a "boyfriend"? Is that word really heteronormative?

At the very least, I've heard gay men refer to their partners as their boyfriends, so at worst, it would seem to only indicate the gender of someone in a relationship with the owner of some product, though apparently not their biological sex, only how they self-identify.

Why is that bad? Are we not allowed to designate anyone's "male" paramour as a "boyfriend" anymore? Is its meaning just assumed to refer exclusively to cisgender, hetero men, and no one else? What's the alternative term being suggested in place of it?


----------



## Sussa

docvail said:


> I think we all agree that the products in question were designed for women to wear, but something about their design differentiates them from other products in the same category, enough to warrant a unique and at least somewhat-descriptive term, though how descriptive it truly is appears debatable. Perhaps it's only descriptive by way of inference - some aspect of the design typically associated with designs for men.


My problem with the "boyfriend" term used to describe a garment or accessory is 99% because I haven't seen what you say above to actually hold true when evaluating the cut, fit, etc. of something given that label. It seems meaningless. Here's a boyfriend cardigan from Gap. What design cues are derived from designs typically associated with men?









The other 1% of my beef is related - why can't any garment marketed to and worn by a woman just be a woman's garment? Men don't have the equivalent. Show me the "girlfriend" joggers for men. I once knew a man who preferred to buy women's jeans because the cut fit him better (this was when skinny jeans were all the rage). He would have really appreciated girlfriend jeans.

My comment about the term being heteronormative was mostly tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## docvail

Here's a thought experiment.

Take a look at this watch, posted earlier in the thread, by a woman:



KCZ said:


> View attachment 15774801


It's 36mm. Omega makes the same design in 41mm. At a glance, and if I didn't know its size, I don't see anything in the design of this watch which suggests it's for a man or a woman. Unlike so many "ladies" versions of men's watches, it's automatic, not quartz, and doesn't appear to be "dumbed down" in specs.

Now ask yourself these questions:

1. Does it make sense for the two versions of the watch, 36mm and 41mm, to be labeled the "ladies" version and the "men's" version, respectively?

I bet most people's reflexive answer will be "no". But now, ask yourself these questions:

2. Is the lack of gender-specific labels likely to lead more women to buy the 41mm version?

3. Is the lack of gender-specific labels likely to lead more men to buy the 36mm version?

My hunch is that the number of women buying the 41mm version wouldn't be affected by the lack of the "men's" label, but we might see more men buying the 36mm version if it's not labeled "ladies".

Now ask yourself these:

4. How does removing those labels help women?

5. Who does the removal of those labels really help?

It seems to me that unless and until the industry offers more and better choices for women, the removal of gender-specific product labels seems more likely to help men, and the industry (by way of selling more watches to men, not necessarily more watches to women).


----------



## fellini212

To the "boyfriend" thing:

- I think women in the first or second wave of feminism would object to the way the phrase foregrounds some undefined, unidentified man, rather than the woman who's actually making the purchase.

- I think it's problematic for people who are alone, by choice or by chance

- I think it's problematic for gay women

- I think it's an unnecessary irritant in this gender-fluid historic moment

- I think it's complicated and problematic to define a thing you might enjoy a size or two bigger than usual as the outcome of some romantic relationship, rather than simply a choice in a larger size, irrespective of some imaginary love narrative.

- What would any of us say if these things were called "husband watches"?


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> I really appreciate hearing from women in this thread. What I'm hearing isn't surprising to me. It aligns with what I've seen posted here before.
> 
> My takeaway is that women's tastes in watches encompass a broad, diverse range of sizes and styles, from quite small and feminine styles to larger yet typically more modestly sized (up to 38mm-ish) watches which aren't obviously "ladies" watches based on their style or size alone.
> 
> The issue for many women, especially collectors, is that there are very few under 38mm-40mm sporty-tool watches which aren't a bit insulting in their designs and marketing, and that many of the watches being marketed for woman are low-spec, lower quality, and very often overpriced quartz pieces.
> 
> I know the Swiss and Chinese movement manufacturers have some smaller size mechanical movements, but since I prefer to work with Japanese mechanical movements, I wanted to see if Miyota and Seiko had any smaller calibres available, which would enable a brand to make smaller pieces, not just 36mm-38mm, but something 10mm less, no bigger than the high 20's (mm).
> 
> Movements are typically listed in lignes, but there are charts to convert those dimensions to mm. We have to add something to their diameter as an estimate for what the movement spacer and case wall would add, in order to impute the minimum size of a watch using those movements.
> 
> So, a typical, three-hand mechanical movement you'd find in many men's watches would be 11"-12" (lignes, not inches). That converts to roughly 25mm-27mm. I think they would fit into a watch no larger than the low 30's (mm) range, depending on what sort of WR spec we want. More WR would typically drive the diameter upward.
> 
> Sadly, Miyota has zero smaller-diameter mechanical calibers, only quartz. Seiko has 4, but really just 2, since the only differences here are date only versus day/date. The NH15/NH16 is 10.5", or ~24mm. The NH05/NH06 is 7.75", or ~17.5mm. But there's a problem here - these smaller diameter movements are thicker than the larger diameter movements. All other things being equal, they'd force the watches to be thicker.
> 
> Looking at the websites of ETA and Sellita, the choices in movements clearly expand with the sizes. ETA has just 6 automatic calibres 10.5" or smaller, but 26 that are 11.5" or larger. But similar to Seiko, the differences appear to be minimal. Their two 7.75" calibres appear to be the same, with date vs day/date being the only difference. There doesn't appear to be any visible difference (on their face, at least), between their two 8.34" calibres. Also like Seiko, the smaller calibres tend to be a bit thicker than the larger calibres.
> 
> What does that mean? Well, the manufacturers developed those calibres over time, so we may be looking at the end-result of historical trends, suggesting men have historically been the primary market for watches. It may also be the case that shrinking the size of mechanical movements is impossible beyond a certain point, due to some components needing to be at least a certain size. I suspect that's why the smaller diameter movements are thicker - out of necessity. But that's well outside my scope of knowledge here.
> 
> All that said, and regardless of why it is, the fact is there aren't very many mechanical movements small enough to make a much smaller watch, much less a much smaller and much thinner watch.
> 
> And, given the fact that men seem to dominate both the industry and the market, and the trend towards larger humans and watch sizes, I don't foresee the situation changing. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.


I wonder how much of this has to do with the quartz revolution of the 1960s.

Obviously my mom's incredibly small 1950s Longines had a mechanical movement that fit a tiny, tiny case. Indescribably small to the eye of modern watch enthusiasts. Maybe the arrival of quartz interrupts continued development of those supersmall marvels.

Certainly the drive to bigger and bigger (men's) watches itself drove - and was later driven by - bigger mechanical movements. So we are where we are with regard to smaller automatics and hand winders.

But quartz can be made to fit anything. As the "fashion watch" side of the business shows.

Which also reflects the formula that women pay more and get less in almost every corner of the fashion business.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> My problem with the "boyfriend" term used to describe a garment or accessory is 99% because I haven't seen what you say above to actually hold true when evaluating the cut, fit, etc. of something given that label. It seems meaningless. Here's a boyfriend cardigan from Gap. What design cues are derived from designs typically associated with men?
> View attachment 15777904
> 
> 
> The other 1% of my beef is related - why can't any garment marketed to and worn by a woman just be a woman's garment? Men don't have the equivalent. Show me the "girlfriend" joggers for men. I once knew a man who preferred to buy women's jeans because the cut fit him better (this was when skinny jeans were all the rage). He would have really appreciated girlfriend jeans.
> 
> My comment about the term being heteronormative was mostly tongue-in-cheek.


You must have missed the part where I suggested the "boyfriend' term may not refer to the design of the garment, as if there's something about it which seems designed for a man, but it may mean the category of the garment is one which has traditionally been associated with men, such as "cardigan".

Cardigan sweaters, or any other product, if they are traditionally associated with men, but are now made specifically for and marketed to women, might benefit from the label "boyfriend" being added, if it helps the manufacturers more quickly and easily convey the message to women, "we took the man's cardigan and changed it to suit a woman's figure, style, and taste."

How is that wrong?

Even if the term seems meaningless initially, but takes on meaning from the context which is thus created, how is that wrong?

In the absence of such terms, companies would have a harder time conveying such messages, which would likely lead to fewer such products being made for women - i.e, women would have fewer choices.

The reason you don't see an analog within men's fashion is due to one of the many differences between men and women - what we deem "masculine" tends to be more rigidly and narrowly defined than what we deem "feminine".

Take a look at a staple of women's accessories - a bag, attached to a strap, worn over the shoulder. I think forum software has the popular term flagged due to spambots, but it rhymes with "hearse".

That's an accessory which is not only traditionally associated with women, most women apparently view it as 100% essential, and won't go anywhere without one.

Conversely, the closest male analog is the wallet.

Women have wallets too. They keep them in those bags. Men just stick their wallets in their pockets. Men's wallets tend to be smaller, and neutral colored. I bought my wife a hot-pink, enameled, reptile-skin-patterned wallet a couple years ago. It's almost as big as my college dorm room. My cargo pants with the biggest side pockets couldn't fit that thing in them.

If a man walks around with a bag, attached to a strap over his shoulder, you can bet another man will view it as a "man-bag" (the addition of "man" to "bag" suggesting it's something really intended for women), or the more snarky "murse", i.e, the "male" version of the common term for that particular ladie's accessory.

That's how language works. A male bimbo is a mimbo. The need to change the word to specify one gender shows that the original word is understood to apply exclusively to the opposite gender.

You don't have to like it, but that's reality. You can market that product to men all day long, but you'll go broke before you succeed in persuading the mainstream male's that it's a men's accessory.

Likewise, you can remove "boyfriend" as a term in ladies' apparel, but you're not really doing anything to help women. You're just punishing the companies that make those products for some imagined slight, and making it less likely those products will get made, which means fewer choices for women.

Ironically, fashion is one of the few industries with a higher percentage of business owners and executives are women. Punishing those companies seems like the opposite of what we want to do, if we truly want to help women.


----------



## mrv

Actually, women's cardigans is not a new concept, they were in fashion last time in the 80s - I know because I had one.  Though I don't remember how they were called then, the idea is definitely not new. Coincidentally, in the 80s men wore 'women's' pastel colors and androgynous look was in men's fashion, so maybe all these is just a fashion trend that came back, and we're putting too much significance into it?


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> To the "boyfriend" thing:
> 
> - I think women in the first or second wave of feminism would object to the way the phrase foregrounds some undefined, unidentified man, rather than the woman who's actually making the purchase.
> 
> - I think it's problematic for people who are alone, by choice or by chance
> 
> - I think it's problematic for gay women
> 
> - I think it's complicated and problematic to define a thing you might enjoy a size or two bigger than usual as the outcome of some romantic relationship, rather than simply a choice in a larger size, irrespective of some imaginary love narrative.
> 
> - What would would any of us say if these things were called "husband watches"?


Admittedly, "husband watch" strikes me as more patriarchal than "boyfriend watch".

But "boyfriend" and "husband" differ in more ways than the obvious difference in their literal meanings. There's a difference in the subtext each word suggests.

Husband evokes sober feelings - responsibility, maturity, monogamy, child-rearing, paying bills, decades of time passing, the occasional marital spat. Boyfriend just the opposite - youth, free-wheeling adventure, romance, a relationship that is more likely to be brief in duration, a lack of burdensome responsibility, and carefree sex.

Now apply that to women's fashion. Which word would make more commercial sense if we wanted to use it to be descriptive of a product? I imagine boyfriend is going to test better than husband, when the market testers do their thing, and ask women for their thoughts.

This goes back to my original argument, regarding the marketing of products. There's an undeniable value in using gender roles in product labeling and in how the products are marketed. It's a way for brands to evoke feelings they want people to associate with the product.

There's a reason models tend to be good-looking, much more slender than average, young, etc. It's not simply about flattering the product, it's about how we want to imagine ourselves. There's a reason Omega wanted Daniel Craig to be seen wearing a Seamaster. If he didn't play James Bond, they would have gotten the actor who did, because men want to feel like James Bond.

If you're seen driving the Batmobile, people on the street say, "Hey, there goes Batman". You don't need to be physically fit enough to fight criminals hand-to-hand. You're still Batman, if you're driving the Batmobile. Products, especially watches, are like avatars, miniature representations of the self, or like talismans, objects perceived to hold power.

Take away the gender labels, the product is unchanged, but for the sudden lack of those labels. All you've accomplished is taking away a descriptive term which evokes more than just that term's literal meaning.

If you go a step further, and pressure businesses to avoid marketing which suggests a gender role, you've just made it that much more difficult for the brands to convey important meaning to the intended customer.

That doesn't help the majority of customers. Women aren't helped if we remove the "ladies" label from watches, but it seems men might be. It also seems like men want this more than women do, which stands to reason.

But, seriously, gentlemen - it's not about you. Who cares if you're offended by the use of the term "boyfriend" in women's fashion, if women aren't unsettled by it?

I'm all for being inclusive of the men who don't want to be stigmatized for wearing a "ladies" watch, so long as we don't end up neglecting what actual women want, or neglect to think about how we treat them, by way of the products we design for them, and how we communicate with them about those products.


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> You must have missed the part where I suggested the "boyfriend' term may not refer to the design of the garment, as if there's something about it which seems designed for a man, but it may mean the category of the garment is one which has traditionally been associated with men, such as "cardigan".
> 
> Cardigan sweaters, or any other product, if they are traditionally associated with men, but are now made specifically for and marketed to women, might benefit from the label "boyfriend" being added, if it helps the manufacturers more quickly and easily convey the message to women, "we took the man's cardigan and changed it to suit a woman's figure, style, and taste."
> 
> How is that wrong?
> 
> Even if the term seems meaningless initially, but takes on meaning from the context which is thus created, how is that wrong?
> 
> In the absence of such terms, companies would have a harder time conveying such messages, which would likely lead to fewer such products being made for women - i.e, women would have fewer choices.
> 
> The reason you don't see an analog within men's fashion is due to one of the many differences between men and women - what we deem "masculine" tends to be more rigidly and narrowly defined than what we deem "feminine".
> 
> Take a look at a staple of women's accessories - a bag, attached to a strap, worn over the shoulder. I think forum software has the popular term flagged due to spambots, but it rhymes with "hearse".
> 
> That's an accessory which is not only traditionally associated with women, most women apparently view it as 100% essential, and won't go anywhere without one.
> 
> Conversely, the closest male analog is the wallet.
> 
> Women have wallets too. They keep them in those bags. Men just stick their wallets in their pockets. Men's wallets tend to be smaller, and neutral colored. I bought my wife a hot-pink, enameled, reptile-skin-patterned wallet a couple years ago. It's almost as big as my college dorm room. My cargo pants with the biggest side pockets couldn't fit that thing in them.
> 
> If a man walks around with a bag, attached to a strap over his shoulder, you can bet another man will view it as a "man-bag" (the addition of "man" to "bag" suggesting it's something really intended for women), or the more snarky "murse", i.e, the "male" version of the common term for that particular ladie's accessory.
> 
> That's how language works. A male bimbo is a mimbo. The need to change the word to specify one gender shows that the original word is understood to apply exclusively to the opposite gender.
> 
> You don't have to like it, but that's reality. You can market that product to men all day long, but you'll go broke before you succeed in persuading the mainstream male's that it's a men's accessory.
> 
> Likewise, you can remove "boyfriend" as a term in ladies' apparel, but you're not really doing anything to help women. You're just punishing the companies that make those products for some imagined slight, and making it less likely those products will get made, which means fewer choices for women.
> 
> Ironically, fashion is one of the few industries with a higher percentage of business owners and executives are women. Punishing those companies seems like the opposite of what we want to do, if we truly want to help women.


The CEO of Jaeger-LeCoultre is a woman. I wonder what that might mean for women's watches from that line. The Reverso is already a pretty perfect "unisex" (sorry) watch.

Which maybe highlights another part of this discussion: Is the revolution in women's watches (if necessary or desireable) going to come from the top of the price list or the bottom? From Rolex or from Timex? Or from the microbrands?


----------



## mrv

I don't know if men buy Seamaster because they want to feel like Jame Bond, but I don't think women buy Constellation because they want to feel like Cindy Crawford (or whoever advertises it now). Women buy Constellations because they are beautiful, comfortable, and prestigious. They know they are not Cindy and it will not make them look like Cindy.


----------



## docvail

mrv said:


> I don't know if men buy Seamaster because they want to feel like Jame Bond, but I don't think women buy Constellation because they want to feel like Cindy Crawford (or whoever advertises it now). Women buy Constellations because they are beautiful, comfortable, and prestigious. They know they are not Cindy and it will not make them look like Cindy.


Are you saying I'm _NOT_ James Bond?

Now I'm offended.



This message isn't angry, that's just my thumbs typing furiously.


----------



## docvail

mrv said:


> I don't know if men buy Seamaster because they want to feel like Jame Bond, but I don't think women buy Constellation because they want to feel like Cindy Crawford (or whoever advertises it now). Women buy Constellations because they are beautiful, comfortable, and prestigious. They know they are not Cindy and it will not make them look like Cindy.


In all seriousness, Daniel Craig as James Bond, when seen in a product ad, is deliberately meant to evoke feelings in men. We're supposed to aspire to being that sort of man, capable of engaging in swashbuckling feats of dering-do.

Likewise, it isn't an accident Cindy Crawford is in a Constellation ad. She was specifically chosen, rather than some other woman, because of how women view her. Omega probably focus-grouped the hell out of that one, to make sure they didn't pick the woman who would backfire on them, because women don't view her as positively.

This message isn't angry, that's just my thumbs typing furiously.


----------



## KCZ

mrv said:


> I totally agree. As a woman, I hate everything labeled "unisex", because it's usually ugly, heavy, bulky, and not feminine. I don't want to look like a man, or look like I got a hand-me down old watch from my husband because he can't afford to buy me a real women's one. I'm 5'6" and have 6 1/2" wrist, my watches are usually 24-26 mm, nothing ever more than 32 mm with crown. I love smaller, really feminine watches 20 mm or even less - they look awesome on the wrist, are lightweight, comfortable, and elegant. No men's watch would do that!! Men's watches are too heavy and their center of gravity is in the wrong place for a woman, so they constantly slide off the top side of my wrist, plus I get carpal tunnel syndrome just from wearing anything heavier than 50-60 gram (men's watches can be 100 gram or more, especially mechanical). Even when a men's watch is lightweight and flat, it's still won't sit right on a small wrist (and believe me, I tried men's Constellations and Raymond Weil pieces, and it was awful, they are simply not made for a woman). The only brand that used to make beautiful feminine watches used to be Omega's Constellations, but now even they are bulkier and uglier. I don't blame them because ugly is in fashion now and they need to sell watches, but I stopped buying them, while I have several from the 80s-90s. Ebel is more or less OK too, but they are not as comfortable and kind of all the same.


I'm 5'10" and have a not-quite 7" wrist. All these heavy men's watches just spin around on my wrist unless I adjust a strap uncomfortably tightly. I think maybe women have a rounder wrist compared to men and watches tend to spin more, so the heavier they are, the more apt they are to spin.



one onety-one said:


> Interesting that Hublot would market a watch as gender neutral, not in blue, green, red, cream, gold, grey, but in the most traditional of feminine colors - pink. Come on guys, _get with the program_.


Aaarrrrggggghhhhhhh! Women on here frequently complain that we only get blue and pink as colors, and we beg for offerings in red, yellow, orange, green, teal, purple. Now Hublot is going to make unisex watches for us and they're giving us pink. How is this supposed to improve watch selections for women?



docvail said:


> I really appreciate hearing from women in this thread. What I'm hearing isn't surprising to me. It aligns with what I've seen posted here before.
> 
> My takeaway is that women's tastes in watches encompass a broad, diverse range of sizes and styles, from quite small and feminine styles to larger yet typically more modestly sized (up to 38mm-ish) watches which aren't obviously "ladies" watches based on their style or size alone.
> 
> The issue for many women, especially collectors, is that there are very few under 38mm-40mm sporty-tool watches which aren't a bit insulting in their designs and marketing, and that many of the watches being marketed for woman are low-spec, lower quality, and very often overpriced quartz pieces...


We do have to remember that the women here and their views probably represent a small fraction of watch-wearing women. While we're voicing our complaints, there are plenty of women out there buying Fossil watches.



docvail said:


> Apropos of this thread, this landed in my inbox 2 hours ago...
> 
> View attachment 15777812
> 
> 
> There's so much to unpack here...
> 
> First, I read the entire email, twice, and didn't see any mention of this being a "man's" watch, nor are there any images of the watch being worn by a man, or even on any human wrist. There's nothing in the text to suggest a gender for the intended customer....
> 
> Whether or not and why women would or should care about how those men feel, I can't say. My hunch is most women here wouldn't care, and would rather just see more choices in watches aimed at women, with smaller sizes, better designs, and less sexist innuendo in either the design or the marketing.


Christopher Ward stopped making women's watches, or at least watches in women's sizes, a decade ago. They currently have 2 models in their "small" category and both are 38mm. The idea that their watches are gender-neutral is ludicrous.



docvail said:


> Unisex is worse, in my opinion, for various reasons.
> 
> I've never heard anyone self-identify as "unisex". Not even someone who is non-binary. Unisex is a label which suggests a product bland enough to satisfy everyone, but not distinctive enough to truly thrill anyone.
> 
> My marketing guy and I have an unofficial motto - I'd rather be someone's shot of whisky than everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> Boyfriend watch is derivative of boyfriend jeans, both part of a trend in women's fashion - women wearing products with a size or fit that suggests they were made for a man, but in fact were meant for a woman. The underlying suggested narrative is that she "borrowed" her boyfriend's jeans, or watch.
> 
> It would be interesting (to me at least) to see how women react to those sorts of terms and products, based on their age. The first time I heard the "boyfriend" term in fashion was from my younger nieces, in their 20's at the time. I'm pretty sure my mother, now in her early 70's, was oblivious. I can't remember if my wife (40's) knew it already when that discussion was happening (which was another in which the women in my life wanted to talk to me about the watches I was making).
> 
> Clearly, the younger women didn't find the term, or the underlying suggestions offensive or insulting. But I wonder if more mature women might.
> 
> While we might think of women my mother's age as being more conservative, dowdy, or more likely to defer to the men in their lives, we should remember women that age were at the forefront of the women's movement, the generation which wanted to "ban the bra", the first generation of women who aspired to be more than housewives and mothers. My mother was a force of nature, not to be messed with, well into her 60's.





fellini212 said:


> To the "boyfriend" thing:
> 
> - I think women in the first or second wave of feminism would object to the way the phrase foregrounds some undefined, unidentified man, rather than the woman who's actually making the purchase.
> 
> - I think it's problematic for people who are alone, by choice or by chance
> 
> - I think it's problematic for gay women
> 
> - I think it's an unnecessary irritant in this gender-fluid historic moment
> 
> - I think it's complicated and problematic to define a thing you might enjoy a size or two bigger than usual as the outcome of some romantic relationship, rather than simply a choice in a larger size, irrespective of some imaginary love narrative.
> 
> - What would any of us say if these things were called "husband watches"?


The "boyfriend" label goes back to the early 80's with boyfriend jackets, which had broad shoulders and were cut very straight. The term wasn't terribly popular at the time because it was felt to define a woman in terms of her relationship to a man, much like "Mrs." does, another label that had fallen out of favor.

This is way outside the scope of this watch discussion, but there's a theory that Gen X and Millennial women are not particularly cognizant of the struggles that earlier generations of feminists underwent to obtain equal pay, equal rights, etc, and that younger women are not as vigilant about maintaining those things. Therefore things like "boyfriend" this and that are acceptable.

Personally, I don't know if I'd buy a "boyfriend" watch. It's a label that strays a little too far into offensive territory for me. Let's name some of these watches as "girlfriend" and see if men will buy them.


----------



## Sussa

docvail said:


> Cardigan sweaters, or any other product, if they are traditionally associated with men, but are now made specifically for and marketed to women, might benefit from the label "boyfriend" being added, if it helps the manufacturers more quickly and easily convey the message to women, "we took the man's cardigan and changed it to suit a woman's figure, style, and taste."
> 
> How is that wrong?


It's fundamentally wrong, if that's the intention of the "boyfriend" label (and I disagree that it is). How are jeans, sweaters/jumpers, and button-up shirts traditionally menswear? How far back in the history of fashion do we need to go to find that tradition? Why are there boyfriend and non-boyfriend options if this is the intent?

You keep asking who is hurt by gender categories. Who is helped? Who would struggle to find a watch they like if not for the gender label?

Language evolves. Asking people or companies to evolve their language or how they think about their customers isn't punishing anyone. Aside from some egregious cases, I can't think of companies that were boycotted because they weren't inclusive enough. Even if there are examples of that happening, there's likely a flipside case where a company was boycotted for being too inclusive.

If it's not abundantly clear by now, I'm in favor of less gendered language whenever possible. The more we use discrete terms to refer to the same thing, the more we open the door to treat those things differently. Sometimes, there's a good reason to treat things differently. Sometimes, there's not. A periodic examination of whether or not something is different enough to warrant separate treatment is just good practice.


----------



## mrv

docvail said:


> In all seriousness, Daniel Craig as James Bond, when seen in a product ad, is deliberately meant to evoke feelings in men. We're supposed to aspire to being that sort of man, capable of engaging in swashbuckling feats of dering-do.
> 
> Likewise, it isn't an accident Cindy Crawford is in a Constellation ad. She was specifically chosen, rather than some other woman, because of how women view her. Omega probably focus-grouped the hell out of that one, to make sure they didn't pick the woman who would backfire on them, because women don't view her as positively.
> 
> This message isn't angry, that's just my thumbs typing furiously.


I understand that these were marketing decisions, and they chose the most popular public figures at that time, but really??? Does anybody really takes celebrity endorsements serious anymore?? And especially when they are based on fictitious characters? I thought people use more practical reasoning when they spend thousands of dollars on a watch (unless they are watch collectors of course, and then all practical reasoning goes out of the window )



Sussa said:


> It's fundamentally wrong, if that's the intention of the "boyfriend" label (and I disagree that it is). How are jeans, sweaters/jumpers, and button-up shirts traditionally menswear? How far back in the history of fashion do we need to go to find that tradition? Why are there boyfriend and non-boyfriend options if this is the intent?
> 
> You keep asking who is hurt by gender categories. Who is helped? Who would struggle to find a watch they like if not for the gender label?
> 
> Language evolves. Asking people or companies to evolve their language or how they think about their customers isn't punishing anyone. Aside from some egregious cases, I can't think of companies that were boycotted because they weren't inclusive enough. Even if there are examples of that happening, there's likely a flipside case where a company was boycotted for being too inclusive.
> 
> If it's not abundantly clear by now, I'm in favor of less gendered language whenever possible. The more we use discrete terms to refer to the same thing, the more we open the door to treat those things differently. Sometimes, there's a good reason to treat things differently. Sometimes, there's not. A periodic examination of whether or not something is different enough to warrant separate treatment is just good practice.


I personally wouldn't care how a company calls anything, if it's a good quality, has reasonable price, and I like it. I object to companies deceiving women and trying to make them buy and wear men's stuff just because it's easier for them to sell it this way. By calling something 'unisex' they imply that it's suitable for a woman too, but it's not, so it's simply a lie. If they were honest and said something like 'this is a smaller version of a men's stuff just in case if you like to wear this sort of thing", it wouldn't have been offensive, and at least it would have been honest. But of course, it wouldn't have been very marketable, because it sounds like for this company women are second-class consumers, since they don't care making anything specifically for them.

It was a revelation for me from the earlier post of docvail that major watch companies nowadays simply don't make small mechanical movements anymore, suitable for women's watches of a smaller size. Because I have a collection of vintage mechanical woman's watches, it seemed to me it has never been a problem before, since some of them has movements like 10mm in size. I guess when quartz watches became wide-spread, women stopped wearing mechanical, because quartz is definitely better for a modern woman's busy life. Usually, women are not really collectors, who like to sit down and and admire their watches, and spend time on their cleaning, polishing, winding, setting, servicing, and talking about them. Women simply don't have time to wind their watches every day, and of course, keep in mind their regular cleaning and servicing schedule, they are simply too busy with work and home responsibilities (and this is the major reason why my mechanical collection sits in a pretty jewelry box instead of being on my wrist ) So, I wish companies make more interesting and quality quartz watches for women, but it looks like, men who run these companies don't believe that quartz watches are worth making, probably since they are not high-end enough?


----------



## one onety-one

Sussa said:


> You keep asking who is hurt by gender categories. Who is helped? Who would struggle to find a watch they like if not for the gender label?
> 
> Language evolves. Asking people or companies to evolve their language or how they think about their customers isn't punishing anyone. Aside from some egregious cases, I can't think of companies that were boycotted because they weren't inclusive enough. Even if there are examples of that happening, there's likely a flipside case where a company was boycotted for being too inclusive.


When asked or pressured to change/eliminate gender categories, it's only natural for the question of why to come up. Who is helped by gender categories? Well, I mentioned in a previous post that I have found the shopping experience is much better when watches are organized in traditional gender categories, both in-person and on-line. I'm always only a few steps, or a click away from looking at women's watches, if I so desire. I think I am hardly an outlier with this perspective. Is that not reason enough to question why this particular categorization should be changed?


----------



## mrv

Eliminating gender categories will always hurt women, because they'll have to browse through pages and pages of useless men's and 'unisex' stuff just to came in the end to a miniscule selection of things made specifically for them. It would be a huge waste of their shopping time. If they want to make something for people of other genders or whatever, why don't they make specific categories for them, instead of taking away woman's stuff??? It would be super offensive and disrespecful for a woman to be left without merchandise made specifically for her, it's like she doesn't count anymore and is being replaced with a weird 'genderless' male-sized person??? Or is it the reason is that those weird 'genderless' people don't want to be called 'the third sex' or whatever??? Well, didn't they wanted this recognition in the first place??


----------



## one onety-one

mrv said:


> I understand that these were marketing decisions, and they chose the most popular public figures at that time,* but really??? Does anybody really takes celebrity endorsements serious anymore??* And especially when they are based on fictitious characters? I thought people use more practical reasoning when they spend thousands of dollars on a watch (unless they are watch collectors of course, and then all practical reasoning goes out of the window )


The short answer is: Yes. People often like to claim media/marketing is either inert, or influential depending on what side of an argument they are taking. Media and marketing are not only reflections of society, but influencers as well. Celebrity endorsement is part of that. It is a multi-billion dollar industry, because it works.


----------



## one onety-one

mrv said:


> Eliminating gender categories will always hurt women, because they'll have to browse through pages and pages of useless men's and 'unisex' stuff just to came in the end to a miniscule selection of things made specifically for them. It would be a huge waste of their shopping time. If they want to make something for people of other genders or whatever, why don't they make specific categories for them, instead of taking away woman's stuff??? It would be super offensive and disrespecful for a woman to be left without merchandise made specifically for her, it's like it doesn't count anymore and was being replaced with a weird 'genderless' male-sized person???


Agree. I don't think men appreciate it much either.


----------



## Sussa

I'm at a loss for how we're stuck in this notion that if gender labels are removed from products it will mean:

No manufacturer will bother making traditionally feminine designs anymore
All products will be displayed chaotically, because there are no other identifiers or classifications available



one onety-one said:


> Well, I mentioned in a previous post that I have found the shopping experience is much better when watches are organized in traditional gender categories, both in-person and on-line.


And I mentioned having a harder time finding watches I want when things are organized by gender, so our sample size of 2 is a tie. Genuinely curious if there's market research on the subject, but not curious enough to actually search for it right now.

Real quick for anyone who keeps referring to men's watches and women's watches: could you define both, please?


----------



## one onety-one

Sussa said:


> I'm at a loss for how we're stuck in this notion that if gender labels are removed from products it will mean:
> 
> No manufacturer will bother making traditionally feminine designs anymore
> All products will be displayed chaotically, because there are no other identifiers or classifications available


I'm not sure the inferences from the bullet points accurately reflect prevailing views, or even the views expressed in this thread.



> And I mentioned having a harder time finding watches I want when things are organized by gender, so our sample size of 2 is a tie. Genuinely curious if there's market research on the subject, but not curious enough to actually search for it right now.
> 
> Real quick for anyone who keeps referring to men's watches and women's watches: could you define both, please?


You had a harder time than what? Can you give examples of watch shopping experiences which you found easier where the product wasn't organized by gender? I'm sure you realize that when shopping for watches on-line, you can organize results by a variety of criteria; gender, size, movement, color, style, functions, etc.

I haven't seen a compelling argument for removing any gender references in the marketing of watches. Gender just happens to be one of several ways of marketing and organizing the product. There may be other methods which compliment or replace that method. I think the market can do a pretty good job of identifying what methods work well.


----------



## fellini212

one onety-one said:


> The short answer is: Yes. People often like to claim media/marketing is either inert, or influential depending on what side of an argument they are taking. Media and marketing are not only reflections of society, but influencers as well. Celebrity endorsement is part of that. It is a multi-billion dollar industry, *because it works*.


"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don't know which half."

- John Wanamaker


----------



## Sussa

one onety-one said:


> I'm not sure the inferences from the bullet points accurately reflect prevailing views, or even the views expressed in this thread.


A few people have said that removing gendered labels from the products would result in fewer options for women. Is that actually intended to mean women can't find a product they're looking for if it's not labeled for them? Or they'll assume it's for men if it's not labeled for them? I thought I was taking a more generous, less insulting interpretation of the prevailing view.



one onety-one said:


> You had a harder time than what? Can you give examples of watch shopping experiences which you found easier where the product wasn't organized by gender?


Positive shopping experiences: Ashford.com. I think they have a great search and filter system - case size, case shape, dial color. You can even filter by gender if you want, but you're not forced into it.

Negative shopping experience (with some bad UX tossed in for good measure): Nordstromrack.com. Their main menu has a Watches category, with subcategories of Women and Men. All three are clickable links. You'd think clicking on Watches would take you to all watches, right? Nope. Just Women's.

Second negative experience for good measure: Casio.com. Three categories to view all G-shocks: G-Shock, Women's, Baby-G. No overlap between the three. On the Casio outlet site, even if I choose "All G-Shock" in their main nav, I'm still not shown the items categorized under Women's or Baby-G.

Just give people an option to truly view all rather than forcing categorization. It's not that hard.


----------



## Sussa

I was trying to think of an analogous experience to understand if fashion needs to be segregated by gender. The closest thing I could think of, at least in terms of watches, is automobiles. What vehicle you drive can affect how people perceive you, can be intended to project a certain image to the world. There are aesthetic and fit considerations - your height, short or tall, may make it difficult to even get in a vehicle. There are certainly perceptions about what's a man's vehicle and what's a woman's vehicle. But car lots, and car manufacturer websites, are not organized by gender. Why not? Does that make vehicle shopping harder or easier?


----------



## fellini212

Sussa said:


> I was trying to think of an analogous experience to understand if fashion needs to be segregated by gender. The closest thing I could think of, at least in terms of watches, is automobiles. What vehicle you drive can affect how people perceive you, can be intended to project a certain image to the world. There are aesthetic and fit considerations - your height, short or tall, may make it difficult to even get in a vehicle. There are certainly perceptions about what's a man's vehicle and what's a woman's vehicle. But car lots, and car manufacturer websites, are not organized by gender. Why not? Does that make vehicle shopping harder or easier?


Worth noting here that for many years cars and trucks were _advertised _that way.







Or this old Ford truck pitch.






So, _Even A Woman Can Drive It _was an ad category.

To say nothing of ads like this one: also directed at men, and in which the subtext/punchline is understood to be 'women are _comically_ terrible drivers.'


----------



## KCZ

Sussa said:


> Real quick for anyone who keeps referring to men's watches and women's watches: could you define both, please?


I'll take a shot at this, using "quality" watches whose market would be watch enthusiasts like WUS members. I acknowledge that fashion watches meet different criteria.

This is what I see when I look at "men's" and "women's" watches. Note that the only criteria that actually reflect biological differences are sizes. The others are due to social norms, marketing, etc.

Mens:

More models compared to women's offerings.
More offerings with automatics
Usually 38mm and above. 
Thicker and heavier watches.
Wider and longer straps and bracelets which may be difficult to size by/for women.
Pretty standard case shapes.
Wider color selection, particularly in divers
Better guilloche.
Much, much better complication offerings, possibly due to size requirements of movements.
Less bling.
Womens:

Fewer models compared to men's watches.
Mostly quartz.
Usually 36mm or below. Recently 38-40-42-44mm models have appeared, but mostly in fashion watches.
Thinner and lighter watches.
Narrower and shorter straps and bracelets which may be difficult to size by/for men. 
Dearth of aftermarket bracelets in women's sizes.
More unusual case shapes...oval, cat's eye, tonneau, Bulgari, etc.
Color selection usually limited to blue and pink. (White, black and grey are not colors.)
More decorations like flowers and butterflies. 
Good guilloche is rarer, replaced by MOP.
Complication watches are rarer, although more moonphase watches have appeared in the last few years, but just try to find a dual/world time watch.
More bling, sometimes pushing the watch into the jewelry category. 
Then there are elusive styling cues. Men's watches tend to be chunkier, women's watches are prettier. Men's watches can have tan leather straps, women's come in rose gold. I don't know why those things are that way. Or maybe men wear men's watches and women wear women's watches.

What I do know is that when I start looking at display cases, I can't wear the "men's" watches because they're too big and heavy. That means I also can't buy a green diver, or a world time watch, or a watch with a leather strap because I can't wear those and unless the dealer can find me a bracelet, it's a no go. I admit to once buying an Invicta because I otherwise couldn't get what I wanted in a watch. Women's choices are just fewer unless we want a big watch. I don't see how the current proposal that all watches should be unisex or genderless helps with women's choices unless manufacturers plan to offer unisex watches in 28-36mm sizes.


----------



## KCZ

Sussa said:


> I was trying to think of an analogous experience to understand if fashion needs to be segregated by gender. The closest thing I could think of, at least in terms of watches, is automobiles. What vehicle you drive can affect how people perceive you, can be intended to project a certain image to the world. There are aesthetic and fit considerations - your height, short or tall, may make it difficult to even get in a vehicle. There are certainly perceptions about what's a man's vehicle and what's a woman's vehicle. But car lots, and car manufacturer websites, are not organized by gender. Why not? Does that make vehicle shopping harder or easier?


Genderless clothing means women with small boobs and narrow hips get to wear clothing cut for men, witnessed by "boyfriend" jackets and pants. Men are never going to wear clothing cut for women, regardless of the style, nor are they going to settle for pants and sleeves that are too short, pants with no pockets, darts, tummy control panels, spandex, or all the other things that currently afflict women's clothing.


----------



## dirtvictim

docvail said:


> Are you saying I'm _NOT_ James Bond?
> 
> Now I'm offended.
> 
> 
> 
> This message isn't angry, that's just my thumbs typing furiously.


No you are not, just ask my barista what my name is.


----------



## toddies68

I find it hard to say anything positive about Clymer and the Hodinkee bunch so I will just be quiet.


----------



## Sussa

KCZ said:


> Genderless clothing means women with small boobs and narrow hips get to wear clothing cut for men, witnessed by "boyfriend" jackets and pants. Men are never going to wear clothing cut for women, regardless of the style, nor are they going to settle for pants and sleeves that are too short, pants with no pockets, darts, tummy control panels, spandex, or all the other things that currently afflict women's clothing.


I don't know why I'm having such a hard time communicating what I mean. I'm just talking about removing the labels, not changing anything about what is made or how something is made, what fits are available, what measurements are available. Just no gendered labels. I'm not expecting us all to walk around in potato sacks (unless that's your thing - then you do you). Maybe we'd finally get decent-sized pockets if there's even a remote chance that a man would buy the pants. Maybe men would actually buy pants that fit if they had more options and less stigma with labels.


----------



## one onety-one

Sussa said:


> A few people have said that removing gendered labels from the products would result in fewer options for women. Is that actually intended to mean women can't find a product they're looking for if it's not labeled for them? Or they'll assume it's for men if it's not labeled for them? I thought I was taking a more generous, less insulting interpretation of the prevailing view.
> 
> Positive shopping experiences: Ashford.com. I think they have a great search and filter system - case size, case shape, dial color. You can even filter by gender if you want, but you're not forced into it.
> 
> Negative shopping experience (with some bad UX tossed in for good measure): Nordstromrack.com. Their main menu has a Watches category, with subcategories of Women and Men. All three are clickable links. You'd think clicking on Watches would take you to all watches, right? Nope. Just Women's.
> 
> Second negative experience for good measure: Casio.com. Three categories to view all G-shocks: G-Shock, Women's, Baby-G. No overlap between the three. On the Casio outlet site, even if I choose "All G-Shock" in their main nav, I'm still not shown the items categorized under Women's or Baby-G.
> 
> Just give people an option to truly view all rather than forcing categorization. It's not that hard.


I notice Ashford, right on their homepage menu banner categorizes by gender; Men's Watches and Women's Watches. Nordstrom Rack is odd in that "Watches" takes you to women's watches only, but I found it easy to click back to men's and vise-versa. And I'm not surprised to see criticism of Casio's website. I remember it being thoroughly unenjoyable. Does anyone like their site?

The "issues" as they exist, seem more like poor website design more than anything to do with gender categories or gender norms.


----------



## Bird-Dog

Gee, why don't we remove all those confusing outdated labels in the deli. Then maybe people who want ham would learn to like turkey. Because... hmm... well... ah... because I want them to eat turkey instead of ham!

This whole argument about watches or clothes is just as silly. Men who want to wear women's clothing do. Women who want to look like a man do. They are rarely fooling anyone besides themselves, though. 

If a woman wants to wear a larger watch designed for a man, chances are she can find it by shopping in the men's watch section (or vice versa).

We do not need to restructure the whole world. There are reasons it is the way it is!


----------



## TgeekB

Bird-Dog said:


> We do not need to restructure the whole world. There are reasons it is the way it is!


The reasons it is the way it is is because humans decided to make it that way, not because there's some universal law. We can change it anytime we want.

As far as watches, I know the Apple watch comes in more than one size. Are they labelled men's or women's?

I have several vintage watches and it's interesting that "men's" watches used to be much smaller. I believe that shows we change our standards over time to adjust to whatever the current culture dictates. The world is restructuring constantly.


----------



## Bird-Dog

TgeekB said:


> The reasons it is the way it is is because humans decided to make it that way, not because there's some universal law. We can change it anytime we want.


Or we can leave it the way it is because... it works!


----------



## fellini212

That it works for _you _doesn't mean it works for everyone.


----------



## KCZ

Bird-Dog said:


> Gee, why don't we remove all those confusing outdated labels in the deli. Then maybe people who want ham would learn to like turkey. Because... hmm... well... ah... because I want them to eat turkey instead of ham!
> 
> This whole argument about watches or clothes is just as silly. Men who want to wear women's clothing do. Women who want to look like a man do. They are rarely fooling anyone besides themselves, though.
> 
> If a woman wants to wear a larger watch designed for a man, chances are she can find it by shopping in the men's watch section (or vice versa).
> 
> We do not need to restructure the whole world. There are reasons it is the way it is!


The problem is that the current watch system is separate but not equal. If a woman wants a green watch, she has no choice but to buy a huge men's watch. Why can't women have green watches in women's sizes?

I remain skeptical that restructuring so watches are no longer separate will let women become any more equal. If we want to buy a green watch, it will still be sized for a man, just relabeled as unisex.


----------



## Dec1968

KCZ said:


> Or maybe men wear men's watches and women wear women's watches.


This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## fellini212

KCZ said:


> The problem is that the current watch system is separate but not equal. If a woman wants a green watch, she has no choice but to buy a huge men's watch. Why can't women have green watches in women's sizes?
> 
> I remain skeptical that restructuring so watches are no longer separate will let women become any more equal. If we want to buy a green watch, it will still be sized for a man, just relabeled as unisex.


It isn't just a question of marketing, or labeling.

I asked this question of a friend the other day: Should there be a 34 mm Submariner? Or 32? Or 30? Or an Explorer, or a Seamaster, or a Speedy, in what we think of as women's sizes?

I understand the restrictions imposed by readily available movements, but as a thought experiment: would the men's classics like those sell if they were scaled to women's wrists?


----------



## TgeekB

Bird-Dog said:


> Or we can leave it the way it is because... it works!


Works for who, you? I have news for you, there's a big wide world out there with a wide variety of "works".

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


----------



## docvail

KCZ said:


> We do have to remember that the women here and their views probably represent a small fraction of watch-wearing women. While we're voicing our complaints, there are plenty of women out there buying Fossil watches.


Understood, and agreed, that female enthusiasts likely have different tastes than non-enthusiasts, just like men. I think the women in my life are probably more representative of those non-enthusiasts than women here.

The Hodinkee post has shown that there are different views among enthusiasts, though, which shouldn't be surprising, really, as male enthusiasts aren't monolithic in their views either.

I'd really like to know what portion of the industry's sales are from enthusiasts (of any gender) versus non-enthusiasts. No doubt the non-enthusiasts outnumber the rest of us, but I would bet there are certain segments / categories which might not exist but for sales to enthusiasts, and if so, then I think it's important for the industry to take enthusiasts' tastes into account.

Ms. Barret and the other female members of the watch blogosphere (within which I include any women doing podcasts about watches, or who may have YouTube channels dedicated to watches) clearly see the same challenges female members of this forum do, vis-a-vis, the comparatively fewer choices of watches in smaller sizes, and the industry's habit of creating watches which are a bit stereotypical in how they attempt to convey femininity, which I think I'd find insulting, too.

I guess I'm just overly solution-oriented when it comes to how I view various problems, and I see a move to make all watches "unisex" as not really addressing those issues. I think the real solution lies in the industry seeking ways to increase the variety in case sizes being produced, and to do a better job understanding the desires of modern women.



KCZ said:


> Christopher Ward stopped making women's watches, or at least watches in women's sizes, a decade ago. They currently have 2 models in their "small" category and both are 38mm. The idea that their watches are gender-neutral is ludicrous.


I hope I didn't sound like I was suggesting the CW was a woman's watch. At 42mm, it certainly wouldn't appear to be. My point was really that despite no explicit indication of it being "for a man", and despite the use of the term "Ombre" in the name, which I think would be more recognizable to women (generally), the lack of gender-labeling doesn't make the watch any more appealing to women.

I didn't make this point, but I think it speaks to the sub-topic of "ease of shopping experience" - any women who click on the link in that email are likely to be wasting their time. I hadn't really thought much about whether or not gender-labeling and / or segregating watches within displays makes searching for watches easier for anyone, but separating watches by their intended customer's gender wouldn't seem to make it any harder.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> It's fundamentally wrong, if that's the intention of the "boyfriend" label (and I disagree that it is). How are jeans, sweaters/jumpers, and button-up shirts traditionally menswear? How far back in the history of fashion do we need to go to find that tradition? Why are there boyfriend and non-boyfriend options if this is the intent?


Yeah, I feel like you're avoiding the questions I ask, and not really reading what I've actually said, in order to argue against something I haven't.

There are many articles of clothing or accessories which were originally associated with one or the other sex. To identify any item as being made specifically for the opposite sex, the sex not traditionally associated with that item, there needs to be some language to inform the consumer that the product is different from its predecessors. Calling a cardigan sweater a "boyfriend cardigan" is no more "wrong" than Elaine's "Urban Sombrero" in Seinfeld.



Sussa said:


> You keep asking who is hurt by gender categories. Who is helped? Who would struggle to find a watch they like if not for the gender label?


I don't think I have asked who is "hurt" by gender categories. but it seems to be no one, really. At least not women, which was the main point of the thread, and the Hodinkee article (unless it wasn't).

It appears maybe men are hurt because watches they like are labeled "ladies watches". But how often is that happening, really?

Are watches being labeled "ladies" only for being smaller size, or is that "ladies" label reserved for designs which are not just smaller, but clearly effeminate?

I don't want to dismiss the hurt those men feel, but I do think it's worth asking what the impact will be on women if we do away with the gender-labels entirely, since women are already underserved by the watch industry as it is

What I actually asked is who is helped by the removal of gender labels. Removing gender labels from clothing and accessories like watches almost always benefits men more than women, and I daresay that would be true for watches, as well, since it would remove the stigma of a man wearing a woman's watch, but wouldn't necessarily increase the choices for women, or increase women's interest in the choices now, or later.



Sussa said:


> Language evolves. Asking people or companies to evolve their language or how they think about their customers isn't punishing anyone. Aside from some egregious cases, I can't think of companies that were boycotted because they weren't inclusive enough. Even if there are examples of that happening, there's likely a flipside case where a company was boycotted for being too inclusive.


Again, you've neglected to actually read what I've posted, choosing instead to make a straw-man argument.

Boycotts were never the main point. Effective marketing and communication with customers was the point. Imagine selling something which is meant for a person, of any gender, or any race, or of any age, or of any demographic quality you can think up, but not being able to communicate those qualities of the target customer to those target customers, because a group of busy-bodies deemed it to be offensive when you do that.

How is it offensive to market eldercare services to the elderly, or hair care products designed for POC's hair to POC's, or neckties to men, or stockings to women? Products are often designed with a specific segment of the market in mind, often one gender or the other. It's kind of critical to be able to communicate that information, not just to be successful, but to avoid potential downside risks, like lawsuits, or basic business challenges like higher returns, when someone realizes they bought a product that wasn't meant for them.



Sussa said:


> If it's not abundantly clear by now, I'm in favor of less gendered language whenever possible. The more we use discrete terms to refer to the same thing, the more we open the door to treat those things differently. Sometimes, there's a good reason to treat things differently. Sometimes, there's not. A periodic examination of whether or not something is different enough to warrant separate treatment is just good practice.


Oh, don't worry. It was abundantly clear.

I feel like you're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can stop calling watches "ladies" watches just because they're a smaller size, if that will satisfy men who are embarrassed to buy one. But we don't need to embrace unisex as the one true ideal in watch design, because that's likely to lead to outcomes that will be worse for all concerned - not just women, but men, too.


----------



## docvail

mrv said:


> I understand that these were marketing decisions, and they chose the most popular public figures at that time, but really??? Does anybody really takes celebrity endorsements serious anymore?? And especially when they are based on fictitious characters? I thought people use more practical reasoning when they spend thousands of dollars on a watch (unless they are watch collectors of course, and then all practical reasoning goes out of the window )
> 
> I personally wouldn't care how a company calls anything, if it's a good quality, has reasonable price, and I like it. I object to companies deceiving women and trying to make them buy and wear men's stuff just because it's easier for them to sell it this way. By calling something 'unisex' they imply that it's suitable for a woman too, but it's not, so it's simply a lie. If they were honest and said something like 'this is a smaller version of a men's stuff just in case if you like to wear this sort of thing", it wouldn't have been offensive, and at least it would have been honest. But of course, it wouldn't have been very marketable, because it sounds like for this company women are second-class consumers, since they don't care making anything specifically for them.
> 
> It was a revelation for me from the earlier post of docvail that major watch companies nowadays simply don't make small mechanical movements anymore, suitable for women's watches of a smaller size. Because I have a collection of vintage mechanical woman's watches, it seemed to me it has never been a problem before, since some of them has movements like 10mm in size. I guess when quartz watches became wide-spread, women stopped wearing mechanical, because quartz is definitely better for a modern woman's busy life. Usually, women are not really collectors, who like to sit down and and admire their watches, and spend time on their cleaning, polishing, winding, setting, servicing, and talking about them. Women simply don't have time to wind their watches every day, and of course, keep in mind their regular cleaning and servicing schedule, they are simply too busy with work and home responsibilities (and this is the major reason why my mechanical collection sits in a pretty jewelry box instead of being on my wrist ) So, I wish companies make more interesting and quality quartz watches for women, but it looks like, men who run these companies don't believe that quartz watches are worth making, probably since they are not high-end enough?


Influencers are a big thing, it seems. Don't feel strange if they don't even register a blip on your personal radar. They're not on mine, either. But they and endorsements from other celebrities can move the needle in a big way.

When my brand was featured on a YouTube channel with 300k subscribers, we saw a big surge in demand, which was sustained for about 18 months. Being mentioned in Hodinkee can literally put a brand on the map, which is why I think it's important for all watch enthusiasts to understand the implications when Hodinkee says something about how the industry should conduct business.

There's something I and other brand owners talk about - "the Hodinkee effect". When someone at Hodinkee talks about some obscure vintage watch, suddenly prices go through the roof. When Hodinkee puts a spotlight on a small brand, that brand typically sells out in the blink of an eye. Hodinkee doesn't speak for me as an enthusiast, but I believe many in the industry believe Hodinkee isn't simply spotting trends, they're creating them.

I shouldn't suggest that there aren't enough mechanical movements to make smaller watches. There aren't as many compared to larger movements, but I think there are enough, and they are small enough, that the industry COULD make more smaller case sizes. No one is out of bounds for asking why they don't.

My point was really that there aren't as many, what smaller calibres there are tend to be thicker (which isn't a good thing, generally), and I see it as a proxy or indication of the overall trend the industry has seen, over time.

It appears that men make up the bulk of the market, men are generally larger, humans are getting larger in general (especially here in the USA), and the trend has been towards larger sizes. It wouldn't surprise me if the historical sales data showed that smaller size watches have lagged larger size watches for 60+ years.

Which is the answer to the question of why the industry doesn't make more smaller-sized watches. They just don't typically sell as well, so it's hard for brands to rationalize development of smaller calibres, or investment in developing smaller designs.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> I'm at a loss for how we're stuck in this notion that if gender labels are removed from products it will mean:
> 
> No manufacturer will bother making traditionally feminine designs anymore
> All products will be displayed chaotically, because there are no other identifiers or classifications available
> 
> And I mentioned having a harder time finding watches I want when things are organized by gender, so our sample size of 2 is a tie. Genuinely curious if there's market research on the subject, but not curious enough to actually search for it right now.
> 
> Real quick for anyone who keeps referring to men's watches and women's watches: could you define both, please?


Listen to the women in this thread, and read what Cara Barret said in her Hodinkee piece. The industry is already under-serving female enthusiasts. That's not really because watches are labeled as "women's" or "men's", it's about the choices female enthusiasts currently face, and how they view them, how they feel about them.

How is removing gender labels going to fix that real underlying issue?

We might argue that without gender labels, brands might feel some pressure to make more tool watches in smaller sizes (for women, or smaller-wristed men), or more pretty, formerly "girly" watches in larger sizes. But will they, really?

Brands are likely already aware that people with smaller wrists and people who might like a larger "girly" watch exist. If brands saw opportunity to make money by making watches for this segment, they'd be doing it already.

By removing gender labels, all you're doing is removing the self-conscious stigma some men might feel buying a "women's" watch, but at the cost of making it harder for brands to effectively communicate with their target customers, and making it harder for everyone else to find the products they want.


----------



## Bird-Dog

fellini212 said:


> That it works for _you _doesn't mean it works for everyone.





TgeekB said:


> Works for who, you? I have news for you, there's a big wide world out there with a wide variety of "works".
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


That's so 2021. It works for the vast majority of people. But we're supposed to change it because a handful of "activists" set on inventing something to be outraged about think everything should cater to a tiny fraction of the population instead of the majority.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> A few people have said that removing gendered labels from the products would result in fewer options for women. Is that actually intended to mean women can't find a product they're looking for if it's not labeled for them? Or they'll assume it's for men if it's not labeled for them? I thought I was taking a more generous, less insulting interpretation of the prevailing view.
> 
> Positive shopping experiences: Ashford.com. I think they have a great search and filter system - case size, case shape, dial color. You can even filter by gender if you want, but you're not forced into it.
> 
> Negative shopping experience (with some bad UX tossed in for good measure): Nordstromrack.com. Their main menu has a Watches category, with subcategories of Women and Men. All three are clickable links. You'd think clicking on Watches would take you to all watches, right? Nope. Just Women's.
> 
> Second negative experience for good measure: Casio.com. Three categories to view all G-shocks: G-Shock, Women's, Baby-G. No overlap between the three. On the Casio outlet site, even if I choose "All G-Shock" in their main nav, I'm still not shown the items categorized under Women's or Baby-G.
> 
> Just give people an option to truly view all rather than forcing categorization. It's not that hard.


In my observation, online watch shopping is rarely an overly enjoyable experience, regardless of gender, and what search criteria you use, because so many listings aren't accurate. But most major sites, like Amazon an eBay, do not force anyone to choose gender as one of the search criteria.

That Nordstrom Rack's website doesn't work very well isn't a very strong argument for doing away with all gender labels on watches.

As for Casio, here again - if a woman were searching, would she have a harder time, or an easier time, finding the smaller size watches, or the watches meant for women, if you forced the removal of all gender labels?

Because it seems like she'd have a harder time.

But, you're a man. If I understood you right, you said it was a negative experience, because the site didn't show you women's watches or Baby-G?

So...as a man, you were hoping to see women's watches or Baby-G? Why? What does that have to do with women's experience while shopping?

Sorry you didn't see the women's watches or Baby-G in your search. How long did it take you to find them, since they were apparently available if you clicked on "Women's" or "Baby-G"?


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> I was trying to think of an analogous experience to understand if fashion needs to be segregated by gender. The closest thing I could think of, at least in terms of watches, is automobiles. What vehicle you drive can affect how people perceive you, can be intended to project a certain image to the world. There are aesthetic and fit considerations - your height, short or tall, may make it difficult to even get in a vehicle. There are certainly perceptions about what's a man's vehicle and what's a woman's vehicle. But car lots, and car manufacturer websites, are not organized by gender. Why not? Does that make vehicle shopping harder or easier?


Shoe stores are divided by gender. So are clothing stores. So are some sporting goods stores. There's an entire aisle in most drug stores for "feminine products".

Yes, it makes shopping easier.


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> Worth noting here that for many years cars and trucks were _advertised _that way.
> View attachment 15779656
> 
> Or this old Ford truck pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, _Even A Woman Can Drive It _was an ad category.
> 
> To say nothing of ads like this one: also directed at men, and in which the subtext/punchline is understood to be 'women are _comically_ terrible drivers.'
> 
> View attachment 15779668


Is the intended inference that business and advertising was a lot different 60 years ago, or that, plus some follow-on inference that gender-labeling of watches is a lingering remnant of decades-old sexism?

Cars aren't watches. I haven't heard any women complaining about their lack of choice in cars, compared to the choices men have. I haven't heard anyone arguing in favor of labeling cars unisex, since cars aren't marketed as being "for men" or "for women".

Shoes and clothing are. Are we going to remove gender-labels for shoes and clothing next?


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> I don't know why I'm having such a hard time communicating what I mean. I'm just talking about removing the labels, not changing anything about what is made or how something is made, what fits are available, what measurements are available. Just no gendered labels. I'm not expecting us all to walk around in potato sacks (unless that's your thing - then you do you). Maybe we'd finally get decent-sized pockets if there's even a remote chance that a man would buy the pants. Maybe men would actually buy pants that fit if they had more options and less stigma with labels.


Removing gender-labels from watches won't solve the problems female enthusiasts - including Cara Barret from Hodinkee - actually face.

It may actually exacerbate those problems, and create new ones.

Why is that so hard to understand?

As for men and our pants, we're doing our best with what we got. Sometimes finding pants that fit right is like trying to fold a fitted sheet - eventually you give up and realize perfection isn't a reachable goal.


----------



## one onety-one

TgeekB said:


> Works for who, you? I have news for you, there's a big wide world out there with a wide variety of "works".
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


Keeping in mind nothing "works" for everyone all of the time, what is the issue you are taking with Bird-Dog's post insofar as it has to do with the perceived underserving of the gender neutral watch market?


----------



## one onety-one

docvail said:


> As for men and our pants, we're doing our best with what we got. Sometimes finding pants that fit right is *like trying to fold a fitted sheet* - eventually you give up and realize perfection isn't a reachable goal.


Is there a life-hack for this, which I am unaware of?


----------



## docvail

TgeekB said:


> The reasons *it is the way it is is because humans decided to make it that way*, not because there's some universal law. We can change it anytime we want.
> 
> As far as watches, I know the Apple watch comes in more than one size. Are they labelled men's or women's?
> 
> I have several vintage watches and it's interesting that "men's" watches used to be much smaller. I believe that shows we change our standards over time to adjust to whatever the current culture dictates. The world is restructuring constantly.


Perhaps it's worth asking why humans decided to make it that way, before we rush to change it?

All my observation and experience suggests things are often the way they are because that's what works best, or as the result of following the path of least resistance.

My first job after the army was as a manager at a gym. A member once berated me because all the big weight plates were nowhere near the benches, barbells and machines he wanted to use. I pointed out that the reason was because his fellow members were leaving them by other machines or racks, on the other side of the room, instead of returning the plates where they found them. His reply was, "then THAT'S where they BELONG!"

The reality wasn't simply that the gym was in a blue-collar area where the members weren't considerate enough to re-rack the weights after use. It was also true that the gym's ownership was cheap, too cheap to adequately stock the gym with enough weights to avoid the problem happening. The member wasn't wrong. In any weight room, the plates will end up where they should be, unless there just aren't enough to go around.

We can change things by getting rid of gender-labels, but that won't necessarily fix the real problem of limited choices for women, no more than my putting up "please re-rack your weights" signs around the gym fixed the real problem of an inadequately stocked weight room.


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> It isn't just a question of marketing, or labeling.
> 
> I asked this question of a friend the other day: Should there be a 34 mm Submariner? Or 32? Or 30? Or an Explorer, or a Seamaster, or a Speedy, in what we think of as women's sizes?
> 
> I understand the restrictions imposed by readily available movements, but as a thought experiment: would the men's classics like those sell if they were scaled to women's wrists?


Would they sell? Likely, yes.

But in what numbers? Enough to rationalize their development and production? It depends.

Like I said earlier in the thread, if the Dolphin sold really well, I was prepared to make more. Likewise, if smaller watches sold as well as their larger counterparts, we'd find them in greater abundance.

I'm not at all angry with women for not buying the Dolphin. But since they didn't, I'm less likely to invest in the development of other ideas for the women's market. Take that logic, apply it en masse, to all brands within the industry, and you'll understand the problem for women (and any man who wants a smaller watch).

Calling the Dolphin "unisex", which we did, didn't get more women to buy it. I can't say for sure if labeling it "unisex" led to more men buying it, including the pink-dialed variant, but I suspect we'd have had fewer men buying it if we called it a "ladies" watch, so the "unisex" label appeared to be a positive for men, not women, at least in that scenario.

It would be an interesting thought experiment to consider the outcome if we'd made it smaller. I suspect more women would have bought it. But then I also think fewer men would have bought it, because of the size, or because of the size combined with the color (as a smaller pink watch may have appeared to be more for women than a larger pink watch), and I wouldn't have come out of the experience any differently.

Though I think I'd feel better about having more women customers, as I'd view that as something of an accomplishment.

Regardless, I see the "unisex" labeling issue as a red-herring here. We can all agree that a watch doesn't need to be labeled a "ladies" watch just because it's smaller. I don't see how doing away with all gender labels is going to increase the choices available to women.


----------



## docvail

TgeekB said:


> Works for who, you? I have news for you, there's a big wide world out there with a wide variety of "works".
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk


Your response raises the obvious question, who does it NOT work for, then?

Is the gender-labeling of watches as "men's" and "women's" the underlying cause of women having fewer choices they actually like? It doesn't seem to be. The labeling of some watches as "women's" watches doesn't seem to be the real issue. So women don't appear to be hurt by it.

Men, though? Isn't that the sub-plot here? There are men who aren't comfortable wearing a "woman's" watch, even if they like it, simply because it's labeled a "women's" watch, right?

But, is that really a problem? Even for those men? How?

It's not like the watches say "Ladies Version" on the dial. The 36mm Seamaster is visually indistinguishable from the 41mm version, but for the case size. Is that smaller size even labeled as "the Ladies Version", or is it simply sold as the smaller size version?

If you're going to walk around wearing a 28mm, bright pink, rhinestone-studded Hello Kitty watch, are others going to think that's a "unisex" watch, simply because we label it "unisex"?

Get rid of the gender-labeling, the 38mm Seamaster is unchanged, as is the Hello Kitty watch, as are the choices now available to women, unless and until the industry forgets women even exist, once it starts making every design "unisex".


----------



## TgeekB

one onety-one said:


> Keeping in mind nothing "works" for everyone all of the time, what is the issue you are taking with Bird-Dog's post insofar as it has to do with the perceived underserving of the gender neutral watch market?


Let me ask you a question related to Doc's original post.

If watches weren't labeled as "Men's" or "Women's", would you have difficulty picking a watch out for yourself?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## docvail

one onety-one said:


> Is there a life-hack for this, which I am unaware of?


I don't know. My wife and I split laundry duties. I wash our clothes, but she washes the sheets.

Judging by how she used to fold my t-shirts, I'm betting our fitted sheets aren't folded perfectly.

Please, ladies, don't hate on me. I'm ex-Army, and a bit OCD about folding the laundry, especially my clothes. My wife's awesome at a lot of things, but folding laundry ain't one of 'em.


----------



## docvail

TgeekB said:


> Let me ask you a question related to Doc's original post.
> 
> If watches weren't labeled as "Men's" or "Women's", would you have difficulty picking a watch out for yourself?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Of more relevance here, given Doc's OP, would women?

Picking a watch presupposes we find many to choose from, which in turn presupposes that many we'd like actually exist.

For men, many do. For women, not as much.

How is removing the gender labeling going to change that, for women, or improve men's or women's ability to find and choose a watch they like?


----------



## TgeekB

docvail said:


> Of more relevance here, given Doc's OP, would women?
> 
> Picking a watch presupposes we find many to choose from, which in turn presupposes that many we'd like actually exist.
> 
> For men, many do. For women, not as much.
> 
> How is removing the gender labeling going to change that, for women, or improve men's or women's ability to find and choose a watch they like?


So you're answering a question with a question? Let me straight up answer your question.

It might allow women to feel comfortable picking any watch they find interesting, beautiful, etc. instead of always feeling they have to stay within certain preordained (generally by men) acceptable gender guidelines.

I'm a man so I think it would be better for female members (I believe some attempted to) to give their feelings to get the best answer to your question. Mine is only an opinion that seems to be ruffling some feathers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sussa

docvail said:


> But, you're a man. If I understood you right, you said it was a negative experience, because the site didn't show you women's watches or Baby-G?
> 
> So...as a man, you were hoping to see women's watches or Baby-G? Why? What does that have to do with women's experience while shopping?


I thought I was done with this thread because we just seems to be talking past each other, but then you drop this gem.

I am a woman. What on earth has lead you to believe otherwise?


----------



## mrv

TgeekB said:


> So you're answering a question with a question? Let me straight up answer your question.
> 
> It might allow women to feel comfortable picking any watch they find interesting, beautiful, etc. instead of always feeling they have to stay within certain preordained (generally by men) acceptable gender guidelines.
> 
> I'm a man so I think it would be better for female members (I believe some attempted to) to give their feelings to get the best answer to your question. Mine is only an opinion that seems to be ruffling some feathers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I can clearly see that you're not a woman.  Actually, labeling products 'for women only" helps women tremendously, because it saves them time, money and effort by giving them direct and clear knowledge that these products are made specifically to fit their bodies and their tastes. Why should I waste hours looking at all these 'unisex' watches, looking separately for a size and weight of every watch, and then guessing if this size will look good on my wrist and the watch would have a center of gravity in the right place?? This is a tremendous waste of time and effort, and many women simply don't have so much time to spend on the internet, guessing if the watch would fit them. And think about disappointments and returns!! I've bought a lot of watches on the internet, so I know that 'women size' watches (under 28 mm) would always fit me, but larger ones I never know, and I wouldn't even want to try 'unisex', since they're obviously meant for men or women with large wrists.


----------



## Johann23

It may be dismaying to some, but there are things called “publics” in the marketing world. The message to each differs and always will. And it works...well. And there will always be those who don’t care and cross lines. So what? Go spend your money politely like the rest of us.


----------



## fellini212

Bird-Dog said:


> That's so 2021. It works for the vast majority of people. But we're supposed to change it because a handful of "activists" set on inventing something to be outraged about think everything should cater to a tiny fraction of the population instead of the majority.


The "majority" of "people" are . . . women.


----------



## one onety-one

docvail said:


> I don't know. My wife and I split laundry duties. I wash our clothes, but she washes the sheets.
> 
> Judging by how she used to fold my t-shirts, I'm betting our fitted sheets aren't folded perfectly.
> 
> Please, ladies, don't hate on me. I'm ex-Army, and a bit OCD about folding the laundry, especially my clothes. My wife's awesome at a lot of things, but folding laundry ain't one of 'em.


The inside-out pillow case life-hack is a game changer, so I was hoping that there was something similar for fitted sheets.


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> Is the intended inference that business and advertising was a lot different 60 years ago, or that, plus some follow-on inference that gender-labeling of watches is a lingering remnant of decades-old sexism?


Just funny historical sidebar.


----------



## one onety-one

TgeekB said:


> So you're answering a question with a question? Let me straight up answer your question.


Really?

Dude, you need grab a seat on the bench. You called out someone for answering a question with a question with your very next post after answering my question with a question.


----------



## TgeekB

one onety-one said:


> Really?
> 
> Dude, you need grab a seat on the bench. You called out someone for answering a question with a question with your very next post after answering my question with a question.


True, can't deny that but I won't be going to the bench.......dude. I love the emotion with such a simple topic, how it causes people like you to feel you have to defend your little opinion.....dude. Hey, dude, lighten up. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bird-Dog

fellini212 said:


> The "majority" of "people" are . . . women.


And you're supposing that the majority of women want these sort of changes? All watches unisex? All clothing unisex?

You're out of your mind.


----------



## one onety-one

TgeekB said:


> True, can't deny that but I won't be going to the bench.......dude. I love the emotion with such a simple topic, how it causes people like you to feel you have to defend your little opinion.....dude. Hey, dude, lighten up.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The emotion I'm feeling right now is some significant third-party embarrassment. Congratulations. ?


----------



## docvail

TgeekB said:


> So you're answering a question with a question? Let me straight up answer your question.
> 
> It might allow women to feel comfortable picking any watch they find interesting, beautiful, etc. instead of always feeling they have to stay within certain preordained (generally by men) acceptable gender guidelines.
> 
> I'm a man so I think it would be better for female members (I believe some attempted to) to give their feelings to get the best answer to your question. Mine is only an opinion that seems to be ruffling some feathers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


But women don't appear to feel UNcomfortable picking any watch they find interesting, at least not because it may be a "man's" watch. It doesn't appear that was ever an issue for them. There are women here who have told us they sometimes buy and wear so-called "men's" watches. Cara Barrett, in her Hodinkee article, likewise said the bulk of her collection is made up of watches specifically aimed at men.

Women self-limiting their choices to so-called "ladies" watches doesn't appear to be the issue at hand, judging from what actual women have said.

The issue appears to be the relatively (much) lower number of choices in watches which will fit their smaller wrists comfortably, and which they actually LIKE, compared to the relatively higher number of choices available for men.

It's not about the labeling, it's about the fact there aren't as many smaller watches, which would fit women better, and what few smaller watches exist are often insulting to these women, because the designs suggest a caricature of femininity, rather than demonstrating a recognition that women's tastes encompass more than tiny, dainty, pretty, gemstone-studded jewelry watches.

For whatever it's worth, your opinion isn't ruffling my feathers. I can't speak for anyone else's. Is my opinion ruffling yours? Because it seems like my opinion on the matter aligns pretty well with most of the women in this forum.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> I thought I was done with this thread because we just seems to be talking past each other, but then you drop this gem.
> 
> I am a woman. What on earth has lead you to believe otherwise?


Your posts in this thread, and perhaps others I may have read in passing.

I just went back and re-read them (your posts in this thread, not your entire forum history).

I think it was partly that you've been advocating for watches to be labeled unisex, which is a surprising position for a woman to take, in my opinion. And some of what you said in your posts sounded like something I'd hear from any number of "woke" millennial males, leading me to "hear" your posts as being from a man.

I thought you were being sarcastic when you mentioned your ovaries in the same sentence in which you said wearing the Spectre (the largest watch I've produced, at 44mm) didn't put excess hair on your chest. You sent some mixed signals - "Seeing a cool watch on a hairy, 8" wrist does not help sell it to me. But I also don't see myself in an image of a woman wearing high heels, dress, and make-up, so I can recognize the tricky spot marketers are in to be inclusive."

I mean, you have to admit, reading all of that, it's not really obvious.

Clearly I overlooked the robo-breasts on your avatar image. It's possible that image may be similar to another forum user's, and I confused you with him (assuming the other user is in fact a "him").

If you explicitly said you were a woman previously, I missed it, and I'm sorry.

For whatever it's worth, I know what you mean about the many instances wherein men will post pics of attractive and often scantily clad women wearing watches, of course inviting the obvious comments of "what watch?" from others. Even as a fairly alpha-male, I cringe when I see that play out, because I feel like I'm back in a middle-school locker-room with a bunch of pubescent boys.


----------



## TgeekB

docvail said:


> But women don't appear to feel UNcomfortable picking any watch they find interesting, at least not because it may be a "man's" watch. It doesn't appear that was ever an issue for them. There are women here who have told us they sometimes buy and wear so-called "men's" watches. Cara Barrett, in her Hodinkee article, likewise said the bulk of her collection is made up of watches specifically aimed at men.
> 
> Women self-limiting their choices to so-called "ladies" watches doesn't appear to be the issue at hand, judging from what actual women have said.
> 
> The issue appears to be the relatively (much) lower number of choices in watches which will fit their smaller wrists comfortably, and which they actually LIKE, compared to the relatively higher number of choices available for men.
> 
> It's not about the labeling, it's about the fact there aren't as many smaller watches, which would fit women better, and what few smaller watches exist are often insulting to these women, because the designs suggest a caricature of femininity, rather than demonstrating a recognition that women's tastes encompass more than tiny, dainty, pretty, gemstone-studded jewelry watches.
> 
> For whatever it's worth, your opinion isn't ruffling my feathers. I can't speak for anyone else's. Is my opinion ruffling yours? Because it seems like my opinion on the matter aligns pretty well with most of the women in this forum.


I apologize for not knowing your watch lineup but do you have watches for women? You make mostly dive watches, correct? I would imagine more men are into watches as I seem to see more women wearing Apple watches than mechanical watches. Thoughts?

As far as feathers, I only have them in my pillow. I do enjoy taking alternative viewpoints as I think it brings forth new ideas, interesting conversation but then it seems people like to prove you're wrong for some odd reason instead of bringing something of worth. I'm not 100% innocent myself of course.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Johann23

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## docvail

TgeekB said:


> I apologize for not knowing your watch lineup but do you have watches for women? You make mostly dive watches, correct? I would imagine more men are into watches as I seem to see more women wearing Apple watches than mechanical watches. Thoughts?
> 
> As far as feathers, I only have them in my pillow. I do enjoy taking alternative viewpoints as I think it brings forth new ideas, interesting conversation but then it seems people like to prove you're wrong for some odd reason instead of bringing something of worth. I'm not 100% innocent myself of course.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


No apologies needed.

Do I have watches for women? That, my friend, is an excellent question, for this thread, because it forces us to think about what "watches for women" means.

First off, I've never labeled any of our watches as "men's" or "women's". Despite the complete lack of gender-labeling, my customer base seems to be roughly 95% men. I'm happy to have women as customers, though. It seems women have bought our smallest watches (40mm), and our largest watches (44mm).

In 2018, we released a "unisex" model, the Dolphin. Prior to designing that, I came here, to the ladies watches sub-forum, to ask women enthusiasts for some input. Despite all our efforts to make the Dolphin more palatable to women, it was mostly men who bought them, including the magenta versions.

My wife has 3 NTH Subs, a Santa Cruz, a Holland, and a magenta Dolphin. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever mistaken the Santa Cruz or the Holland as being "ladies watches".

My aunt has a Lew & Huey Acionna, in Carolina Blue, and a Dolphin Ice (silver). My mother and another aunt both have Dolphins - my mother, the magenta, my aunt, the Ice.

DeeDee, the wife of my 3D illustrator, Rusty, also has a magenta Dolphin. But just like my wife, I know she's also worn some of the other, more "Butch" versions of the NTH Subs, such as the Bahia and Nazario Azzurro.

I assure you, they are all biological women. I'm 100% certain about my wife and my mom.

So, do I *have* watches for women? Emphatically, yes, I do, in the literal sense that I haven't labeled them as "men's" watches, and some women wear them.

But do WOMEN think I *make* watches for women? Not according to any of the women I've spoken to, which includes non-enthusiasts, as well as enthusiasts, and even some women who actually have owned or still do own some of my watches.

I'm not arguing with them. Why would I? They're right. Because most of my customers are men, we have men in mind when we're developing new models, especially since the one time I tried to make a watch women would like more, it was mostly men, not women who bought it.

Now, if I made smaller watches, I suspect women's opinions might change, but that's an experiment for another day.


----------



## docvail

For whatever it's worth, I didn't start this thread to patronize women here, or with any business agenda in mind. I truly was perplexed by the Hodinkee article, and wanted to see if I was really that far off in my understanding of what I've read and heard from women.

Ironically, I think women represent a huge, untapped growth opportunity for the industry. It just stands to reason, that if the market is currently 90%-95% men, and 5%-10% women, then women represent the largest potential to grow industry sales.

The fact is, the industry doesn't do a very stellar job of marketing to anyone, of any gender, which is among the reasons why the big brands are seeing their market size dwindle year after year.

I don't know if it makes sense for a microbrand to target women specifically, because of the inherent risks and challenges involved. But I'm sure there's opportunity for larger brands to do a much better job designing products for and marketing to women.


----------



## TgeekB

docvail said:


> No apologies needed.
> 
> Do I have watches for women? That, my friend, is an excellent question, for this thread, because it forces us to think about what "watches for women" means.
> 
> First off, I've never labeled any of our watches as "men's" or "women's". Despite the complete lack of gender-labeling, my customer base seems to be roughly 95% men. I'm happy to have women as customers, though. It seems women have bought our smallest watches (40mm), and our largest watches (44mm).
> 
> In 2018, we released a "unisex" model, the Dolphin. Prior to designing that, I came here, to the ladies watches sub-forum, to ask women enthusiasts for some input.
> 
> As far as I can tell, despite all our efforts to make the Dolphin more palatable to women, it was mostly men who bought them, including the magenta versions.
> 
> My wife has 3 NTH Subs, a Santa Cruz, a Holland, and a magenta Dolphin. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever mistaken the Santa Cruz or the Holland as being "ladies watches".
> 
> My aunt has a Lew & Huey Acionna, in Carolina Blue, and a Dolphin Ice (silver). My mother and another aunt both have Dolphins - my mother, the magenta, my aunt, the Ice. DeeDee, the wife of my 3D illustrator, Rusty, also has a magenta Dolphin, but just like my wife, I know she's also worn some of the other more "Butch" versions of the NTH Subs, such as the Bahia and Nazario Azzurro.
> 
> I assure you, they are all biological women. I'm 100% certain about my wife and my mom.
> 
> So, do I *have* watches for women? Emphatically, yes, I do, in the literal sense that I haven't labeled them as "men's" watches, and some women wear them.
> 
> But do WOMEN think I *make* watches for women? Not according to any of the women I've spoken to, which includes non-enthusiasts, as well as enthusiasts, and even some women who actually have owned or still do own some of my watches.
> 
> I'm not arguing with them. Why would I? They're right. Because most of my customers are men, we have men in mind when we're developing new models, especially since the one time I tried to make a watch women would like more, it was mostly men, not women who bought it.
> 
> Now, if I made smaller watches, I suspect women's opinions might change, but that's an experiment for another day.


That's what I was ultimately wondering, would you be willing to experiment, as you put, with something that might be more appealing to women. It might be interesting and perhaps start a new trend in the micro segment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PiguetPolo

Skimmed the Hodinkee piece and its seems to be more about *reframing how watches are advertised versus the actual watch designs themselves*. She actually says some of the mens watches are quite feminine yet they are still advertised for men. The meat of the argument is there and not about watch product design for women.

I don't see anything controversial is what was written nor as a man do I feel blamed. I'd agree on some level because the people who actually are wearing the watches have already moved past what the brands perceives of themselves, who their customers are, or should be.

My takeaway from some of the responses reinforces the central idea that men don't listen to what women are trying to say, and when we do, its with a complete lack of empathy or real understanding on how to act on what is said. The response runs the gamut from apathetic appeasement to misguided problem-solving.


----------



## docvail

TgeekB said:


> That's what I was ultimately wondering, would you be willing to experiment, as you put, with something that might be more appealing to women. It might be interesting and perhaps start a new trend in the micro segment.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I already did the experiment. The results were inconclusive, at best, but perhaps suggested I suck at designing watches for women, at worst.

It's not like no one's asked me to make a 38mm or smaller watch. People ask. I've thought about it, and decided against it.

Mine is a small business. We can't afford to take too many risks with product development decisions. If I make 300 pieces of a 36mm-38mm whatever, and it doesn't sell, that's tens of thousands of dollars sitting in unsold inventory, money I could have, and rightly should have invested in something that would have sold better, such as a 40mm NTH Sub, or a 43mm DevilRay.

I can't afford to make those sorts of mistakes, at least not very often. About one big goof every 2 years is my margin for error. More than that, I'm out of business.

Before we made the Dolphin, I toyed with the idea of making 300 pieces of a smaller sized case. I didn't think a 38mm watch would sell as well as a 40mm watch, but it occurred to me that we might make 200 of them "for men" (whatever that means), and 100 of them "for women" (ditto). In that way, I might lower my risk, and also increase the likelihood of getting more female customers. It was a potential win-win.

Go back and re-read that. What's a watch "for men"? What's a watch "for women"? As a man, even as empathetic as I think I am, I'm pretty sure I don't really know what a "woman's watch" should be, and the Dolphin at least partially proved it. Is there any reason to think I'd be any better at designing a woman's watch, just because I made it smaller?

The more I thought about it, the less I liked the idea. Every instinct I have told me that a 40mm would sell better, and present much lower risk. At that time, we were selling 40mm Subs faster than we could make them, and went through multiple, multi-month periods when you couldn't buy a new NTH Sub anywhere in the world, at any price, from our site or our retailers.

So instead, we decided to carve out 100 pieces of our November 2018 release, to make the Dolphins, in 40mm. I can afford to risk 100 pieces not selling very well a lot more than I can afford 300 pieces not selling well. As it happened, the silver version sold well enough that we were able to make another 50 of them, and sell them without too much trouble. And I'm planning a limited re-release of the magenta, along with a few other models, in the near future.

Don't overlook the fact that I already had female customers buying watches we made from 40mm to 44mm. And we solicited input from female enthusiasts here. We had every reason to expect the Dolphins to be a big hit with women, and they were, but just not the "right" women. All the non-enthusiast women I know love them. The women here, a bit less, apparently.

I'm sure women here might have liked them more at 38mm or smaller, but I can't afford to sit on 300 pieces of unsold inventory for two years, while I wait for 300 women or men with smaller wrists to come along and buy them.

If my business was selling 6,000 watches per year, yeah, I might roll the bones, and whip up 300 pieces of something under 40mm. Thatt would be just 5% of our annual production.

But even then, I'm a man. I design watches I like, and apparently other men like, but only some women do. I don't think size is the only determining factor here.

My 36mm-38mm watch could flop just as easily as anything else I do. Why increase my risks by playing games outside the dimensions I know the vast majority of men prefer? That's 40mm-44mm, for diving watches, and slightly smaller for non-dive watches.

Rusty will be delivering his first batch of 38mm watches from his brand, Atticus, soon. They sold really well. I'd bet all my money >90% of the people who bought them were men. I talked him up from 36mm, because I know a 36mm watch wouldn't have sold as well among his target customer base, which is almost exclusively men.


----------



## TgeekB

docvail said:


> I already did the experiment. The results were inconclusive, at best, but perhaps suggested I suck at designing watches for women, at worst.
> 
> It's not like no one's asked me to make a 38mm or smaller watch. People ask. I've thought about it, and decided against it.
> 
> Mine is a small business. We can't afford to take too many risks with product development decisions. If I make 300 pieces of a 36mm-38mm whatever, and it doesn't sell, that's tens of thousands of dollars sitting in unsold inventory, money I could have, and rightly should have invested in something that would have sold better, such as a 40mm NTH Sub, or a 43mm DevilRay.
> 
> I can't afford to make those sorts of mistakes, at least not very often. About one big goof every 2 years is my margin for error. More than that, I'm out of business.
> 
> Before we made the Dolphin, I toyed with the idea of making 300 pieces of a smaller sized case. I didn't think a 38mm watch would sell as well as a 40mm watch, but it occurred to me that we might make 200 of them "for men" (whatever that means), and 100 of them "for women" (ditto). In that way, I might lower my risk, and also increase the likelihood of getting more female customers. It was a potential win-win.
> 
> Go back and re-read that. What's a watch "for men"? What's a watch "for women"? As a man, even as empathetic as I think I am, I'm pretty sure I don't really know what a "woman's watch" should be, and the Dolphin at least partially proved it. Is there any reason to think I'd be any better at designing a woman's watch, just because I made it smaller?
> 
> The more I thought about it, the less I liked the idea. Every instinct I have told me that a 40mm would sell better, and present much lower risk. At that time, we were selling 40mm Subs faster than we could make them, and went through multiple, multi-month periods when you couldn't buy a new NTH Sub anywhere in the world, at any price, from our site or our retailers.
> 
> So instead, we decided to carve out 100 pieces of our November 2018 release, to make the Dolphins, in 40mm. I can afford to risk 100 pieces not selling very well a lot more than I can afford 300 pieces not selling well. As it happened, the silver version sold well enough that we were able to make another 50 of them, and sell them without too much trouble. And I'm planning a limited re-release of the magenta, along with a few other models, in the near future.
> 
> Don't overlook the fact that I already had female customers buying watches we made from 40mm to 44mm. And we solicited input from female enthusiasts here. We had every reason to expect the Dolphins to be a big hit with women, and they were, but just not the "right" women. All the non-enthusiast women I know love them. The women here, a bit less, apparently.
> 
> I'm sure women here might have liked them more at 38mm or smaller, but I can't afford to sit on 300 pieces of unsold inventory for two years, while I wait for 300 women or men with smaller wrists to come along and buy them.
> 
> If my business was selling 6,000 watches per year, yeah, I might roll the bones, and whip up 300 pieces of something under 40mm. Thatt would be just 5% of our annual production.
> 
> But even then, I'm a man. I design watches I like, and apparently other men like, but only some women do. I don't think size is the only determining factor here.
> 
> My 36mm-38mm watch could flop just as easily as anything else I do. Why increase my risks by playing games outside the dimensions I know the vast majority of men prefer? That's 40mm-44mm, for diving watches, and slightly smaller for non-dive watches.
> 
> Rusty will be delivering his first batch of 38mm watches from his brand, Atticus, soon. They sold really well. I'd bet all my money >90% of the people who bought them were men. I talked him up from 36mm, because I know the wouldn't have sold as well among his target customer base, which is almost exclusively men.


I certainly understand and can appreciate the risk involved. You have to go with what you know works.

Divers bore the he** out of me, they all look the same (not just yours) and they're everywhere, but they do sell. No doubt about that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## fellini212

Bird-Dog said:


> And you're supposing that the majority of women want these sort of changes? All watches unisex? All clothing unisex?
> 
> You're out of your mind.


Nope.


----------



## fellini212

Be interesting to see if approaches like this become the answer to gaps in the market.

Custom, semi-custom, bespoke, etc.









Bespoke Watch Projects - Make Your Own Time.


We create limited production mechanical timepieces, designed, assembled, and regulated in our California studio.




bespokewatchprojects.com


----------



## Sussa

docvail said:


> I mean, you have to admit, reading all of that, it's not really obvious.


And you've just proved my point. When we apply labels to things, certain connotations or even biases come with it. So we should make sure the labels are accurate. Inaccurate labeling could make us miss out on the perfect watch because we think it will be too heavy, or invalidate someone's experiences. Are there times when labels do more harm than good? If a label can't be applied accurately and it introduces bias, should it even be applied at all? (That is a rhetorical question. I really don't want to go down a rabbit hole of acceptable ranges of accuracy.)


----------



## Bird-Dog

A lot of websites just pull up "watches" unless and until you filter by gender. And many do include "unisex" as an option. 

So, what exactly are "we" pushing for here. I see some posts apparently advocating completely wiping gender out of all consumer goods (no gender distinction for clothes? really?). But that's patently ridiculous in the real world. Why must all watches be unisex when common sense says a great number of shoppers, likely the vast majority, find it more convenient to shop gendered offerings? Yes, common sense! Else, if it would increase their revenues, marketeers would already have made the change.

Can anyone argue that the watch industry a decidedly capitalistic enterprise? Yet the sort of change being advocated is decidedly un-capitalistic if it has to be forced on buyers and sellers unwilling to do so otherwise.

It just looks like many social media acolytes have lost sight of the old adage "vote with your wallet". In this case that means they can shop with vendors who acknowledge their preference for non-gendered watches, or at least make it possible to shop as if there were no distinction. Instead, the most radical try to exercise the power of the mob and the power of cancel culture to force sweeping changes desired only by the few on the many.


----------



## docvail

Sussa said:


> And you've just proved my point. When we apply labels to things, certain connotations or even biases come with it. So we should make sure the labels are accurate. Inaccurate labeling could make us miss out on the perfect watch because we think it will be too heavy, or invalidate someone's experiences. Are there times when labels do more harm than good? If a label can't be applied accurately and it introduces bias, should it even be applied at all? (That is a rhetorical question. I really don't want to go down a rabbit hole of acceptable ranges of accuracy.)


While re-reading your posts, I kept finding that we often agreed on what we saw as "wrong" in the current situation, but disagreed on what ought to be done about it. Here it is again.

I agree applying labels comes with certain connotations, for better or worse. It's often deliberate, as a way to make marketing messages more effective, or create / reinforce some brand image.

When it comes to making us miss out because we assume a watch will be too this or too that, it already happens, and will continue to happen, regardless of gender labels. It happens all the time, just based on people's size-based assumptions.

I know many men who won't look at watches above or below a certain diameter, without giving any thought to the other dimensions, or the overall design. I was sure Rusty's upcoming 38mm watches would feel too small for me, until I took one of the samples for a test drive, and loved it.

That's not to say that gender-labels wouldn't add to that specific problem. No doubt they would.

But here again, I look at my own experience in business. I've never labeled the watches as "men's", and yet my customers are almost exclusively men, and women generally view them as "men's watches", without even knowing their size or weight. That suggests that there's a lot more to this than whether or not we use gender-labels, and how we use them.

There have been times when I've explained that the 40mm Subs are on the smaller side for men, given popular trends, and on the larger side for women, but still wearable. That's my standard response when women ask me about their sizes, or say they like smaller watches.

Even without the gender-labels being applied, the size suggests a gender role, and the explanation has the same basic meaning as "made with men in mind, but some women like them."

We were talking about how gender labels affect the online shopping experience...

I totally agree that any big website that sells lots of different watches should make case diameter an available option for search criteria. Even better would be to include other dimensions too, like lug length, thickness, and weight. I also agree that no search should be based on gender-labels alone, nor should choosing a gender label be mandatory in order to do any search.

But effective searching often means choosing more search criteria, in order to refine the search and further limit the number of results. So long as searches can be done without having to choose a gender label, I don't see how it's a bad thing to have those labels available, for anyone who might want to exclude results meant for one or another gender.


----------



## docvail

Only out of curiosity, I went to search Omega's website. This is just a single example, but here's what I found...

First, they make the Planet Ocean, with the Co-Ax automatic movement, in two smaller sizes, 37.5mm and 39.5mm. I'm guessing women, and likely some men, wouldn't mind something even smaller than 37.5mm, perhaps 36mm, and maybe even smaller than that.

And given the thickness of the Co-Ax movement, and the 600m WR, my bet is they're fairly thick watches, especially for a 37.5mm diameter, which isn't likely to make women like them any more, if that thickness increases the weight or descreases the comfort.

What's interesting is this - I was able to find them in a search that didn't include any gender labels, just by refining my other search criteria based on collections, movements, and sizes. And, I was able to find them when I started out with "women's selection".

But it's worth noting the "women's selection" results didn't return the larger sizes, and just as importantly, when I started out with "men's selection", the results didn't include those two smaller sizes, only the much larger 43.5mm size.

What's also interesting is that the way the site works, avoiding gender labels in search isn't nearly as intuitive as starting out with gender-labels, and even more striking is that the gender-labels are a sub-heading under the heading of "Search by Size", which is the first search criteria presented under "Find your Omega". It clearly sends the signal that size and gender are linked, which isn't necessarily a good thing to communicate, given the search results men are likely to get.

It seems insane to me that Omega's website wouldn't show the smaller sizes in a search for men's watches, since those sizes aren't really all that small. The Tudor Black Bay 58 is slightly smaller, at 39mm. I'd understand if the "men's" search excluded the versions encrusted with jewels, but to exclude all the smaller sizes, on the basis of size alone, just doesn't make any sense.

At least in this case, the message seems to be "Men, your watches are bigger", but not necessarily "Women, your watches are pretty", only "Women, your watches are smaller", since the smaller sizes include a number of versions which appear to just be smaller versions of the larger, "men's" versions, with nothing to suggest they're for women, other than the smaller size.

How does that affect the shopping experience of the typical user? It would seem that women would find the smaller sizes easily, either by starting with "women's selection", or skipping gender-labels, and just searching using other criteria.

But it wouldn't be nearly as easy for men who started out with "men's selection", and in that scenario, it seems likely that any men who then ends up searching "women's selection" looking for the smaller sizes, or simply restarting his search, and skipping the gender labels, would end up getting the message that smaller watches are for women, only.

Seems like a big goof for Omega, but it also seems the way they're applying gender roles to their search function is more likely to negatively impact men, rather than women.

Women would seem to be more impacted by the fact that the "smaller" sizes really aren't that small. But at least the smaller sizes encompass a broader range of styles, from very "girly", to not overtly feminine whatsoever. At least Omega seems to understand some women might not want their Planet Ocean polluted with bling. I'm not sure why they don't understand there are many men, not all of them with smaller wrists, who don't want to wear a 43.5mm watch.


----------



## Bird-Dog

docvail said:


> It clearly sends the signal that size and gender are linked, which isn't necessarily a good thing to communicate, given the search results men are likely to get.


What do you want them to do, subdivide into "Big Burly Manly Men" and "Dainty Little Girly Men"?

And I'm not touching the female subdivisions these days. not with a ten foot flaming fireplace poker!


----------



## docvail

Bird-Dog said:


> What do you want them to do, subdivide into "Big Burly Manly Men" and "Dainty Little Girly Men"?
> 
> And I'm not touching the female subdivisions these days. not with a ten foot flaming fire poker!


Can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. I'll take it as serious.

Haven't said it yet, but this seems like as good a time as any - over the last few days, it's occurred to me that I'm likely as offended by an ugly, over-designed, low-quality, 50mm Invicta quartz monstrosity, as somehow representative of a "man's" watch, as women may be by a 24mm, hot-pink, low-quality, rhinestone-studded quartz watch, as somehow representative of a "women's" watch.

It seems to me that if we take gender out of it, enthusiasts of any gender are likely to see both as being fairly cartoonish products to be aimed at any human, of any gender or size, based on the watches' style, or size, or either, or both.

It's not just Invicta and the like, though Invicta's making a lot of what I personally find vulgar within the realm of "men's" watches. A 44mm Panerai, while more tasteful in its design, is still cartoonishly large for me, a fairly alpha-male, with a precisely average (for a man) 7" wrist. I would never consider one unless it was 42mm, or even better, 40mm, since those square cases wear larger than round ones of the same dimensions.

It's surprising to me that Omega, which must realize Tudor couldn't keep the 39mm BB58 in stock for at least a year, due to demand being so high, wouldn't see enough opportunity in selling 37.5mm-39.5mm watches to men. I mean, my bread-and-butter product is a 40mm watch. How is the 39.5mm Plane Ocean a "ladies" watch?

I wear watches up to 43mm/44mm, but they're of my own design, typically, and I make sure they wear smaller than their dimensions, by making them thinner, lighter, and with shorter lug lengths. The 43.5mm PO isn't like that. I've tried them on. They're gargantuan.

I suppose many men, myself included, would find their search function odd in that regard - that they've allowed those 37.5mm-39.5mm sizes to be definitively labeled "women's watches", especially when there are versions which aren't as blingtastic, if that's what Omega's product management team thinks a "woman's" watch is. If so, then how do the non-blingtastic, yet smaller versions get put in there? Their inclusion in the women's selections, but not the men's, suggests any smaller watch is automatically a woman's, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't see why they'd need to sub-divide the category of "men's" watches into "Big Men" or "Small Men". Why not just label anything which isn't blingtastic as a suitable for inclusion in the men's selection, regardless of size? Not that I'm suggesting men would never wear bling, only suggesting that Omega appears to think that, so it would logically follow that those smaller, non-blingtastic PO's could be included in men's selections, unless Omega just thinks smaller watches are only for women, which seems to be the logical conclusion here.

The women's selections also appear to have different sizes. Should they sub-divide that category into "Big Women" and "Small Women"? That doesn't seem like it would end very well.


----------



## docvail

Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear. This is a screenshot from Omega's site.










Being able to search by size, and size alone, without any gender distinction, would make sense to me. But that "By Size" text isn't a hyperlink. You can't click on it. If you want to literally search "by size", that option really doesn't exist within the main navigation. "By Size" is really "By Gender", as the only options are "Women's" or "Men's".

The only way to truly search by size, but without selecting a gender, is to start your search with any of the other links in that menu. If you go to "Dive Watches", for example, you then have the option to filter results according to size, using actual dimensions, rather than gender labels:










But then, this just adds crazy to the insanity. Under those search criteria are suggested alternative searches. "Men's Selection" is there, but not "Women's", as if women wouldn't be shopping for a dive watch, since we started with that as our first search criteria here.










That's just nuts. I can't believe a company with Omega's resources, one which makes a large variety of watches for women, would allow their site's search function to work that way. It seems like it's likely to irritate both men and women, and decrease sales.


----------



## Bird-Dog

docvail said:


> Can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. I'll take it as serious.


Sarcastic. But, I get it. You can't always tell. Just like, even with reams and reams of commentary, I can't really tell "if'n yer for or agin" shoehorning us all into one big homogeneous mass as is being advocated by a few here.

But you can do whatever you want. You own a watch company! And other watch companies should be able to do what they think works best for them.

As I said earlier, we the buying public have it within our power to vote with our wallets. If stirring everything into one androgynous pot really is what "everyone wants" then it will happen through market forces. Pressure from lone "influencers" and SJW's does not generally result in "what's best for everyone".


----------



## mauhip

docvail said:


> Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear. This is a screenshot from Omega's site.
> 
> View attachment 15782053
> 
> 
> Being able to search by size, and size alone, without any gender distinction, would make sense to me. But that "By Size" text isn't a hyperlink. You can't click on it. If you want to literally search "by size", that option really doesn't exist within the main navigation. "By Size" is really "By Gender", as the only options are "Women's" or "Men's".
> 
> The only way to truly search by size, but without selecting a gender, is to start your search with any of the other links in that menu. If you go to "Dive Watches", for example, you then have the option to filter results according to size, using actual dimensions, rather than gender labels:
> 
> View attachment 15782055
> 
> 
> But then, this just adds crazy to the insanity. Under those search criteria are suggested alternative searches. "Men's Selection" is there, but not "Women's", as if women wouldn't be shopping for a dive watch, since we started with that as our first search criteria here.
> 
> View attachment 15782057
> 
> 
> That's just nuts. I can't believe a company with Omega's resources, one which makes a large variety of watches for women, would allow their site's search function to work that way. It seems like it's likely to irritate both men and women, and decrease sales.


You touch here on a frustration of mine with watch shopping. Particularly in lockdown when we can't go out to shops. Some websites don't give the option to filter on size at all, some the size ranges are large and not very useful. All of them you have to pick something else first (automatic, brand, style etc...) before you filter on size, but most of the workflows are designed for you to pick men's watches or ladies watches first. However the choice in the ladies watches tends to be a lot smaller than the men's section. There are also many watches in the men's section that don't stand out as particularly male or female, but are not displayed in the women's section. I don't see why they cannot be displayed in both.

Sent from my moto g(8) plus using Tapatalk


----------



## docvail

Bird-Dog said:


> Sarcastic. But, I get it. You can't always tell. Just like, even with reams and reams of commentary, I can't really tell "if'n yer for or agin" shoehorning us all into one big homogeneous mass as is being advocated by a few here.
> 
> But you can do whatever you want. You own a watch company! And other watch companies should be able to do what they think works best for them.
> 
> As I said earlier, we the buying public have it within our power to vote with our wallets. If stirring everything into one androgynous pot really is what "everyone wants" then it will happen through market forces. Pressure from lone "influencers" and SJW's does not generally result in "what's best for everyone".


Earlier I was imagining someone suggesting I'm somehow threatened by the Hodinkee piece, as my motivation for this thread.

I honestly don't see how this would affect my business at all. I'm not using gender-labels with the products now. I was trying to imagine some scenario where the social media zeitgeist would create the expectation that all brands adopt an all-watches-are-unisex approach. Okay, that wouldn't change anything we're doing here.

That said, I think the Hodinkee piece does bother me somewhat. I'm not entirely sure why.

Perhaps it's that the conclusion (all watches should be unisex) doesn't necessarily follow from what the problem seems to be (not enough brands offering enough choices women like, and too often insulting women with what they consider "women's" watches). Perhaps it's the weird, semi-recurring feeling that anything said about the industry as a whole would include me.

Even if I'm not likely to benefit in any way, maybe it's just the realization that there might be some value here, if Hodinkee can get the industry to take a hard look at how it serves women, but I see potential problems in the likely outcomes, based on how the problem for women appears to be getting framed by the discussion.

The longer I think about it, the more I think the best possible outcomes would come from women and men banding together, lobbying the industry to make more watches in smaller sizes.

My logic is pretty straight-forward. As a brand owner, I can't help but recognize that women make up a small minority of the market, so it's hard for me to see my way clear to investing in making watches for them. And men's wrist sizes tend to hover around 7", but there appears to be more appetite for larger watches than smaller watches among men, so likewise, it's hard for me to rationalize investing in smaller designs for smaller wristed men.

But if the industry saw smaller-wristed men and women as a sort of coalition of two separate constituencies, and if the industry recognized that not all women want blingtastic jewelry pieces, then the industry might see more opportunity than they currently do if they view the two groups as having distinctly different tastes, with no overlap. I think even with all the disagreements here, the one thing we all agree on is that there's clearly some overlap, maybe a lot of it.

For me, it's really just a matter of the numbers making sense. When my business grows to the point I can rationalize a smaller watch, we'll make one. When that happens, we can then look at what to do, if anything, to differentiate designs as being "for men", or "for women". But, knowing my own design sensibilities, I think I'd end up with a set of fairly binary choices like Omega's PO's - some smaller yet still masculine options, and some options which are both smaller and prettier.


----------



## Bird-Dog

docvail said:


> Earlier I was imagining someone suggesting I'm somehow threatened by the Hodinkee piece, as my motivation for this thread.
> 
> I honestly don't see how this would affect my business at all. I'm not using gender-labels with the products now. I was trying to imagine some scenario where the social media zeitgeist would create the expectation that all brands adopt an all-watches-are-unisex approach. Okay, that wouldn't change anything we're doing here.
> 
> That said, I think the Hodinkee piece does bother me somewhat. I'm not entirely sure why.
> 
> Perhaps it's that the conclusion (all watches should be unisex) doesn't necessarily follow from what the problem seems to be (not enough brands offering enough choices women like, and too often insulting women with what they consider "women's" watches). Perhaps it's the weird, semi-recurring feeling that anything said about the industry as a whole would include me.
> 
> Even if I'm not likely to benefit in any way, maybe it's just the realization that there might be some value here, if Hodinkee can get the industry to take a hard look at how it serves women, but I see potential problems in the likely outcomes, based on how the problem for women appears to be getting framed by the discussion.
> 
> The longer I think about it, the more I think the best possible outcomes would come from women and men banding together, lobbying the industry to make more watches in smaller sizes.
> 
> My logic is pretty straight-forward. As a brand owner, I can't help but recognize that women make up a small minority of the market, so it's hard for me to see my way clear to investing in making watches for them. And men's wrist sizes tend to hover around 7", but there appears to be more appetite for larger watches than smaller watches among men, so likewise, it's hard for me to rationalize investing in smaller designs for smaller wristed men.
> 
> But if the industry saw smaller-wristed men and women as a sort of coalition of two separate constituencies, and if the industry recognized that not all women want blingtastic jewelry pieces, then the industry might see more opportunity than they currently do if they view the two groups as having distinctly different tastes, with no overlap. I think even with all the disagreements here, the one thing we all agree on is that there's clearly some overlap, maybe a lot of it.
> 
> For me, it's really just a matter of the numbers making sense. When my business grows to the point I can rationalize a smaller watch, we'll make one. When that happens, we can then look at what to do, if anything, to differentiate designs as being "for men", or "for women". But, knowing my own design sensibilities, I think I'd end up with a set of fairly binary choices like Omega's PO's - some smaller yet still masculine options, and some options which are both smaller and prettier.


I think what you may be struggling with is that the practical solution is not calling everything "unisex" for the sake of appearing inclusive. Rather it's for the industry to simply produce more choices that TRULY ARE unisex in size, if not nature, and be willing to call them what they are... unisex. And that's fine.

As far as whether tastes overlap, some will and some won't. It doesn't really matter. The customer can decide for themselves if a certain design appeals to them or not, for whatever reason. But I'd be willing to bet there'd be more overlap than not if the designs are on-target. Most of the men shopping the unisex section would be doing so because they have smaller wrists (or smaller stature), and most of the women would be there because they don't want dainty fashion designs.

If some "unisex" designs still lean more toward traditionally feminine or masculine sensibilities... well... (hmm, how to put this delicately)... in today's world there will still be some crossover, either way. And honestly, I think that's what the most radical of advocates want, forced role reversals, if not utter obliteration of gender recognition. But do we all have to be androgynous in their world? And do all watches now have to be androgynous too? Or can we live in our own world and wear what we want, even if that means I'm a man wanting watches, and clothes, and whatever, that are masculine?

Regardless, it's an infinitely better idea to further establish unisex as a third category (one that already exists in many venues BTW) than disrupt the traditional segments by lumping everything into one. Personally, I have no interest in watches would be small enough to fit that category. So, an all-in-one would only hinder my ability to identify the watches in my own wheelhouse. However, I could see my wife wanting a new dive watch - yes, actual dive watch for the intended use - that's still sized appropriately enough to wear as an everyday toolish piece. So yeah, it would be good to have that third option.

Therefore, as you can see, I'm not against unisex watches. Not in the least. What I'm annoyed by are the "activists" who would destroy the existing men's and women's categories, refusing to acknowledge basic fundamental differences in the general nature of each, rather than simply advocating for more choices and more recognition of a third category that falls somewhere in between. Ignoring that a large contingency of each gender do find exactly what they're looking for under the existing gender headings is a fool's errand.


----------



## mrv

Yes, they should create 'the third gender-whatever' category, and maybe it will work in other things too like clothes, but I'm afraid those 'third gender people' may think that it will be offensive because they are so 'unique' and divided into so many sub-categories that each of them would like their own category with their own merchandise?


----------



## fellini212

Bird-Dog said:


> And honestly, I think that's what the most radical of advocates want, forced role reversals, if not utter obliteration of gender recognition.


ffs


----------



## one onety-one

docvail said:


> That said, I think the Hodinkee piece does bother me somewhat. I'm not entirely sure why.
> 
> Perhaps it's that the conclusion (all watches should be unisex) doesn't necessarily follow from what the problem seems to be (not enough brands offering enough choices women like, and too often insulting women with what they consider "women's" watches). Perhaps it's the weird, semi-recurring feeling that anything said about the industry as a whole would include me.
> 
> Even if I'm not likely to benefit in any way, maybe it's just the realization that there might be some value here, if Hodinkee can get the industry to take a hard look at how it serves women, but I see potential problems in the likely outcomes, based on how the problem for women appears to be getting framed by the discussion.


Maybe because the Hodinkee article reeks of insincerity. While purporting to possibly identify ways to make watches more marketable to everybody, the author was more interested in using watches as a device to express her point of view on a social issue. The interests in expanding the watch market were not advanced.


----------



## Bird-Dog

fellini212 said:


> ffs


Prove me wrong. Say something sane and reasonable on the subject.


----------



## KCZ

PiguetPolo said:


> Skimmed the Hodinkee piece and its seems to be more about *reframing how watches are advertised versus the actual watch designs themselves*. She actually says some of the mens watches are quite feminine yet they are still advertised for men. The meat of the argument is there and not about watch product design for women.
> 
> I don't see anything controversial is what was written nor as a man do I feel blamed. I'd agree on some level because the people who actually are wearing the watches have already moved past what the brands perceives of themselves, who their customers are, or should be.
> 
> My takeaway from some of the responses reinforces the central idea that men don't listen to what women are trying to say, and when we do, its with a complete lack of empathy or real understanding on how to act on what is said. The response runs the gamut from apathetic appeasement to misguided problem-solving.


Your highlighted phrase is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. Remarketing all watches as "unisex" is not going to help women at all if we don't get some new/different designs which we actually want, particularly something in smaller sizes that fit our wrists. However I do think this is, and should be controversial...it's just a ploy to make it appear like this new marketing plan is giving women a lot more choices when it's really not changing anything for us. Maybe it will help men feel more comfortable buying smaller watches formerly known as "ladies."



Bird-Dog said:


> A lot of websites just pull up "watches" unless and until you filter by gender. And many do include "unisex" as an option.
> 
> So, what exactly are "we" pushing for here. I see some posts apparently advocating completely wiping gender out of all consumer goods (no gender distinction for clothes? really?). But that's patently ridiculous in the real world. Why must all watches be unisex when common sense says a great number of shoppers, likely the vast majority, find it more convenient to shop gendered offerings? Yes, common sense! Else, if it would increase their revenues, marketeers would already have made the change.
> 
> Can anyone argue that the watch industry a decidedly capitalistic enterprise? Yet the sort of change being advocated is decidedly un-capitalistic if it has to be forced on buyers and sellers unwilling to do so otherwise.
> 
> It just looks like many social media acolytes have lost sight of the old adage "vote with your wallet". In this case that means they can shop with vendors who acknowledge their preference for non-gendered watches, or at least make it possible to shop as if there were no distinction. Instead, the most radical try to exercise the power of the mob and the power of cancel culture to force sweeping changes desired only by the few on the many.


Your missing the point that women can't vote with their wallets unless there are products that we want to vote for. Let a vendor make me a 36mm diver that comes in something besides black, white, and blue, and I'll likely vote for it.

Doc, look again at the Omega site that you pulled up. Using that search algorithm, it's nearly impossible to find the only diver style watch <37.5mm that Omega has, a 28mm quartz Seamaster, unless you know already that it exists. Here's a picture of mine, which I wear with a tennis bracelet for dress-up. Cute, isn't it? Why doesn't Omega offer something between 32-36mm in a non-cute size? Men's divers come in multiple sizes from 37.5mm to 45.5mm.


----------



## Bird-Dog

KCZ said:


> Your missing the point that women can't vote with their wallets unless there are products that we want to vote for. Let a vendor make me a 36mm diver that comes in something besides black, white, and blue, and I'll likely vote for it.


Voting with your wallet includes voting _"no"_, as in _"no, I'm not buying anything from you"_.

But nice Seamaster you voted for _with your wallet_. So I guess I didn't miss the point after all.

Snark aside (for the moment anyway), I'm all for them making more of the watches you want. And I'm all for you having an easier way of finding them. But does it have to be at the expense of me finding mine just as easily?


----------



## docvail

KCZ said:


> Your highlighted phrase is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. Remarketing all watches as "unisex" is not going to help women at all if we don't get some new/different designs which we actually want, particularly something in smaller sizes that fit our wrists. However I do think this is, and should be controversial...it's just a ploy to make it appear like this new marketing plan is giving women a lot more choices when it's really not changing anything for us. Maybe it will help men feel more comfortable buying smaller watches formerly known as "ladies."
> 
> Your missing the point that women can't vote with their wallets unless there are products that we want to vote for. Let a vendor make me a 36mm diver that comes in something besides black, white, and blue, and I'll likely vote for it.
> 
> Doc, look again at the Omega site that you pulled up. Using that search algorithm, it's nearly impossible to find the only diver style watch <37.5mm that Omega has, a 28mm quartz Seamaster, unless you know already that it exists. Here's a picture of mine, which I wear with a tennis bracelet for dress-up. Cute, isn't it? Why doesn't Omega offer something between 32-36mm in a non-cute size? Men's divers come in multiple sizes from 37.5mm to 45.5mm.
> 
> View attachment 15782854


I think I was using automatic movements as one of the search criteria, because some of the comments from women included pointing out that women's watches were too often quartz, with fewer automatic options.

I was just trying to see if Omega still made the smaller version of the Seamaster with an automatic movement, but ended up discovering how bad Omega's search filters are, both in terms of usability, and in terms of how bizarrely sexist they are, if sexist is even the right term.

I mean, I think the search results being limited to the 43.5mm PO, and excluding the 39.5mm PO is more insulting to men than to women, or at the very least, just as insulting.

What, I'm not a man if I can't rock a manhole cover on my wrist?


----------



## KCZ

Bird-Dog said:


> Voting with your wallet includes voting _"no"_, as in _"no, I'm not buying anything from you"_.
> 
> But nice Seamaster you voted for with your wallet. So I guess I didn't miss the point after all.
> 
> Snark aside (for the moment anyway), I'm all for them making more of the watches you want. And I'm all for you having an easier way of finding them. But does it have to be at the expense of me finding mine just as easily?


It shouldn't be at the expense of men. Why should this problem be modeled as a zero-sum game? And most watch manufacturers would benefit from redesigning their websites because it's impossible to find anything.


----------



## docvail

I still don't think it's a good idea to abolish the use of "men's" and "women's" as labels, but I have been persuaded that it might be time the industry made more and better use of "unisex" as an option for smaller sized models with designs that aren't clearly for women.

It would be interesting to see some survey data indicating how men would react to smaller watches being labeled "unisex", as opposed to just "men's" watches. Would the Tudor Black Bay 58 sold as well among men if it was labeled unisex? Would the 39.5mm Planet Ocean?

I'm just wondering how man men view "unisex" as being code for "ladies watch a man might like", just as apparently some women view it as "men's watch a woman might like", and if that leads to lower acceptance.


----------



## Bird-Dog

docvail said:


> I mean, I think the search results being limited to the 43.5mm PO, and excluding the 39.5mm PO is more insulting to men than to women, or at the very least, just as insulting.
> 
> What, I'm not a man if I can't rock a *manhole cover* on my wrist?


Insulting? You're losing me there, Slim. And here I was thinking one of the 43.75mm Swiftsures might finally be the NTH I was waiting for that wouldn't look too small on my wrist. (smh)

BTW, 39.5mm PO's come up just fine for me on Omega's site. In fact, I have a hard time figuring out how to get rid of them since they're not for me.


----------



## Bird-Dog

KCZ said:


> It shouldn't be at the expense of men. Why should this problem be modeled as a zero-sum game? And most watch manufacturers would benefit from redesigning their websites because it's impossible to find anything.


Hoorah! We're on the same side after all.


----------



## docvail

Bird-Dog said:


> Insulting? You're losing me there, Slim. And here I was thinking one of the 43.75mm Swiftsures might finally be the NTH I was waiting for that wouldn't look too small on my wrist. (smh)
> 
> BTW, 39.5mm PO's come up just fine for me on Omega's site. In fact, I have a hard time figuring out how to get rid of them since they're not for me.


I'm not insulted that they say the 43.5mm PO is for men. I'm insulted that they seem to be saying ONLY the 43.5mm is for men, but not the 39.5mm, which is much closer to my preferred size, as a man with an average wrist size of 7", nor the 37.5mm, which is a tad small for me, but certainly a size a lot of men might wear.

It's like seeing all the guys on Facebook or elsewhere saying "grow larger wrists, girly man". Really? Just do wrist-curls until I bulk up enough to wear a watch that's still longer and thicker than it needs to be, just so it'll fit my frame?

And, I explained how it happened that the smaller sizes didn't turn up in my search results.

Go to the Omega Website. Click "Find Your Omega" > "Men's Selection", then filter results by "Collection - Seamaster", and "Subcollection - Planet Ocean". The only results are 43.5mm. The 37.5mm and 39.5mm aren't there, despite being part of the Planet Ocean range, because I started my search with "Men's Selection".

As for the Swiftsure, all the feedback I've gotten is from guys saying it wears amazingly well, given its dimensions, almost like it's magic. I would hope so, since I'm pretty sure it's the thinnest 60 ATM (technically, 61) watch in the world, at just 13mm thick. Compare that to the wrist-brick Planet Ocean, which is also 60 ATM, but 16.5mm.

Here's an example:









This is the all-new, most current, official NTH thread


Currently my daily driver. If only it had a fitted rubber strap. (Does it?) Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk




www.watchuseek.com


----------



## Bird-Dog

ABC - LOL


----------



## fellini212

Would it be possible to tailor a smaller mens&#039...


I haven't found anything I really really like in my price range, and I'm not willing to fork over a few g's for something I don't love. I see listings for gorgeous mens watches popping up every day, and I'm jelly AF. Do you guys think it's a good idea to buy like a 42mm mens watch and take a...




www.watchuseek.com


----------



## Johann23

mrv said:


> Yes, they should create 'the third gender-whatever' category, and maybe it will work in other things too like clothes, but I'm afraid those 'third gender people' may think that it will be offensive because they are so 'unique' and divided into so many sub-categories that each of them would like their own category with their own merchandise?


The "adult" industry already did this 30 years ago. They named it chicks with ...


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> Would it be possible to tailor a smaller mens&#039...
> 
> 
> I haven't found anything I really really like in my price range, and I'm not willing to fork over a few g's for something I don't love. I see listings for gorgeous mens watches popping up every day, and I'm jelly AF. Do you guys think it's a good idea to buy like a 42mm mens watch and take a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.watchuseek.com


I'm surprised how many men in that thread are encouraging her to get a 42mm watch, considering how many men on the forums lament the big watch trend.

With her wrist size of 5.5", I doubt she'll be happy wearing anything over 38mm.


----------



## Ron1

This thread is like watching a car crash, can't look away. It's great reading and has raised some valid points.

How about this, if the demand for smaller watches was there then the manufacturers would be producing them. No retail operation will deliberately ignore a opportunity for *profit*.

Most websites are poorly designed. No excuse but they are.
Casio's is shocking, Timex is another culprit where depending on your location - we might admit the watch exists. Not available mind you, just that it at one point existed.

How about just lumping them all together, ignore boy/girl/bling/no-bling/pretty dials/butch bracelets and just separate by size?
<36mm
36-38mm
39mm and above

However you want to split the sizes, then everyone can purchase and decide for themselves if it's a guys watch or a ladies without any preconceived label.

Some models are more popular than others, it goes in cycles. 
I don't have data but I'd guess the SKX007 sold a lot more units than the SKX013, Seiko would be nuts not to make more of the more popular model.

If I were trying to push sales of watches to ladies, I'd employ ladies in my design team.
That might be worth a go but the bottom line is the market share of customers, rightly or wrongly is men so that's where my main focus would be. An opportunity to grab new customers, or increase my sales while interesting, is a risk that requires investment and big operations don't like risks any more than micro brands who are just trying to survive.
Smaller watches will become cool again at some point.


----------



## fellini212

Ron1 said:


> How about this, if the demand for smaller watches was there then the manufacturers would be producing them.


Isn't the Hodinkee piece in the OP exactly that? An expression of the demand for smaller, better watches _not being met_ ?

Manufacturers have blind spots, too.


----------



## docvail

When I've been asked to make a women's watch, I've occasionally tried to understand why men make up so much of the watch buying market. Why don't more women buy more watches?

When I've thought about it, what I've come up with is that for decades, men's fashion "authorities" have been sending and reinforcing the message that only a wedding ring and a watch are acceptable jewelry for a man to wear in every situation, and that when we meet a woman, the first thing she looks at is our shoes and our watch. The obvious implication is that we should be wearing a watch, and it better send the right signal.

And aside from the marketing, we have prominent figures reinforcing the idea that a watch is part of the standard and expected "male uniform", such as the oft-quoted Malcolm X, "I have less patience with someone who doesn't wear a watch than with anyone else, for this type is not time-conscious. In all our deeds, the proper value and respect for time determines success or failure."

The sub-text there is powerful. Any man not wearing a watch is risking disfavor and failure, and all the things that go with failure, which often includes a lack of female company.

Conversely, women typically have and wear more jewelry, so watches have to compete for wallet share, and wrist space. Women haven't been conditioned with marketing or social messages intended to create the same pressure to wear a watch that men might feel.

So what can brands or the industry do to get women to buy more watches?

Obviously, it would help if brands made more watches in smaller sizes, and in more diverse styles. But I wonder why the industry hasn't seen the opportunity the women's market represents, and invested in developing that market.

The Swiss have invested 30-40 years and untold millions of dollars in the value of the "Swiss Made" label, resulting in the widespread and mostly unquestioned notion that Swiss watches are the best.

They've also invested a lot of money in making people feel ashamed for buying fakes. I'm referring to the whole "fake watches are for fake people" campaign.










Why not make the same sort of investment in getting more women to want to buy a watch? That would likely lead to less risk in developing smaller watches and watches specifically for women.

Women are graduating from college in higher percentages than men. The wage gap has been steadily closing. Single women are buying their own homes, now that society has put aside the notion that marriage is a precursor to home ownership. Women are now commonly celebrating personal achievements the same way men might, one of which is buying a watch to mark the occasion.

I think a campaign targeted at women, intended to get them to see watches in a way similar to how men see them, could pay huge dividends.


----------



## fellini212

I give Doc a lot of credit for actually looking at that Barrett essay and trying to figure out all the micro- and macro- economic and cultural impulses intersecting there.


----------



## Ron1

fellini212 said:


> Isn't the Hodinkee piece in the OP exactly that? An expression of the demand for smaller, better watches _not being met_ ?
> 
> Manufacturers have blind spots, too.


Nope, it's asking why more watches aren't available in smaller sizes.
Because the demand currently isn't there.

When I'm shopping for my next set of Jimmy Choos my choice is limited because they don't have many customers wanting UK size 12's.
It's not because I'm a guy, it's because there simply isn't the demand.
Now, if Choo got a few guys on the design team and bashed out & marketed some new models, then who knows?

The point is at the minute, the investment isn't worth the return as the current trend is for larger watches regardless of gender.


----------



## fellini212

Ron1 said:


> Nope,* it's asking why more watches aren't available in smaller sizes.*
> Because the demand currently isn't there.
> 
> When I'm shopping for my next set of Jimmy Choos my choice is limited because they don't have many customers wanting UK size 12's.
> It's not because I'm a guy, it's because there simply isn't the demand.
> Now, if Choo got a few guys on the design team and bashed out & marketed some new models, then who knows?
> 
> The point is at the minute, the investment isn't worth the return as the current trend is for larger watches regardless of gender.


It's not.

And sorry, but the demand/no demand argument is essentially circular. There's no demand because there's no product, and there's no product because there's no demand.


----------



## Ron1

That's a fair point, but why risk the investment required when you have a sure thing?
And it is a risk, the market is dominated by male customers just like Jimmy's is dominated by female clients.

When Serena and Roger win Wimbledon in a few months want to bet who's watch has the biggest uptick in sales? 

It's just the way it is.


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> Isn't the Hodinkee piece in the OP exactly that? An expression of the demand for smaller, better watches _not being met_ ?
> 
> Manufacturers have blind spots, too.


No, it's definitely not exactly that. If anything, it's exactly the opposite of that.

I think objectively, the Hodinkee piece is unclear in places, and in its logic, but where it is clear, it's not what you'd expect to hear from a woman if she's echoing the commonly heard complaints from other women, vis-a-vis not enough options available to them, which they actually like.

I'll quote some salient examples, selectively...

_"When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like."_​
Okay, so what does "conventional ladies' pieces" mean, exactly? It would seem like she means the sorts of "ladies" designs many women apparently find condescending.

But that's not entirely clear, when I read this part:

_ "The category of 'women's watches' seems especially pointless. Before I get into why, I want to clarify that I'm not referring to jewelry watches (i.e. the Bulgari Serpentis, the Piaget cuffs, and the Van Cleef & Arpels Cadenas of the world). I'm referring to the category of so-called men's watches that are simply shrunken, bedazzled, and quartzified for the ladies."_​
I've read that four times now, and I still haven't gotten clarity. When I think of "jewelry" watches, what I think of, exactly, is watches which are "shrunken, bedazzled, and [often] quartizfied". What are those, if not "jewelry" watches? Given the brand names she threw out, my inference is those sorts of designs are only "respectable" if they come from well-known, expensive brands, which just sounds snobbish.

And why does the category of "women's watches" seem "pointless"? Because she doesn't like some "women's" watches, even though other women might? Or because she likes watches which are marketed to men?

And *HOW* were the other watches she owns marketed to men, exactly? Were they explicitly labeled "men's", or is she inferring that based on their designs?

If those watches weren't explicitly labeled "men's", then it doesn't logically follow that they should have been labeled "unisex", or that labeling them as such will make them any more appealing to women.

She says that the watches she owns were marketed to men, but it would be better if they were labeled "unisex", and yet - she owns them, which means she bought them, so it raises the question of what would change, for her or anyone else, if the "unisex" label was applied?

And I don't just mean what would change in the shopping experience. I mean how that would change everything, from product development to the shopping experience to the ownership experience.

Of her shopping experiences, she has this to say:

_"As a consumer, I don't want to be told what I should and should not buy. I want to decide on my own. I do not need a salesperson to condescendingly guide me to a poorly lit case to show me what they think I would like in the ladies' section."_​
Was that *REALLY* her experience? Where? Surely it wasn't that, in the glitzy, well-lit and marbled shrines to consumerism she'd find in Manhattan. It sounds more like something she imagines happening somewhere else, to some other women.

But I've visited plenty of AD's, in various parts of the world (Philadelphia, New York, Orlando, Exeter in the UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong), and never seen anything like that. And I pay attention to it, because I'm not going into AD's to shop, I'm going in to do research, basically, into what's selling, what the experience is like, etc.

_"Almost every watch I own is at least 36mm and automatic or made for men. Not a single one - not the AP Royal Oak 15450, not the Rolex Day-Date Ref. 1803 - strikes me as overtly masculine. Some have gemstones."_​
Uhm....again, how does she know the watches were made "for men", exactly, if none of them strike her as "overtly masculine", and "some have gemstones", which is what I think "bedazzled" means, which of course is exactly what she complained about earlier, regarding "women's" watches.

If they have gemstones, and she sees that as a "women's watch" trait, yet she doesn't see them as overtly masculine, then it would seem like the watches are "unisex" by default, or unisex in her view, or she's seriously confused about what differentiates "women's" watches from "men's".

Which is it? I know _*I'm*_ confused.

_"Y'all, it's 2021. Gendered watches feel soooo Victorian. A few companies (like Zenith) are getting with the program; I've seen them either use men's watches on women in campaigns or make concerted advertising efforts focusing on strong independent women. Now it's time for everyone else to follow. If the brands were to approach watches differently, as an entire group, just think about all they would gain."_​
Gendered watches feel Victorian, or using genders at all feels Victorian? She owns both gendered watches and non gendered watches. My inference is the emphasis is on the use of gender, at all, not on its use with watches.

She likes what Zenith is doing. Awesome. Let's ask Zenith if it's working for them. We want to know if it's led to more sales, at all, to anyone, of any gender, before we leap to the conclusion it's time for "everyone else to follow suit" because of "all they would gain."

_"Ultimately, if you make watches unisex, then you will sell more watches." _​
Prove it, if not with actual sales data (which can't be done), then at least prove it logically, in theory. From what I've read, she hasn't. Far from it.

_"First, they would be catering to 100 percent of their customers. Not 45 percent or 55 percent, but all of us."_​
Women and men may make up roughly equal portions of the population, but it doesn't follow that they make up equal portions of the market for any product. What portion of the necktie market is made up of women? What portion of Spanx customers are men?

_"This would allow them to use their marketing dollars in joint campaigns showing both men and women wearing their products."_​
But would that be more effective? Prove it. Isn't it possible that an ad showing both women and men wearing the same product might be less effective? I can easily imagine it being criticized, by women, if they don't like how the woman is depicted. "She's just an accessory to the man!" Good luck with that.

_"Fashion scions like Gucci are already launching un-gendered apparel collections, which is harder because clothes fit different bodies differently."_​
Telling me that what you want me to do will be harder is the least effective way to get me to change what I'm doing. And again, is it working for Gucci, by way of increased sales, or is it just pleasing to the same NY-centric audience that views itself as enlightened, by avoiding gender labels, not just in products, but in people?

_"Meanwhile, a watch - even a big honkin' Hublot - is just a strap change or bracelet adjustment away from fitting any sized wrist."_​
Here we go. She's not calling for more smaller watches. She's not calling for smaller watches to be marketed to men. Earlier, she implied that "bedazzled" watches should be marketed as "unisex", so more men will wear formerly "ladies" watches without shame, and now she's calling for "big honkin'" watches to be marketed to women, despite the fact that real women have already rejected them, roundly, based on their size.

So, no, she's not calling for more smaller watches and better choices for women. Just the opposite. She's calling for more blurring of the boundaries regarding how products are labeled and marketed.

Cui bono? Who benefits?

Men who want to wear ladies watches without being stigmatized would benefit. The mostly-male-dominated brands making watches would benefit. Any woman who might be embarrassed to buy a "man's" watch would benefit (though I doubt there are very many women who feel that way, and certainly she doesn't). Anyone who just thinks gender is an outdated concept would benefit, but it would be a moral victory, at best, and possibly pyrrhic, without any obvious practical nor physical benefit, if they were hoping to see more smaller watches and better choices for women as a result.

_"Finally, gender-free timepieces would make women feel more included in what has typically been a dude-driven industry and hobby. "_​
Would they, really? How? Wouldn't more emphasis on developing the women's market, specifically, make women feel more included, rather than removing all acknowledgement that women exist, and have preferences which differ from men's?

There's more I could quote, but you get the idea. The entire piece is chock-full of ludicrous assertions, boastful predictions, and logical fallacies. None of it, nor does the sum total of all of it, offer anything remotely near a realistic, workable plan for anyone, in any capacity. Not customers, not retailers, not brands.

Here's a plan, that's realistic, and workable -

1. The industry should wake up to the opportunity in making smaller watches, for men or women, and the enormous opportunity in cultivating more women as customers, with more thoughtful designs and marketing campaigns.

2. The industry should stop designating watches as "men's" or "women's" based on size alone.

3. Men who like bedazzled women's watches and ladies who like big honkin' men's watches should just buy them, and not get wrapped up in how they're labeled or marketed, since re-labeling them and changing the marketing won't change society's views, after centuries of social conditioning regarding the genders. To reverse that social conditioning would require more money and time than the industry has and would be willing to invest.

4. Bloggers should stay in their lane. Write about the watches, or the people wearing them, or the people behind them, or the trends you're seeing, or industry news. Don't try to force a global shift in market perceptions, much less society at large, by way of not-so-subtle brow-beating about how outdated the concept of gender is. Realize, finally, that NY doesn't get to call the tune the rest of us must dance to. Don't presume to lecture an entire industry about what it's doing wrong, or offer a prescription which will most likely only make things worse, for everyone concerned.


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> No, it's definitely not exactly that. If anything, it's exactly the opposite of that.
> 
> I think objectively, the Hodinkee piece is unclear in places, and in its logic, but where it is clear, it's not what you'd expect to hear from a woman if she's echoing the commonly heard complaints from other women, vis-a-vis not enough options available to them, which they actually like.
> 
> I'll quote some salient examples, selectively...
> 
> _"When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like."_​
> Okay, so what does "conventional ladies' pieces" mean, exactly? It would seem like she means the sorts of "ladies" designs many women apparently find condescending.
> 
> But that's not entirely clear, when I read this part:
> 
> _ "The category of 'women's watches' seems especially pointless. Before I get into why, I want to clarify that I'm not referring to jewelry watches (i.e. the Bulgari Serpentis, the Piaget cuffs, and the Van Cleef & Arpels Cadenas of the world). I'm referring to the category of so-called men's watches that are simply shrunken, bedazzled, and quartzified for the ladies."_​
> I've read that four times now, and I still haven't gotten clarity. When I think of "jewelry" watches, what I think of, exactly, is watches which are "shrunken, bedazzled, and [often] quartizfied". What are those, if not "jewelry" watches? Given the brand names she threw out, my inference is those sorts of designs are only "respectable" if they come from well-known, expensive brands, which just sounds snobbish.
> 
> And why does the category of "women's watches" seem "pointless"? Because she doesn't like some "women's" watches, even though other women might? Or because she likes watches which are marketed to men?
> 
> And *HOW* were the other watches she owns marketed to men, exactly? Were they explicitly labeled "men's", or is she inferring that based on their designs?
> 
> If those watches weren't explicitly labeled "men's", then it doesn't logically follow that they should have been labeled "unisex", or that labeling them as such will make them any more appealing to women.
> 
> She says that the watches she owns were marketed to men, but it would be better if they were labeled "unisex", and yet - she owns them, which means she bought them, so it raises the question of what would change, for her or anyone else, if the "unisex" label was applied?
> 
> And I don't just mean what would change in the shopping experience. I mean how that would change everything, from product development to the shopping experience to the ownership experience.
> 
> Of her shopping experiences, she has this to say:
> 
> _"As a consumer, I don't want to be told what I should and should not buy. I want to decide on my own. I do not need a salesperson to condescendingly guide me to a poorly lit case to show me what they think I would like in the ladies' section."_​
> Was that *REALLY* her experience? Where? Surely it wasn't that, in the glitzy, well-lit and marbled shrines to consumerism she'd find in Manhattan. It sounds more like something she imagines happening somewhere else, to some other women.
> 
> But I've visited plenty of AD's, in various parts of the world (Philadelphia, New York, Orlando, Exeter in the UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong), and never seen anything like that. And I pay attention to it, because I'm not going into AD's to shop, I'm going in to do research, basically, into what's selling, what the experience is like, etc.
> 
> _"Almost every watch I own is at least 36mm and automatic or made for men. Not a single one - not the AP Royal Oak 15450, not the Rolex Day-Date Ref. 1803 - strikes me as overtly masculine. Some have gemstones."_​
> Uhm....again, how does she know the watches were made "for men", exactly, if none of them strike her as "overtly masculine", and "some have gemstones", which is what I think "bedazzled" means, which of course is exactly what she complained about earlier, regarding "women's" watches.
> 
> If they have gemstones, and she sees that as a "women's watch" trait, yet she doesn't see them as overtly masculine, then it would seem like the watches are "unisex" by default, or unisex in her view, or she's seriously confused about what differentiates "women's" watches from "men's".
> 
> Which is it? I know _*I'm*_ confused.
> 
> _"Y'all, it's 2021. Gendered watches feel soooo Victorian. A few companies (like Zenith) are getting with the program; I've seen them either use men's watches on women in campaigns or make concerted advertising efforts focusing on strong independent women. Now it's time for everyone else to follow. If the brands were to approach watches differently, as an entire group, just think about all they would gain."_​
> Gendered watches feel Victorian, or using genders at all feels Victorian? She owns both gendered watches and non gendered watches. My inference is the emphasis is on the use of gender, at all, not on its use with watches.
> 
> She likes what Zenith is doing. Awesome. Let's ask Zenith if it's working for them. We want to know if it's led to more sales, at all, to anyone, of any gender, before we leap to the conclusion it's time for "everyone else to follow suit" because of "all they would gain."
> 
> _"Ultimately, if you make watches unisex, then you will sell more watches." _​
> Prove it, if not with actual sales data (which can't be done), then at least prove it logically, in theory. From what I've read, she hasn't. Far from it.
> 
> "First, they would be catering to 100 percent of their customers. Not 45 percent or 55 percent, but all of us."
> 
> Women and men may make up roughly equal portions of the population, but it doesn't follow they make up equal portions of the market for any product. What portion of the necktie market is made up of women? What portion of Spanx customers are men?
> 
> _"This would allow them to use their marketing dollars in joint campaigns showing both men and women wearing their products."_​
> But would that be more effective? Prove it. Isn't it possible that an ad showing both women and men wearing the same product might be less effective? I can easily imagine it being criticized, by women, if they don't like how the woman is depicted. "She's just an accessory to the man!" Good luck with that.
> 
> _"Fashion scions like Gucci are already launching un-gendered apparel collections, which is harder because clothes fit different bodies differently."_​
> Telling me that what you want me to do will be harder is the least effective way to get me to change what I'm doing. And again, is it working for Gucci, by way of increased sales, or is it just pleasing to the same NY-centric audience that views itself as enlightened, by avoiding gender labels, not just in products, but in people?
> 
> _"Meanwhile, a watch - even a big honkin' Hublot - is just a strap change or bracelet adjustment away from fitting any sized wrist."_​
> Here we go. She's not calling for more smaller watches. She's not calling for smaller watches to be marketed to men. Earlier, she implied that "bedazzled" watches should be marketed as "unisex", so more men will wear formerly "ladies" watches without shame, and now she's calling for "big honkin'" watches to be marketed to women, despite the fact that real women have already rejected them, roundly, based on their size.
> 
> So, no, she's not calling for more smaller watches and better choices for women. Just the opposite. She's calling for more blurring of the boundaries regarding how products are labeled and marketed.
> 
> Qui bono? Who benefits?
> 
> Men who want to wear ladies watches without being stigmatized would benefit. The mostly-male-dominated brands making watches would benefit. Any woman who might be embarrassed to buy a "man's" watch would benefit (though I doubt there are very many women who feel that way). Anyone who just thinks gender is an outdated concept would benefit, morally, though not physically, if they were hoping to see more smaller watches and better choices for women as a result.
> 
> _"Finally, gender-free timepieces would make women feel more included in what has typically been a dude-driven industry and hobby. "_​
> Would they, really? How? Wouldn't more emphasis on developing the women's market, specifically, make women feel more included, rather than removing all acknowledgement that women exist and have preferences which differ from men's?
> 
> There's more I could quote, but you get the idea. The entire piece is chock-full of ludicrous assertions, boastful predictions, and logical fallacies. None of it, nor does the sum total of all of it, offer anything remotely near a realistic, workable plan for anyone, in any capacity. Not customers, not retailers, not brands.
> 
> Here's a plan, that's realistic, and workable -
> 
> 1. The industry should wake up to the opportunity in making smaller watches, for men or women, and the enormous opportunity in cultivating more women as customers, with more thoughtful designs and marketing campaigns.
> 
> 2. The industry should stop designating watches as "men's" or "women's" based on size alone.
> 
> 3. Men who like bedazzled women's watches and ladies who like big honkin' men's watches should just buy them, and not get wrapped up in how they're labeled or marketed, since re-labeling them and changing the marketing won't change society's views, after centuries of social conditioning regarding the genders. To reverse that social conditioning would require more money and time than the industry has and would be willing to invest.
> 
> 4. Bloggers should stay in their lane. Write about the watches, or the people wearing them, or the people behind them, or the trends you're seeing, or industry news. Don't try to force a global shift in market perceptions, much less society at large, by way of not-so-subtle brow-beating about how outdated the concept of gender is. Realize, finally, that NY doesn't get to call the tune the rest of us must dance to. Don't presume to lecture an entire industry about what it's doing wrong, or offer a prescription which is most likely to only make things worse, for everyone concerned.


I read all that in her essay and came out of it thinking what Ms. Barrett wants is a 35mm Submariner.


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> It's not.
> 
> And sorry, but the demand/no demand argument is essentially circular. There's no demand because there's no product, and there's no product because there's no demand.


Yes, the demand argument ENDS UP being circular, but we need to realize that's an end-result, not the root cause.

The root cause is historical sales trends. Companies will occasionally experiment with new products aimed at new customers, but those experiments have to have positive results. I'll give you a firsthand example.

We've made over 40 versions of the NTH Subs. One's the best seller. One's the worst seller. We end up making more of the ones that sell better, and less of the ones that don't sell as well. We launched the Dolphin with 50 silver, 50 magenta. They both sold out eventually, but the silver sold faster, so we made another 50. Two years later, I've got another 10 of the magenta coming.

People ask why don't we make more of this or that model, which they liked. The answer is that model didn't sell as well.

People ask why we don't just limit production to the one or two best-selling models. The answer is more complex, but as simple as I can make it...

Having a mix of products is a good thing, generally, so long as they all sell WELL ENOUGH. Any that don't sell well enough don't get made again. But if we only made the best-selling products, we'd actually have less sales. If I can sell 300 of one Subs version, and 100 of another, that's 400. If I only made the one, I'd only have 300 sales.

People assume that means we should just make everything, but no, it doesn't mean that, and we really can't anyway. I have to make 300-500 per case, 300 per strap or bracelet, 50 per dial version, assemble 25 per dial version, and 150-300 pieces at a time, total. If I can sell 5-10 pieces of some design, that's not enough, when I have to make 50 dials, and use at least 25 of them.

Even if I can sell 25, eventually, how long that takes is a critical consideration. I need to turn my inventory over 4x per year for my business to run. For every design that takes 2 years to sell out, I need one that sells out instantly.

I have to consider the opportunity cost. Making 25-100 pieces of something that doesn't sell fast enough means I could have and should have invested my resources in making something that would have sold faster.

And return on investment matters. My design costs are the same, whether I sell 25 or 2500. My marketing costs are actually higher on the worse-selling models, because we have to invest more in promoting them. It's easier to reach enough men than it is to reach enough women, because men make up so much more of the market. It's just more efficient to make a watch targeted at men.

It's hard to rationalize the development and production of anything which seems like it's aimed at an overly narrow niche within what is already a narrow niche within a narrow market. It's impossible to rationalize making more of something after you've found it didn't sell well enough the first time around.


----------



## fellini212

That said, I think you're responding very thoughtfully to a piece which wasn't itself very thoughtful. Nor was it expressed very clearly, which accounts for the divergent interpretations of it.

It has lots of elisions and gaps in logic and throws a great many thoughts into the air, uncorroborated, and without resolution.

Again, to your credit, they've all been addressed on this thread. Including, but not limited to:


- Market research

- Sales

- Advertising

- Watch design

- Watch manufacture

- Watch sizing

- Website design

- User interfaces

- Category error

- Confirmation bias

- The data gap at the center of any chicken / egg demand and supply riddle, including this one.

- Language

- Sexism

- etc.

It's a hugely complex issue.

As a journalism matter - even opinion journalism benefits from the application of reporting, from concrete facts and expert opinion.

Ms. Barrett would have been much better off interviewing you and maybe three other manufacturers large and small, and a Harvard business school professor, and an online retailer and seven or eight of the disappointed women she mentions in her piece.

It would have been a better essay, and to the extent it makes an argument, a much better argument. Even if it were only intended as activism or agitprop, it would've benefited from greater clarity.

As it is, we're doing all the work her editor should have done.


----------



## fellini212

An alarming display of unisex watches in 28, 31, 34, 36, and 41mm.









In-Depth: Breaking Down All Five Sizes Of Rolex Oyster Perpetual


The candy-colored dials get all the attention. But each size has its own personality.




www.hodinkee.com


----------



## Goose&Bean

I just buy watches I like. I don't care if they're marketed to men or women - although, what I tend to dislike about women's watches is that they'll often look just like the men's version, but with diamonds added or strange colors (seems to be a common complaint). However, I'm not the most feminine-built woman. I have a flat-shaped 6.75" wrist that lets me wear larger watches without looking over the top. At the same time, I wish I could pull off some of the smaller watches. Anything under 34" tends to look comical on me because of my more muscular build. I could see where the issue is for other women who'd like more options in a size range where 36"+ is too large.

I've never really cared for the term "unisex" when it comes to wearable items - when I see unisex shirts, for example, it just tells me it was made for men, but women can wear them, too. Unisex shirts tend to be boxy and start at a larger size. However, wrist size and shape probably vary less than torsos. 

I think, in general, men have more of an issue with using things marketed for women than women do using things marketed for men. Part of that is probably due to misogyny - men don't want to be seen as feminine. And men have been the default in most markets because historically they had more financial control. In reality, who cares if something is masculine or feminine? Wear what you like. I don't think things need to be declared "unisex". On a side note, I noticed Old Navy has a gender neutral section now, but the designs are still more masculine. So all that tells me is only masculine things are deemed good enough to be "gender neutral".


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> I read all that and think what Ms. Barrett wants is a 35mm Submariner.


Don't know how that could be the takeaway. Nowhere in the piece does she explicitly say that there aren't enough smaller watches available, or that there should be more. Not even by implication, or logical inference.

What she's said, certainly by implication, and I think explicitly, is that "women's" watches should be marketed to men, and "men's" watches should be marketed to women. To do that, we must first remove traditional gender labeling of the product.

It's exactly the opposite of what most women would appear to want. And doesn't seem at all likely to lead to more sales of formerly "men's" watches to women, if there's no major shift in their size or design.


----------



## docvail

Goose&Bean said:


> I just buy watches I like. I don't care if they're marketed to men or women - although, what I tend to dislike about women's watches is that they'll often look just like the men's version, but with diamonds added or strange colors (seems to be a common complaint). However, I'm not the most feminine-built woman. I have a flat-shaped 6.75" wrist that lets me wear larger watches without looking over the top. At the same time, I wish I could pull off some of the smaller watches. Anything under 34" tends to look comical on me because of my more muscular build. I could see where the issue is for other women who'd like more options in a size range where 36"+ is too large.
> 
> I've never really cared for the term "unisex" when it comes to wearable items - when I see unisex shirts, for example, it just tells me it was made for men, but women can wear them, too. Unisex shirts tend to be boxy and start at a larger size. However, wrist size and shape probably vary less than torsos.
> 
> I think, in general, men have more of an issue with using things marketed for women than women do using things marketed for men. Part of that is probably due to misogyny - men don't want to be seen as feminine. And men have been the default in most markets because historically they had more financial control. In reality, who cares if something is masculine or feminine? Wear what you like. I don't think things need to be declared "unisex". On a side note, I noticed Old Navy has a gender neutral section now, but the designs are still more masculine. So all that tells me is only masculine things are deemed good enough to be "gender neutral".


It's interesting that we're hearing women say unisex really means "made for men, just not labeled as such", whereas at least one man (that guy on Instagram, but it now occurs to me I just assumed the gender there) suggested it meant exactly the opposite, "made for ladies, but not labeled as such".

I got a deal on unisex t-shirts. I love how they fit. Much less boxy than men's are typically cut. They're tighter in the chest, shoulders and arms, but still forgiving at the waist, and not too short.

I think what all this shows is that there isn't widespread understanding or agreement of what "unisex" really means when it's applied to some products.

As for men not wanting to buy "women's" products, I'd say it's more a matter of homophobia, or a fear of homophobia, than misogyny. Men don't buy women's products because of what other men might say, not because they don't like women.

The guys posting cheesecake pics of women tend to be the same guys telling other men to bulk up enough to buy larger watches. By all indications, they love women, and look down on any men they deem to be less manly than themselves.


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> Don't know how that could be the takeaway. Nowhere in the piece does she explicitly say that there aren't enough smaller watches available, or that there should be more. Not even by implication, or logical inference.
> 
> What she's said, certainly by implication, and I think explicitly, is that "women's" watches should be marketed to men, and "men's" watches should be marketed to women. To do that, we must first remove traditional gender labeling of the product.
> 
> It's exactly the opposite of what most women would appear to want. And doesn't seem at all likely to lead to more sales of formerly "men's" watches to women, if there's no major shift in their size or design.


_When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. *I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like.* It's enough to make me wonder: Why are these considered "men's" watches at all?_

Again, I think her imprecision is a huge problem.

What I'm describing when I use the phrase "smaller, better" watches is that very thing. Better watches - like the Sub or the Seamaster or the Speedy - that could be made in a size more wearable (smaller) for women.

Another example of which is that link I posted to this thread: Would it be possible to tailor a smaller mens&#039...

Why do they keep telling her to wear the 42 when there's a 38mm version of the same watch? I don't know. Did Omega stop making a 36mm?


----------



## Goose&Bean

docvail said:


> As for men not wanting to buy "women's" products, I'd say it's more a matter of homophobia, or a fear of homophobia, than misogyny. Men don't buy women's products because of what other men might say, not because they don't like women.


Yes, men judge other men for not being masculine enough. Same for women. Women tend to judge other women for not being feminine enough. However, when I say misogyny, I mean in terms of how society acts, too. Women are encouraged to go into traditionally men's fields, but not vice versa. Same with names - more male names are becoming "unisex", but not female names. Femininity is still seen as lesser in this sense. The message I always got as I grew up was it's okay for a girl to like boy things, but not the other way around. It's an attitude that's instilled at a young age.


----------



## Bird-Dog

docvail said:


> No, it's definitely not exactly that. If anything, it's exactly the opposite of that.
> 
> I think objectively, the Hodinkee piece is unclear in places, and in its logic, but where it is clear, it's not what you'd expect to hear from a woman if she's echoing the commonly heard complaints from other women, vis-a-vis not enough options available to them, which they actually like.
> 
> I'll quote some salient examples, selectively...
> 
> _"When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like."_​
> Okay, so what does "conventional ladies' pieces" mean, exactly? It would seem like she means the sorts of "ladies" designs many women apparently find condescending.
> 
> But that's not entirely clear, when I read this part:
> 
> _ "The category of 'women's watches' seems especially pointless. Before I get into why, I want to clarify that I'm not referring to jewelry watches (i.e. the Bulgari Serpentis, the Piaget cuffs, and the Van Cleef & Arpels Cadenas of the world). I'm referring to the category of so-called men's watches that are simply shrunken, bedazzled, and quartzified for the ladies."_​
> I've read that four times now, and I still haven't gotten clarity. When I think of "jewelry" watches, what I think of, exactly, is watches which are "shrunken, bedazzled, and [often] quartizfied". What are those, if not "jewelry" watches? Given the brand names she threw out, my inference is those sorts of designs are only "respectable" if they come from well-known, expensive brands, which just sounds snobbish.
> 
> And why does the category of "women's watches" seem "pointless"? Because she doesn't like some "women's" watches, even though other women might? Or because she likes watches which are marketed to men?
> 
> And *HOW* were the other watches she owns marketed to men, exactly? Were they explicitly labeled "men's", or is she inferring that based on their designs?
> 
> If those watches weren't explicitly labeled "men's", then it doesn't logically follow that they should have been labeled "unisex", or that labeling them as such will make them any more appealing to women.
> 
> She says that the watches she owns were marketed to men, but it would be better if they were labeled "unisex", and yet - she owns them, which means she bought them, so it raises the question of what would change, for her or anyone else, if the "unisex" label was applied?
> 
> And I don't just mean what would change in the shopping experience. I mean how that would change everything, from product development to the shopping experience to the ownership experience.
> 
> Of her shopping experiences, she has this to say:
> 
> _"As a consumer, I don't want to be told what I should and should not buy. I want to decide on my own. I do not need a salesperson to condescendingly guide me to a poorly lit case to show me what they think I would like in the ladies' section."_​
> Was that *REALLY* her experience? Where? Surely it wasn't that, in the glitzy, well-lit and marbled shrines to consumerism she'd find in Manhattan. It sounds more like something she imagines happening somewhere else, to some other women.
> 
> But I've visited plenty of AD's, in various parts of the world (Philadelphia, New York, Orlando, Exeter in the UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong), and never seen anything like that. And I pay attention to it, because I'm not going into AD's to shop, I'm going in to do research, basically, into what's selling, what the experience is like, etc.
> 
> _"Almost every watch I own is at least 36mm and automatic or made for men. Not a single one - not the AP Royal Oak 15450, not the Rolex Day-Date Ref. 1803 - strikes me as overtly masculine. Some have gemstones."_​
> Uhm....again, how does she know the watches were made "for men", exactly, if none of them strike her as "overtly masculine", and "some have gemstones", which is what I think "bedazzled" means, which of course is exactly what she complained about earlier, regarding "women's" watches.
> 
> If they have gemstones, and she sees that as a "women's watch" trait, yet she doesn't see them as overtly masculine, then it would seem like the watches are "unisex" by default, or unisex in her view, or she's seriously confused about what differentiates "women's" watches from "men's".
> 
> Which is it? I know _*I'm*_ confused.
> 
> _"Y'all, it's 2021. Gendered watches feel soooo Victorian. A few companies (like Zenith) are getting with the program; I've seen them either use men's watches on women in campaigns or make concerted advertising efforts focusing on strong independent women. Now it's time for everyone else to follow. If the brands were to approach watches differently, as an entire group, just think about all they would gain."_​
> Gendered watches feel Victorian, or using genders at all feels Victorian? She owns both gendered watches and non gendered watches. My inference is the emphasis is on the use of gender, at all, not on its use with watches.
> 
> She likes what Zenith is doing. Awesome. Let's ask Zenith if it's working for them. We want to know if it's led to more sales, at all, to anyone, of any gender, before we leap to the conclusion it's time for "everyone else to follow suit" because of "all they would gain."
> 
> _"Ultimately, if you make watches unisex, then you will sell more watches." _​
> Prove it, if not with actual sales data (which can't be done), then at least prove it logically, in theory. From what I've read, she hasn't. Far from it.
> 
> _"First, they would be catering to 100 percent of their customers. Not 45 percent or 55 percent, but all of us."_​
> Women and men may make up roughly equal portions of the population, but it doesn't follow that they make up equal portions of the market for any product. What portion of the necktie market is made up of women? What portion of Spanx customers are men?
> 
> _"This would allow them to use their marketing dollars in joint campaigns showing both men and women wearing their products."_​
> But would that be more effective? Prove it. Isn't it possible that an ad showing both women and men wearing the same product might be less effective? I can easily imagine it being criticized, by women, if they don't like how the woman is depicted. "She's just an accessory to the man!" Good luck with that.
> 
> _"Fashion scions like Gucci are already launching un-gendered apparel collections, which is harder because clothes fit different bodies differently."_​
> Telling me that what you want me to do will be harder is the least effective way to get me to change what I'm doing. And again, is it working for Gucci, by way of increased sales, or is it just pleasing to the same NY-centric audience that views itself as enlightened, by avoiding gender labels, not just in products, but in people?
> 
> _"Meanwhile, a watch - even a big honkin' Hublot - is just a strap change or bracelet adjustment away from fitting any sized wrist."_​
> Here we go. She's not calling for more smaller watches. She's not calling for smaller watches to be marketed to men. Earlier, she implied that "bedazzled" watches should be marketed as "unisex", so more men will wear formerly "ladies" watches without shame, and now she's calling for "big honkin'" watches to be marketed to women, despite the fact that real women have already rejected them, roundly, based on their size.
> 
> So, no, she's not calling for more smaller watches and better choices for women. Just the opposite. She's calling for more blurring of the boundaries regarding how products are labeled and marketed.
> 
> Cui bono? Who benefits?
> 
> Men who want to wear ladies watches without being stigmatized would benefit. The mostly-male-dominated brands making watches would benefit. Any woman who might be embarrassed to buy a "man's" watch would benefit (though I doubt there are very many women who feel that way, and certainly she doesn't). Anyone who just thinks gender is an outdated concept would benefit, but it would be a moral victory, at best, and possibly pyrrhic, without any obvious practical nor physical benefit, if they were hoping to see more smaller watches and better choices for women as a result.
> 
> _"Finally, gender-free timepieces would make women feel more included in what has typically been a dude-driven industry and hobby. "_​
> Would they, really? How? Wouldn't more emphasis on developing the women's market, specifically, make women feel more included, rather than removing all acknowledgement that women exist, and have preferences which differ from men's?
> 
> There's more I could quote, but you get the idea. The entire piece is chock-full of ludicrous assertions, boastful predictions, and logical fallacies. None of it, nor does the sum total of all of it, offer anything remotely near a realistic, workable plan for anyone, in any capacity. Not customers, not retailers, not brands.
> 
> Here's a plan, that's realistic, and workable -
> 
> 1. The industry should wake up to the opportunity in making smaller watches, for men or women, and the enormous opportunity in cultivating more women as customers, with more thoughtful designs and marketing campaigns.
> 
> 2. The industry should stop designating watches as "men's" or "women's" based on size alone.
> 
> 3. Men who like bedazzled women's watches and ladies who like big honkin' men's watches should just buy them, and not get wrapped up in how they're labeled or marketed, since re-labeling them and changing the marketing won't change society's views, after centuries of social conditioning regarding the genders. To reverse that social conditioning would require more money and time than the industry has and would be willing to invest.
> 
> 4. Bloggers should stay in their lane. Write about the watches, or the people wearing them, or the people behind them, or the trends you're seeing, or industry news. Don't try to force a global shift in market perceptions, much less society at large, by way of not-so-subtle brow-beating about how outdated the concept of gender is. Realize, finally, that NY doesn't get to call the tune the rest of us must dance to. Don't presume to lecture an entire industry about what it's doing wrong, or offer a prescription which will most likely only make things worse, for everyone concerned.


_"...re-labeling them and changing the marketing won't change society's views, after centuries of social conditioning regarding the genders "_

*BOOM! Mic drop!*

----------------------------------------

Imagine, if you will:

NOW:
Ms. Friend: _"Is that a man's watch?"_
Ms. Consumer: _"Maybe it was meant to to be. But I sure do like it."_
Ms. Friend: _"Yeah, me too."_

WOKE WATCH:
Ms. Friend: _"Is that a man's watch?"_
Ms. Consumer: _"No, smarty-pants. It's UNISEX!"_
Ms. Ex-Friend: _"Oh! Well it sure looks like a man's watch... beotch."_


----------



## Ron1

I've solved it.
What we have is an article with an absolutely fantastic topic in a pretty staid industry that's been poorly written.

To be honest a re-write would be more helpful._ 'You want what now?'_


----------



## fellini212

Again, here's Rolex doing exactly what she's talking about. (Maybe.) Making and selling a watch without gendered design cues, available in a range of sizes.









In-Depth: Breaking Down All Five Sizes Of Rolex Oyster Perpetual


The candy-colored dials get all the attention. But each size has its own personality.




www.hodinkee.com





Unisex?

Gender neutral?


----------



## Ron1

As a Rolex it's an outlier, you see them making subs with coral dials anytime soon?







Unisex? Gender neutral?

Nothing about the G10 screams 'guy' to me bar it's marketing.
Same applies to most field watches which are generally smaller than the current dive watch fad.
The manufacturers are simply targeting a known customer base rather than taking a bet.


----------



## fellini212

Ron1 said:


> As a Rolex it's an outlier, you see them making subs with coral dials anytime soon?


why not?






Wildman | Submariner Date Pink Edition


The Submariner Date is one of the most well-known watches and we have reinvented the current model with a new look and feel.




wildmanbespoke.com


----------



## Ron1

You think the world's most recognised, conservative brand are gonna mess with their golden goose?

I've got a bridge to sell you.  

I'm gonna bow out bud, we'll agree to disagree


----------



## KCZ

fellini212 said:


> _When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. *I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like.* It's enough to make me wonder: Why are these considered "men's" watches at all?_
> 
> Again, I think her imprecision is a huge problem.
> 
> What I'm describing when I use the phrase "smaller, better" watches is that very thing. Better watches - like the Sub or the Seamaster or the Speedy - that could be made in a size more wearable (smaller) for women.
> 
> Another example of which is that link I posted to this thread: Would it be possible to tailor a smaller mens&#039...
> 
> Why do they keep telling her to wear the 42 when there's a 38mm version of the same watch? I don't know. Did Omega stop making a 36mm?


I don't know about that thread. The OP never came back and ended up buying a Cartier Roadster Chronograph XL.



Goose&Bean said:


> Yes, men judge other men for not being masculine enough. Same for women. Women tend to judge other women for not being feminine enough. However, when I say misogyny, I mean in terms of how society acts, too.* Women are encouraged to go into traditionally men's fields, but not vice versa.* Same with names - more male names are becoming "unisex", but not female names. Femininity is still seen as lesser in this sense. The message I always got as I grew up was it's okay for a girl to like boy things, but not the other way around. It's an attitude that's instilled at a young age.


Seriously? That's lip service to being PC.


----------



## one onety-one

One thing seems decisively, if not absolutely, clear; people aren't fond of the "unisex" label and using it is probably a poor marketing tactic. I suggest dropping the "sex" part and instead consider replacing it with "universal" design, suggesting appeal across a wide set of demographics. Sorry if this had been brought up already and I missed it.



fellini212 said:


> What I'm describing when I use the phrase "smaller, better" watches is that very thing. Better watches - like the Sub or the Seamaster or the Speedy - that could be made in a size more wearable (smaller) for women.


Watches like the Sub, Seamaster and Speedmaster derive much of their popularity from being genuine tool watches and intrinsic in the tool is the feature of legibility. I think there is only so far you can go in reducing the size before the tool becomes a parody of the tool. Of course 99.9% of the way these watches are actually worn is a sort of parody, but that's on the user, not the product itself. While I could see Omega attempt to remarket the smaller versions of their watch towards women, I think it's more unlikely that Rolex risks parodying their iconic dive watch.


----------



## Goose&Bean

KCZ said:


> Seriously? That's lip service to being PC.


Male-dominated fields are usually considered more prestigious in society. The "be a professor, not a teacher" mentality that a lot of my peers have. These career paths weren't traditionally open to women. On the other hand, there are plenty of male-dominated fields people don't try to push women into because they don't carry that same prestige. There's too much to unpack here in a thread about watches.


----------



## docvail

fellini212 said:


> _When I look at my collection, I don't see any conventional ladies' pieces. *I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like.* It's enough to make me wonder: Why are these considered "men's" watches at all?_
> 
> Again, I think her imprecision is a huge problem.
> 
> What I'm describing when I use the phrase "smaller, better" watches is that very thing. Better watches - like the Sub or the Seamaster or the Speedy - that could be made in a size more wearable (smaller) for women.
> 
> Another example of which is that link I posted to this thread: Would it be possible to tailor a smaller mens&#039...
> 
> Why do they keep telling her to wear the 42 when there's a 38mm version of the same watch? I don't know. Did Omega stop making a 36mm?


Her imprecision certainly clouds her meaning, and opens the door to a wide range of inferences, perhaps.

Me? I'm prefer clarity over agreement, and also, I'm a deconstructionist, when it comes to the printed word. Observe:

"_*I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like.* It's enough to make me wonder: Why are these considered "men's" watches at all?"_

By inference, she seems to be saying that if she likes a watch, and she's a women, then it shouldn't be called a "men's" watch. I disagree, on a purely logical basis, not any moral or political basis.

The fact that she's a woman, and the fact that she likes the watch, don't change anything about the watch, its intended customer, or the gender of the vast majority of people buying it. If she likes neckties, does that mean neckties cease to be a product aimed squarely at men? If I like Spanx, does that mean they're not aimed squarely at women?

In her view, the entire industry should change how it conducts business, in order to appease her. But what's her underlying reasoning? What's the source of her pain?

Not that she was hampered in her attempts to buy a man's watch by anyone. Not that she received derision from any AD staff or her peers. Not that she has any complaints about the product's size or style (just the opposite, in fact, contrary to what women here have told us about many "men's" watches). Not that the marketing really and truly offended her (she only suggests she'd like to see more ads featuring men & women, or ads aimed at getting women to buy men's watches).

None of that. She has no real complaint based on anything of any substance. No bad experiences. No insult. No injury. The entire piece can be summarized as "I'm a woman, and like men's watches, so I think the industry should stop calling them men's, and marketing them to men, and replace 'men's' watches with 'unisex'. And also, even the 'women's' category is pointless and stupid, even though I also like some of those watches, and even if some other women do, too."


----------



## fellini212

docvail said:


> Her imprecision certainly clouds her meaning, and opens the door to a wide range of inferences, perhaps.
> 
> Me? I'm prefer clarity over agreement, and also, I'm a deconstructionist, when it comes to the printed word. Observe:
> 
> "_*I see watches that were marketed to men, but that I happen to like.* It's enough to make me wonder: Why are these considered "men's" watches at all?"_
> 
> By inference, she seems to be saying that if she likes a watch, and she's a women, then it shouldn't be called a "men's" watch. I disagree, on a purely logical basis, not any moral or political basis.
> 
> The fact that she's a woman, and the fact that she likes the watch, don't change anything about the watch, its intended customer, or the gender of the vast majority of people buying it. If she likes neckties, does that mean neckties cease to be a product aimed squarely at men? If I like Spanx, does that mean they're not aimed squarely at women?
> 
> In her view, the entire industry should change how it conducts business, in order to appease her. But what's her underlying reasoning? What's the source of her pain?
> 
> Not that she was hampered in her attempts to buy a man's watch by anyone. Not that she received derision from any AD staff or her peers. Not that she has any complaints about the product's size or style (just the opposite, in fact, contrary to what women here have told us about many "men's" watches). Not that the marketing really and truly offended her (she only suggests she'd like to see more ads featuring men & women, or ads aimed at getting women to buy men's watches).
> 
> None of that. She has no real complaint based on anything of any substance. No bad experiences. No insult. No injury. The entire piece can be summarized as "I'm a woman, and like men's watches, so I think the industry should stop calling them men's, and marketing them to men, and replace 'men's' watches with 'unisex'. And also, even the 'women's' category is pointless and stupid, even though I also like some of those watches, and even if some other women do, too."


What all bad writing has in common is the work it imposes on the reader.

In this case we're filling in what we_ think _are the gaps in her argument. And each of us will do that differently, because each of us project ourselves into those gaps differently. Watch guy, writer guy, not-a-guy are all going to have our say. And feel like the author missed the point._ Our _point.

But that editorial vagueness is also a winning strategy for online engagement, as hundreds of commenters line up to fill in the blanks, too. Hence all those comments (and that clickbait headline).

There are 200+ posts on this thread, likewise. So imprecision can be a real traffic driver.

Because the essay is unfocused, I'm not even sure she's _making_ an argument. She likely thinks she's making a series of observations about watches and fashion and the retail space and virtual space and how women are treated there.

She's pretty clear when she starts -_ "This isn't about the watches; this is about the approach to selling them and how outdated it is." - _but wanders thereafter and gets lost. As do the readers.

Should all watches everywhere simply be searchable by size? Is that her thesis? Is she staking out an advocacy position on behalf of the Instagram women she mentions but does not quote? Can this all be resolved by simply putting an unchanged Speedmaster on a woman's wrist in the next Omega ad campaign?

Who knows? It's a fog of half-considered assertions.*

Because you're a data guy, you seek clarity by sending your data and experience into that fog and hoping to get back a radar return outlining her _real _point.

Me? I don't know that she has a single, actionable point. I read a series of observations, most of which are pretty familiar, and leave the essay as I came to it, unconvinced of anything but that which I thought I already knew.

Which is my expectation for opinion writing in every sphere these days, as more opinions are presented more often with less editing and thoughtful sharpening than at any time in human history.

* Some of which are very true (ie, the way women get shouted down online even when discussing their own preferences; the assumption on the part of some men that women can only get what they want at the expense of men, etc ).


----------



## SunnyOrange

mrv said:


> Also, as a woman I feel disrespected by all this "unisex" stuff, as if it's not enough for them to be a woman, you need to be somebody else to buy their stuff??? A sexless, genderless? unidentified gender? person?? Why should I buy it when it's marketed without any respect to my gender? Do these people have a problem with women?? Are they too lazy to develop an item a real woman would like?? Is it a simply business decision, so they're hoping to save money? I really don't care, and I will simply never buy it, because I find it not worth my attention as a consumer.




I'm late for the party... But this is quite an interesting thread! Unfortunately, I didn't have time to read everything now, I'll leave it for another time. 
I'm also a woman on WUS (I'm glad some of us are still here).

Here's what I think. This whole 'unisex' thing is annoying, in my opinion. It's like in the case of Ladies' room door, when the social justice warrior announced "It was never a dress!" Really? Who was offended? Someone who denies the female gender? For me, it IS a dress, and whoever feels offended, can use the Men's room.
We don't need to be superheroes, we don't need to pretend to have supernatural powers, to feel completely equal to men, to compete with men, etc. This is meaningless! And there is some big mental problem behind all this, which a psychiatrist should determine.

As for the taste for watches, they are different for everyone. Why is even this poisoned by gender-neutral stuff? There _should_ _always_ be Ladies' and Men's watches, and Unisex watches. But not to force Unisex watches to the detriment of Men's and Ladies' watches. 
There is a variety of choice out there : beautiful Ladies' watches with mother of pearl dials, with nice, like jewelry bracelets, big Men's watches, sports watches, vintage watches, pocket watches, Unisex watches, etc., so why bother about the _term_? If I liked a Men's watch, I would buy it. 
But for me, watches are closely connected to jewelry. I like vintage, smaller Ladies' watches, and I like high heels, makeup, handbags, lots of jewelry. 
As a cyclist, I take one of my cheap quartz Swatch watches, for my trips.

So there is no need for every aspect of life to be poisoned by some drastic changes, why we have to invent and force things? This creates a lot of frustration for humans.

Here's my vintage Junghans, Ladies' :


----------



## docvail

I love that this thread is still getting views and comments, if only because it's such a great example of how online discussion provides a window into how different groups think about different things.

Not quite 2 years ago, I was asked to participate in a business panel discussion. One of the other panelists was a young woman who ran a business networking group for women. She related a story about a recurring thing she saw happen within her network, and which she attributed to a misguided sense of "girl power" (her words, not mine). 

I found it fascinating that she saw it as a negative by-product of issues related to women's experience in business, because I see the same thing she talked about (people encouraging others to take ill-advised risks in pursuit of unrealistic goals) happen all the time among microbrand founders, a group dominated by men. 

What she saw as a misguided sense of girl-power in her network, I just saw as a human tendency many people have to encourage others to take risks those people probably wouldn't (and rightly shouldn't) take themselves.

Maybe the reality of the situation isn't that the industry doesn't understand women, specifically. Maybe the reality is just that the industry doesn't really understand its own customers, generally, regardless of gender. I think a lot of men feel that way, too.

Within that context, I think it's understandable for a woman, in this case Hodinkee's Cara Barrett, to view the problem through her own particular lens, that of a NY-metropolitan female. Even if many of us experience the same things or have the same feelings, each of us experiences this hobby in a unique way, as an individual.


----------



## SunnyOrange

I think you did a wise thing by not labeling watches _at all_. A good way to test the market. This is how you addressed all customers. What you said in your first post is essential _"I don't think we gained a lot of new customers because we went out of our way to design and market a watch as "unisex". _

If gender labels were removed, emphasizing the 'unisex' watch would certainly deter many men from buying, but would not satisfy and attract more women customers.

Hodinkee article claims the opposite "If you make watches unisex, you will sell more watches". I disagree with this. Removing 'gender labels from watches' would *not* increase women's interest in watches. The main point is - women are generally less interested in watches. This is the reality.

And among people who buy and love watches there is another aspect - a hobby of collecting watches. This is way more present among men than among women. We can compare how many watches a man usually owns, and how many watches one woman owns. Men enjoy dealing with watches and like technical specifications, movements, complications, and women pay more attention to what the watch looks like.

It's very tough task for the watch industry, always new challenges - to meet the needs, to please customers and fulfill their requirements and wishes, but some people will always be dissatisfied.

Even this industry, is slowly entering 'sensitive ground' in the near future, where some details may determine whether a watch (or brand) would be 'acceptable' or not.


----------



## docvail

Had an introspective experience this afternoon, somewhat related to all of this...

There's an independent watchmaker half a mile from my house. I stop in to shoot the $hlt with him about once a month. He also sells my watches, and I had to go in today, to pick up some money from a sale he made last week.

Today when I went in, there was another customer there, an older (late 60's, early 70's), burly gentleman. Among other business he was conducting, he was having a blue alligator strap mounted on a vintage and quite elegant Gerald Genta perpetual calendar. He was also looking at my watches, as a potential gift for his grandson, who's graduating High School.

Interesting watch he had - gold case, quite small (I'd guess around 32mm, tops), blue dial, faceted crystal, some fancy stuff going on with the calendar sub-dials.

I assumed it was a "ladies' watch", because it was small, pretty, and not very masculine. But it seems it was his, although the strap change was part of a plan to give it to his daughter, as she fancied it.

What does it say about me, that I instinctively thought it was a woman's watch, in the absence of being given any gender label for it, never having seen any marketing for it, not knowing who the owner was, and only looking at the watch as an object, before forming an opinion about who it was for?

I don't think I'm especially chauvinist or tough-guy macho. At worst, someone might say I'm too alpha male. But still - the guy's daughter wants it. He's not talking about giving it to his grandson. Apparently she doesn't see it as any more obviously a "man's watch" than I did, and even though he wore it himself, he doesn't foresee his grandson wanting it.

I guess my point is - the product labeling and marketing seems to matter less than people's instinctive reactions upon seeing a watch, based on its size and aesthetic. We can remove the gender labels, and neutralize the marketing, but that doesn't seem likely to change people's existing preconceptions about how we decorate ourselves based on gender roles.


----------



## imaCoolRobot

All watches are unisex...unless you wear them somewhere else.


----------



## docvail

I just stumbled over this in my FB feed -









Old Navy responds to first-grader who asked for girls' jeans with real pockets


"I want front pockets because I want to put my hands in them," 7-year-old Kamryn Gardner said. "Would you consider making girls jeans with front pockets that are not fake?"




6abc.com





It seems that the watch industry is in good company when it comes to misguided product design.

I don't know why a brand would design a pair of girl's (a female _child's_) jeans with no front pockets. The only reason I can think of is horrible - an attempt to make little girls' jeans more "sexy", by streamlining the front of the garment.

Whatever the reason, I love that this little girl felt strongly enough about it to speak up, and that she was heard by the brand, which I hope is sincere when they say her feedback is valuable for product development.


----------



## utzelu

Nice thread, read it almost completely. I also read Cara's article on Hodinkee and heard her commenting it on a watch related podcast. Cara's complain is towards the way watches are marketed towards women, often using stereotyping. She even argues that most of ads for women watches are actually geared towards men, who would eventually buy it for their partner. There may be some truth in what she is saying, especially if looking at how good Apple's marketing is and how successfully their Apple Watches are among both men and women. Somehow Apple managed to design their smart watch to be both delicate and feminine (especially the smaller version), cute and pretty, but also dressy and elegant, and finally sporty. And their ads are never geared towards a specific gender. So it does seem that non-gender marketing works very well in certain product categories and that the watch industry may be lacking in marketing geniuses and product design gurus.


----------



## KCZ

docvail said:


> I just stumbled over this in my FB feed -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Navy responds to first-grader who asked for girls' jeans with real pockets
> 
> 
> "I want front pockets because I want to put my hands in them," 7-year-old Kamryn Gardner said. "Would you consider making girls jeans with front pockets that are not fake?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6abc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that the watch industry is in good company when it comes to misguided product design.
> 
> I don't know why a brand would design a pair of girl's (a female _child's_) jeans with no front pockets. The only reason I can think of is horrible - an attempt to make little girls' jeans more "sexy", by streamlining the front of the garment.
> 
> Whatever the reason, I love that this little girl felt strongly enough about it to speak up, and that she was heard by the brand, which I hope is sincere when they say her feedback is valuable for product development.


Doc, women have been complaining about the fake pockets that are now common in our pants for at least a decade, and our voices have yet to be heard by clothing manufacturers. Every year another brand changes their women's pockets to fake ones.


----------



## mrv

utzelu said:


> Nice thread, read it almost completely. I also read Cara's article on Hodinkee and heard her commenting it on a watch related podcast. Cara's complain is towards the way watches are marketed towards women, often using stereotyping. She even argues that most of ads for women watches are actually geared towards men, who would eventually buy it for their partner. There may be some truth in what she is saying, especially if looking at how good Apple's marketing is and how successfully their Apple Watches are among both men and women. Somehow Apple managed to design their smart watch to be both delicate and feminine (especially the smaller version), cute and pretty, but also dressy and elegant, and finally sporty. And their ads are never geared towards a specific gender. So it does seem that non-gender marketing works very well in certain product categories and that the watch industry may be lacking in marketing geniuses and product design gurus.


Apple watches are not really watches, they are electronic gadgets that will be completely obsolete in a year or so, while real watches can work for decades and can be worn for generations. And Apple has been a master of marketing of sub-par, overpriced but cute-looking products for years, so no wonder people became so brainwashed that they are still buying them.



KCZ said:


> Doc, women have been complaining about the fake pockets that are now common in our pants for at least a decade, and our voices have yet to be heard by clothing manufacturers. Every year another brand changes their women's pockets to fake ones.


I don't understand this - if you don't like jeans without pockets from a certain company, just don't buy them. Why complain??? There are millions of better jeans from other companies available, this particular jeans manufacturer doesn't owe you anything. I bet they eliminated pockets to save money on fabric and time to make them, not because it was a fashion decision. Old Navy is a lower price company that isn't doing well, so I'm not surprised they are cutting corners in everything.


----------



## SunnyOrange

docvail said:


> Interesting watch he had - gold case, quite small (I'd guess around 32mm, tops), blue dial, faceted crystal, some fancy stuff going on with the calendar sub-dials.
> 
> I assumed it was a "ladies' watch", because it was small, pretty, and not very masculine. But it seems it was his, although the strap change was part of a plan to give it to his daughter, as she fancied it.
> 
> What does it say about me, that I instinctively thought it was a woman's watch, in the absence of being given any gender label for it, never having seen any marketing for it, not knowing who the owner was, and only looking at the watch as an object, before forming an opinion about who it was for?
> 
> I don't think I'm especially chauvinist or tough-guy macho. At worst, someone might say I'm too alpha male. But still - the guy's daughter wants it. He's not talking about giving it to his grandson. *Apparently she doesn't see it as any more obviously a "man's watch"* than I did, and even though he wore it himself, he doesn't foresee his grandson wanting it.
> 
> I guess my point is - the product labeling and marketing seems to matter less than people's instinctive reactions upon seeing a watch, based on its size and aesthetic. We can remove the gender labels, and neutralize the marketing, but that doesn't seem likely to change people's existing preconceptions about how we decorate ourselves based on gender roles.


Today we have a different perception of watches, but in terms of vintage, watches with 30-35mm cases were Men's watches. Ladies' watches of those times were much smaller, 15-25mm. Designs were completely different. Times have changed, and today vintage Men's watches look like Ladies', because the industry has changed, producing bigger watches for everyone, following different reqirements, needs, desires.

So that gentleman's watch was almost certainly a vintage Men's watch, because vintage Ladies' watches were easily recognizable, by their fancy bracelets, shiny faces and case decorations, and they were also visibly smaller.


----------



## docvail

KCZ said:


> Doc, women have been complaining about the fake pockets that are now common in our pants for at least a decade, and our voices have yet to be heard by clothing manufacturers. Every year another brand changes their women's pockets to fake ones.


Ironically, men's pockets have proliferated in that time, with all the cargo pants and shorts we buy.

Probably why I end up carrying so much of my wife's $hlt when she doesn't have her bag.


----------



## docvail

utzelu said:


> Nice thread, read it almost completely. I also read Cara's article on Hodinkee and heard her commenting it on a watch related podcast. Cara's complain is towards the way watches are marketed towards women, often using stereotyping. *She even argues that most of ads for women watches are actually geared towards men, who would eventually buy it for their partner.* There may be some truth in what she is saying, especially if looking at how good Apple's marketing is and how successfully their Apple Watches are among both men and women. Somehow Apple managed to design their smart watch to be both delicate and feminine (especially the smaller version), cute and pretty, but also dressy and elegant, and finally sporty. And their ads are never geared towards a specific gender. So it does seem that non-gender marketing works very well in certain product categories and that the watch industry may be lacking in marketing geniuses and product design gurus.


Interesting note there.

Is that wrong?

It was a young woman, not a man, who suggested to me that I ought to make a woman's watch, specifically aimed at my male customers, who'd be buying them for their significant others. I thought that was a better argument for me making a women's watch than anything any of the women in my life had offered.

The fact remains that the market is dominated by men. Selling women's watches to men (presumably buying them as gifts) seems like it might be a more cost-effective tactic than trying to target women directly, if we agree that men's field of focus tends to be narrower than women's (by which I mean, men would seem to ingest less variety of media compared to women - my taste in magazines is much more narrow than my wife's, as an example).


----------



## docvail

SunnyOrange said:


> Today we have a different perception of watches, but in terms of vintage, watches with 30-35mm cases were Men's watches. Ladies' watches of those times were much smaller, 15-25mm. Designs were completely different. Times have changed, and today vintage Men's watches look like Ladies', because the industry has changed, producing bigger watches for everyone, following different reqirements, needs, desires.
> 
> So that gentleman's watch was almost certainly a vintage Men's watch, because vintage Ladies' watches were easily recognizable, by their fancy bracelets, shiny faces and case decorations, and they were also visibly smaller.


Oh, of course. I understood all that.

My point was more about human nature as it is today. Based on the size and design, I saw it as a woman's watch. So does the guy's daughter, it seems.

It's like a Rorschach experiment. The watches just are what they are. In the absence of having labels attached to them, or being situated in the "women's" section of an AD's display case, and not seeing any of the marketing messages from the brands making them, we all still form an impression of who the watch is for. That says something about _US_, more than it does about the manufacturer or industry.

My point was that Cara's blog post, and many of the comments here, suggest that there's some fundamental disconnect in the labeling and marketing, which could be solved with better / different labeling or marketing. But I think we'd all most likely make the same judgments and form the same opinions, even without any labeling and marketing at all, just based on our pre-existing ideas about what makes a product "for a man" or "for a woman".

I think I understand the complaints from female enthusiasts. But the more I think about them, the more convinced I become that:

A. It's a problem with diversity in product design and development, not product labeling or marketing, and...

B. It's not necessarily a problem unique to one gender, but rather a problem that affects the entire industry and market, though each of us experiences that problem on an individual level, and will likely view it through the lens of how we see ourselves. What I mean is - lots of male enthusiasts share the same basic complaint that women here have expressed, but they see it as a "guys with small wrists" issue, whereas women see it as a "female enthusiasts" issue. It's the same issue, just labeled differently based on who's feeling that pain.


----------



## B.Kohr

Yeah, it’s BS. Make different sizes, etc if you want but there’s nothing wrong w, a feminine watch anymore than it’s wrong to have a Dior dress or Loubitin heels.

Something to remember is that women, in general, have a different form than men. (Including the shape of their arms and hands - not just size.) The gun industry is learning this rapidly, and starting to design holsters, and guns to a lesser extent, to work with their shape.

I don’t know what came of it, but I was at a dinner with where a female engineer was talking about redesigning hand tools to work with the shape of a female hand/the shorter levers and lower muscle mass they usually have.


----------



## B.Kohr

OK, if I missed this, my apologies, but I think a significant issue is how much more rapidly women's fashion changes/changes with their age. The Sub design is closing on 70 years old - and it can still be worn. Same w. most of men's watch designs. Same with many mens shoe designs. I'm not sure women's fashion has as much ability to spread the cost of a $5-10K watch across 40 years of wear.


----------



## mrv

Another reason I think vintage men's watches may look like women's now is because people were simply smaller in stature at those times. They were shorter, thinner, and of course, their wrists were smaller too. Go to any 1930's or similar houses - the ceilings there usually are very low and rooms are totally small too, because furniture in those times was so much smaller than now, beds were shorter and narrower, etc. And look at vintage clothes - they are very small in comparison with today sizes also.


----------



## utzelu

mrv said:


> Apple watches are not really watches, they are electronic gadgets that will be completely obsolete in a year or so, while real watches can work for decades and can be worn for generations. And Apple has been a master of marketing of sub-par, overpriced but cute-looking products for years, so no wonder people became so brainwashed that they are still.


Not sure how your comment relates to the discussion topic. What I wanted to emphasize is that, although I don't think there is any issue with gendering watches, a company can do without it if it makes business sense and it has brilliant marketing and product design people.


----------



## utzelu

docvail said:


> Interesting note there.
> 
> Is that wrong?


Of course it's not wrong. People advocating for the change forget that this is a private business. We're not talking about women rights here, but about business decisions made by the companies for the benefit of the owners and shareholders. Nobody asks themselves if the industry already considered the marketing impact and maybe they decided it's not worth changing it.


----------



## mrv

utzelu said:


> Not sure how your comment relates to the discussion topic. What I wanted to emphasize is that, although I don't think there is any issue with gendering watches, a company can do without it if it makes business sense and it has brilliant marketing and product design people.


I meant that Apple was marketing and selling Apple watch as a gadget, not as a watch. Apple is not a watch company and doesn't sell watches, it sells electronic gadgets. It is much easier and cheaper to make a bit smaller electronic gadget that would fit a woman's hand than to make small ladies watch, because Apple products are electronic, not mechanical, like automatic or manual watches.


----------



## utzelu

mrv said:


> I meant that Apple was marketing and selling Apple watch as a gadget, not as a watch. Apple is not a watch company and doesn't sell watches, it sells electronic gadgets. It is much easier and cheaper to make a bit smaller electronic gadget that would fit a woman's hand than to make small ladies watch, because Apple products are electronic, not mechanical, like automatic or manual watches.


Apple markets it as a smart watch not as a gadget. It is meant to take the place of the traditional watches on people's wrists. More than that, initially, when launched, they heavily advertised it as a fashion accessory (which the traditional watch is). This is why the Apple Watch is available in so many variations, from different case materials (aluminum, steel, ceramics and titanium) to so many straps, including luxury ones.

I would argue that it is harder to design a smartwatch to appeal to so many people, given the limitations of the screen and the functional requirements. The mechanical watches have an obvious aesthetical advantage and yet, Apple (an not only) managed to design a modern and pleasing product, which people are buying in tens of millions. I am not advocating for Apple (although I do have an AW), but I am just saying that a company needs strong leadership, design and marketing team to venture on the path of genderless products.


----------



## one onety-one

KCZ said:


> Doc, women have been complaining about the fake pockets that are now common in our pants for at least a decade, and our voices have yet to be heard by clothing manufacturers. Every year another brand changes their women's pockets to fake ones.


It would be interesting to hear from someone familiar with that market explain why that is. Surely there is some degree, if not a majority, of female input in this decision making process.



B.Kohr said:


> I don't know what came of it, but I was at a dinner with where a female engineer was talking about redesigning hand tools to work with the shape of a female hand/the shorter levers and lower muscle mass they usually have.


I imagine that if a market based response is sustainable, it will happen. Otherwise a mission based response will be necessary and if neither response is seen as practical, the status-quo is likely to remain.



utzelu said:


> Not sure how your comment relates to the discussion topic. What I wanted to emphasize is that, although I don't think there is any issue with gendering watches, a company can do without it if it makes business sense and it has brilliant marketing and product design people.


Maybe the point was, although there are obvious similarities between mechanical wristwatches and wearable tech, marketing the wearable is more akin to a smartphone, or most any type of personal technology, than to a wristwatch.


----------

