Ticking Away

The Watch Industry Running Out of Time

Over the last few years, I have received a multitude of DMs from exasperated insiders. What has been interesting has been the recurring themes and commonalities across different organisations. They reveal that beneath the veneer of perfection lies a troubling reality. So consistent are the issues, we can group them. To protect the whistleblowers and the brands alike, I present the issues as an interview with a group of insiders with a handful of changed names and blank brands.

They are from multiple brands across many types of organisations. Their stories expose systemic problems within the companies, from questionable production practices and workplace toxicity to creative customer management. Let’s meet: Taylor, Alex, Morgan, and Jordan.

Part 1: The Illusion of Perfection

Pointless Complication: Taylor let’s start with you. You worked on the production floor at blank, assembling some of its most well-known movements. Can you describe what that was like?

Taylor: Sure. I worked in blank’s manufacturing centre in xxxxxx, primarily assembling the X movement, which the company marketed as a game-changer in watchmaking. From the outside, you’d think the process would embody Swiss precision. But the reality was far from what customers imagine when they think of “Swiss-made.”

The tolerances on the components were all over the place. Some parts were so poorly manufactured that they wouldn’t fit together properly. Other times, components were too loose, causing issues downstream during assembly. It often felt like trying to piece together a puzzle with mismatched pieces. The result? Some movements faced performance inconsistencies, leading to additional challenges in meeting internal expectations.

Pointless Complication: What were the main problems you encountered during production?

Taylor: The two most common issues were with power reserves and accuracy. The X was advertised as having a xxx-day power reserve—a big selling point. But most units struggled to hit even three days. And that was only if they didn’t fail entirely. Accuracy was another nightmare. Some movements couldn’t hold within 30s properly for a single day, falling well outside the industry-standard tolerances. minor everyday shocks also threw the movement out of whack.

Pointless Complication: Did these problems affect individual movements, or were they systemic?

Taylor: They were systemic. I remember a production run in 2023 when nearly 40% of the movements failed testing. Some employees perceived that, during high-demand periods, production priorities took precedence over stringent quality benchmarks. This led to concerns that certain tolerances were adjusted to maintain output levels. It was infuriating. They were more concerned about hitting quotas than delivering quality.

Pointless Complication: Did anyone try to raise these concerns with management?

Taylor: Many of us did, but management wasn’t interested in hearing about it. I once approached my supervisor to explain how the inconsistent tolerances were making it impossible to meet both quality standards and production targets. He didn’t even look up from his laptop. He just said, “Your job is to meet the numbers. Let someone else worry about quality.” That summed up the culture. Skilled workers were treated like interchangeable parts. It was demoralising.

Pointless Complication: Alex, you worked in quality control. What was your perspective on these issues?

Alex: From my experience, the quality control process often felt compromised under pressure. In theory, our job was to act as the final safeguard to ensure the watches met blank’s high standards before they left the factory. Quality control was a complex challenge. While the goal was to maintain high standards, some employees felt pressure to meet production targets, occasionally leading to disputes over product acceptance. If you flagged too many problems, you were seen as someone who was slowing down production.

Pointless Complication: Can you share an example?

Alex: Sure. An issue arose with a perpetual calendar model where some employees flagged concerns about potential long-term performance. While discussions took place regarding these challenges, the decision was ultimately made to proceed with the launch, relying on post-market service to address any potential concerns.

Another example was the blank movement. Some employees voiced concerns about the performance of certain movements, particularly regarding accuracy and power reserves. However, given production goals and external market expectations, these concerns were balanced against broader operational considerations. As long as the watches looked flawless on the outside, they were deemed acceptable. It felt like we were gambling with the brand’s reputation.

Part 2: The Cost to Customers

Pointless Complication: Morgan, you worked in customer service, dealing directly with the fallout from these decisions. What was your experience like?

Morgan: It was incredibly frustrating and emotionally draining. Customers came to us with such high expectations. Many of them had saved for years to buy what they thought was a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. When those watches failed, they felt betrayed—and I can’t blame them.

One case that stands out involved a father who bought a watch as a gift for his son’s graduation. It stopped working within weeks. Internally, discussions suggested the problem was with a batch of mainsprings, but the official response was focussed on possible mishandling by the customer. So he had to pay rather than have it fixed under warranty. It felt like we were betraying the people who trusted us the most.

Pointless Complication: Was deflecting blame a common practice?

Morgan: It was standard policy. If a manual wind watch failed, we’d tell the customer they overwound it. If an automatic watch stopped working, we’d claim they hadn’t worn it enough to keep it powered. In certain cases, customer service representatives found themselves in challenging situations where internal policies required strict adherence to brand guidelines, sometimes leading to disputes over responsibility for product issues. Protecting the brand’s image always came first.

One of the worst cases I handled involved a 150,000 CHF rattrapante chronograph. The customer noticed immediately that the split-second mechanism wasn’t functioning. Internally, we all knew the issue was due to poor assembly, but the official response was to blame him for mishandling it. After escalating his concerns, the customer was eventually offered a resolution, though initial discussions had placed responsibility on user handling.

Similarly, other cases revealed systemic defects—a watch with inconsistent amplitude required several replacements before functioning adequately, while a hand-wound model was shipped with an automatic barrel, rendering it unusable.

Pointless Complication: Jordan, as someone who worked on high-end complications, how did these issues affect premium customers?

Jordan: High-end customers were often the hardest hit because their expectations were the highest—and rightfully so. These are people who spend upwards of 100,000 CHF on a single watch. They expect perfection. In the complications department, the highest levels of craftsmanship were emphasized, but some of us felt strongly that in certain cases, production timelines created challenges in ensuring every detail met the highest expectations.

I remember assembling a precious metal tourbillon priced at over 100,000 CHF. On the surface, it was flawless—beautifully polished, with intricate details. While externally immaculate, some watchmakers expressed concerns over certain tolerances, feeling that tighter precision could further enhance long-term performance. The tolerances were so loose that it barely functioned. It felt like Morgan said, we were betraying the very customers who trusted us the most.

Part 3: The Toll on Employees

Pointless Complication: Let’s talk about the workplace culture. Taylor, how did the pressure to meet quotas affect morale on the production floor?

Taylor: It completely destroyed morale. Production targets were demanding, and some workers found it challenging to meet expectations without compromising on efficiency. Several employees described experiencing high levels of stress, with some expressing concerns over work-life balance and job security.

During a slowdown in the Chinese market, workforce adjustments were made, impacting temporary employees first. Those who remained found their workloads adjusted, leading to concerns over work expectations and stability. It felt like we were being punished for surviving.

In many instances, employees felt reduced to mere statistics—‘green or red numbers,’ as one co-worker described it. Those labelled as ‘red’ were treated as problems to be eliminated. This corporate obsession with spreadsheets overshadowed any recognition of the skill and artistry workers brought to their craft.

Pointless Complication: Alex, what was the culture like in quality control?

Alex: If anything, it was worse. If you flagged too many defects, you were labelled as a troublemaker. I remember one colleague who refused to approve a defective batch of movements. He was called into a meeting the next day and left soon after. The message was clear: don’t challenge the system, or you’ll be replaced.

Part 4: The Disconnect Between Marketing and Reality

Pointless Complication: Taylor, how did the company’s obsession with its image affect operations?

Taylor: Luxury branding and marketing play a significant role in shaping consumer perception. However, some workers felt that internal production processes sometimes struggled to align with the lofty expectations set by promotional materials. It felt like they cared more about photo shoots than the actual watches.

Pointless Complication: Morgan, you sometimes go to speak directly with customers who had bought into this carefully crafted image at events. How did that play out in your role?

Morgan: It was honestly heartbreaking. Customers believed they were buying into a legacy, a piece of watchmaking history. They didn’t just see their purchases as functional—they saw them as heirlooms, investments, or even a way to connect with the prestige of the brand. However, when issues arose with certain timepieces, some customers expressed disappointment, feeling that their expectations did not always align with their experiences.

For example, we had customers sending in watches, while marketed for durability and craftsmanship, some watches encountered performance concerns that did not meet the expectations of certain collectors and enthusiasts. These weren’t casual buyers—they were collectors and connoisseurs. They knew watches, and when they realized the truth, many felt deceived.

I’ll never forget one case involving a collector who had purchased a limited-edition piece for close to 200,000 CHF. The watch had been heavily promoted as an example of the brand’s cutting-edge innovation. But within months, the movement began losing time at a rate of over a minute per hour. When it came in, we knew the problem was due to design flaws. The official response cited environmental conditions or storage factors as potential causes, though the customer remained dissatisfied with this explanation. As a result, you can imagine how this might influence their future purchasing decisions.

Pointless Complication: Jordan, was there a similar focus on appearances in the complications department?

Jordan: Absolutely. The complications department was the brand’s showpiece—the place where we created watches that carried price tags of six figures or more. These were the watches that appeared in the advertisements, the ones worn by celebrities and featured in high-profile events. But even there, the focus was more on how the watches looked than how they performed.

I worked on a (high complication) that was part of a high-profile launch. The movement was so rushed that we had to manually adjust several components during assembly just to make it function for the photo shoot. Internally, we knew the watch wouldn’t perform as advertised over time, but management didn’t care. Some employees felt that marketing timelines placed constraints on quality control, leading to internal discussions about balancing promotion and performance. It was incredibly frustrating for those of us who cared about the craft.

Pointless Complication: Alex, how did this focus on branding affect the way quality control was handled?

Alex: It completely undermined our work. We were supposed to be the gatekeepers, the people ensuring that only the best products left the factory. But in reality, we were told to prioritize appearances. Presentation and aesthetics were key priorities, with some employees feeling that internal discussions about product performance were secondary to maintaining brand prestige. The logic was that customers wouldn’t notice—or wouldn’t notice until long after they’d bought the product.

One example that sticks with me involved a high-profile launch where we discovered that a significant percentage of the movements didn’t meet accuracy standards. Some employees felt that, rather than addressing these concerns preemptively, greater reliance was placed on post-market service to resolve potential issues.. It felt like we were just kicking the can down the road, all to protect the brand’s reputation.

Part 5: Broader Implications for the Watch Industry

Pointless Complication: The issues you’ve described seem to point to broader problems within watch industry as a whole. Taylor, do you think this is an isolated case, or are these issues systemic?

Taylor: Unfortunately, I think they’re systemic. Based on what we are hearing, blank is far from the only brand cutting corners while relying on its reputation to sell watches. The entire industry is under pressure to deliver increasingly complex designs and innovations, but without the infrastructure or time to do it properly. As a result, quality suffers, but the marketing doesn’t reflect that reality. It’s a house of cards.

Jordan (jumping in): I agree. The watch industry continues to be rooted in tradition and precision. However, some insiders have observed an increasing emphasis on market expansion and financial performance, which they believe may influence decision-making processes. The emphasis is no longer on producing timeless, reliable pieces— there has been a growing emphasis on market trends, celebrity endorsements, and limited editions.

The industry is also facing growing competition from smartwatches and other tech-driven wearables. Instead of doubling down on what made mechanical watches special—craftsmanship and reliability—many brands are trying to compete by creating ever-more complex designs. But complexity without the necessary investment in quality control is a recipe for disaster.

Pointless Complication: Alex, how does this affect the workers in the industry?

Alex: It’s demoralizing. watchmakers used to be viewed as artisans—skilled craftspeople who were deeply respected for their expertise. But now, workers are treated like disposable tools. The focus is on speed and output, not on nurturing talent or ensuring that employees have the resources they need to do their best work.

I’ve seen so many talented colleagues leave the industry entirely because they couldn’t take the constant pressure and the disconnect between the company’s values and its actions. It’s a loss not just for the companies but for the tradition of watchmaking itself.

Part 6: The Human Cost of Toxic Culture

Pointless Complication: Let’s talk more about the human cost of this culture. Taylor, you’ve already touched on how the pressure to meet quotas affected morale. Can you share more about the working conditions on the production floor?

Taylor: The production floor was an incredibly stressful environment. Every aspect of our work was monitored and tracked. If you didn’t meet your daily quota, you’d be flagged “red” as underperforming. It didn’t matter if the delays were caused by faulty materials or poorly designed components—you were the one held responsible.

During economic fluctuations, companies often reassess staffing needs. Some employees expressed concerns that recent workforce reductions impacted job security and workload distribution, leading to heightened stress on remaining staff.. For those of us who stayed, the workload increased, but our hours were cut to save costs. It felt like we were being punished for still having a job.

Pointless Complication: Morgan, how did this culture affect your department?

Morgan: Customer service was just as bad. We were constantly under pressure to protect the brand’s image, even when we knew the fault lay with the product. It was exhausting to have to deflect customers who had legitimate complaints. I saw colleagues burn out because they couldn’t reconcile their role as the face of the brand with the reality of what we were dealing with internally.

Part 7: A Call for Change

Pointless Complication: Clearly, there are serious issues within blank(s) and the broader watch industry. What do you think needs to change? Let’s start with you, Alex.

Alex: The first step is transparency. Companies need to be honest with both their employees and their customers. If there’s a problem with a product, they should admit it and fix it instead of trying to cover it up. Rebuilding trust is the only way to secure the industry’s long-term future.

Pointless Complication: Morgan, what’s your perspective?

Morgan: Accountability is key. Management needs to take responsibility for the culture they’ve created. That means listening to employees, addressing systemic issues, and prioritizing quality over short-term profits. Until that happens, nothing will change.

Pointless Complication: Taylor?

Taylor: Companies need to invest in their people. The workers on the production floor are the backbone of the brand, but they’re treated like they don’t matter. If companies like blank want to reclaim their reputation, they need to start by respecting and supporting their employees. Respecting the craftsmanship—Watchmakers should be given the time and resources to do their jobs properly.

Pointless Complication: Jordan, what about you?

Jordan: The industry needs to rediscover its roots. Watchmaking is supposed to be about craftsmanship and tradition, not just flashy marketing campaigns and profit margins. Luxury watches are supposed to last generations. If that stops being true, the industry is doomed. If they can’t return to those values, their reputation will collapse, and it will take the entire industry down with it.

Part 8: A Warning for the Future

As the echoes of these voices fade, one thing remains painfully clear: the watch industry stands at a precipice. For centuries, its foundation has been built on trust, tradition, and the pursuit of perfection. This was recognised by UNESCO who registered the craftsmanship of mechanical watchmaking and art mechanics on its “Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.”

But now, cracks have formed—cracks that no amount of UNESCO ratings, storytelling or celebrity endorsements can hide. The stories of Taylor, Alex, Morgan, and Jordan are not just isolated grievances; they are alarms ringing across an industry that has lost its way. Customers are becoming more informed, employees are growing disillusioned, and some insiders feel that recent shifts in the industry pose challenges to long-standing traditions of prestige and exclusivity.

Alex points out, “The Luxury watch industry was built on keeping a promise. If that trust disappears, the entire luxury segment could collapse.”

“If certain concerns raised by some insiders persist,” Taylor says, “I believe consumer trust may erode over time. As customer expectations evolve, maintaining quality and transparency could become increasingly critical to long-term brand reputation.”

“I think social media and independent reviewers will continue to expose the truth. Brands won’t be able to hide behind marketing forever,” Morgan adds.

But there’s still hope. As Jordan reminds us, “The watch industry doesn’t have to follow this path. It can rediscover its roots, embrace craftsmanship, and rebuild trust—if it chooses to.”

The question isn’t just whether brands like blank will listen; it’s whether they can afford not to. In an age where transparency is demanded, where trust is earned rather than assumed, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

For now, these stories remain a warning—a glimpse into an industry on the edge. Whether it heeds that warning is a decision that will shape the future of horology.

*********************************************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:

The above document is an aggregation of firsthand accounts from multiple sources within the global watch industry. The identities of all individuals and companies have been anonymised to protect the privacy and professional security of those involved. The intent of this document is to foster an open discussion about systemic challenges within the industry while respecting legal and ethical boundaries.

1. No Defamation or Specific Brand Targeting

This document does not allege wrongdoing by any specific company or brand. The issues discussed reflect concerns raised by multiple industry insiders and are presented as their personal experiences and opinions. The inclusion of anonymized accounts does not constitute an accusation against any identifiable entity, nor does it imply that all brands, manufacturers, or executives engage in the described practices.

2. Respect for Confidentiality and Trade Secrets

No confidential, proprietary, or classified information has been disclosed in this document. All details shared are based on publicly available knowledge, industry norms, and general insider perspectives that do not infringe upon any existing employment agreements, NDAs, or intellectual property protections.

3. No Intent to Disparage or Cause Financial Harm

This document is not intended to harm, mislead, or financially damage any company, brand, or individual. The insights presented serve to highlight broad industry trends, ethical concerns, and areas for potential improvement. All descriptions of manufacturing practices, customer service policies, or workplace conditions should be interpreted as part of a general discussion rather than definitive claims about specific organisations. Readers are encouraged to conduct independent research and refer to official company statements before drawing conclusions.

4. Context and Anonymity of Sources

The individuals referenced in this document have chosen to remain anonymous due to professional sensitivities and potential repercussions. Their perspectives are subjective and based on personal experiences, which may not reflect the practices of every company within the industry. The anonymity of sources is maintained to ensure that concerns can be discussed openly without fear of retaliation.

5. Fair Commentary and Public Interest

This document falls under the category of fair commentary, which is protected under laws concerning freedom of speech and press, where applicable. The discussion of industry-wide issues is intended to inform and benefit both consumers and professionals in the watchmaking sector. Any perceived criticisms should be viewed as constructive and part of a larger dialogue on improving transparency, quality standards, and ethical business practices.

6. No Legal or Financial Advice

This document does not provide legal, financial, or professional advice. Any references to labour laws, warranty practices, or ethical considerations are general in nature and should not be interpreted as definitive legal analysis. Readers are encouraged to consult appropriate experts or legal professionals for case-specific guidance.

By reading this document, the audience acknowledges that the views expressed herein are based on individual testimonies and should not be considered verified statements of fact regarding any particular company or brand. The goal of this work is to encourage industry accountability and awareness while maintaining fairness, accuracy, and respect for all stakeholders involved.