TAG Heuer Carrera Calibre 15 Grey (1553G)

Macaroons and mechanical watches: on the surface there's not much in common, perhaps apart from the fact that neither of them are essential, but have devoted fans. They have been in my mind of late, particularly with regards to two brands that seem to represent, to me at least, something quite similar.

Recently, a not uncommon event happened in Sydney: the opening of a food establishment and the resultant queues by those determined to be the first patrons. This sort of race to be first mostly occurs for restaurant openings, but this grabbed my attention because it was for Australia's first branch of Laduree, purveyors of cakes, pastries, teas and most famously, macaroons. The hype concerned variations on the theme of "the world's best macaroons": "a touch of Paris in Sydney." Are they the world's best macaroons? Well, that's not the issue, is it? The issue is the branding - and buying the idea of a dream.
 

At about the same time as this opening, a Twitter discussion concerning "aspirational" brands occurred and the term "masspirational" was utilized, which I think sums the idea up neatly. The first instance I can find of its use is from 2008, but it doesn't seem to have been popularized. It denotes brands that have managed to position themselves to representa a clear identity of having "made it" to the consumer. Ownership of such a product is seen by (a great mass of) people as indicating that a certain degree of wealth or status has been achieved. We live in a very material world after all, and brand signifiers are part of that. Luxury brands, above all.
Luxury for the masses
In thinking about the "phenomenon" of the Laduree opening, a number of questions came to mind. The biggest was perhaps how a multinational company with 45 branches in 19 countries has managed to successfully sell this notion of luxury and exclusivity for a mass-produced biscuit. Owned by the Holder Group, Laduree is not a small pastry business in which macaroons are painstakingly handmade. The company has three factories in France, Switzerland and Monaco (the latter two responsible for supplying most overseas markets), with the Paris factory making some 50,000 macaroons per day. That's 18,250,000 pieces per year from one factory alone.
There are similarities between Laduree's successful marketing and Rolex in the watch world, Louis Vuitton in leather goods, and Gucci for accessories. These are brands that have managed to sell the idea of "luxury for the masses" incredibly well. Additionally, with just a few core designs, extensions and tweaks, they've managed to sustain a high level of demand for them, year after year. After all, as well noted by watch enthusiasts, one of the most bemusing things about Rolex th is the constancy of its designs, while one of the most noticeable things about both Louis Vuitton and Gucci is the ubiquitous and staggeringly popular monograms.
 

Without millions of masspirational customers, would some brands survive? Diffusion labels, lower entry-level price points, the lure of wealth and fame by association: this is what much of it is about. However, there's a funny thing with large brands that have succeeded in building their identities so bly around notions of aspirational luxury - it can come with a downside : a (perceived or actual, you decide) downgrading of its standing amongst those who got into the brand when it was a little less prevalent, its production perhaps a little less industrial, and who now see its value and exclusivity being undermined by its ubiquity and the fact that it can be seen on the wrists, shoulders or bodies of a lot of people.
Can mass production be luxurious?
Is there luxury or exclusivity in a brand that sells hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of its products annually? A brand that has become synonymous with conspicuous consumption and a perception that people are buying it just for the name? Is it possible to somehow "rise above" this if you are buying into a brand for its quality or reliability, in spite of its associations? The thing about these labels is that if you're wearing them, there is a b likelihood that it is going to be identifiable, which is one of their drawcards. Unfortunately, owning certain masspiratonal brands may also send a message to some people that you are an unimaginative consumer.
One of the most interesting ironies of this type of brand is that many of them are mid-priced luxury, which is part of their appeal. They are achievable.

There are watch (and other) brands that have been hugely successful in marketing the idea of exclusivity for the general public despite the fact that were it any other product made in such quantities, they would not be seen as exclusive at all thanks to the sheer weight of numbers. Even waiting and queues don't seem to detract from many people's beliefs in the exclusivity of successful masspirational products, though it can be asked how important the "luxury experience" is when buying such a product. In many cases it seems not to be about the experience, but about the end goal of acquisition. Yet to many, the experience is vital.
The power of marketing
Perhaps looking at it as nothing more than the triumph of marketing - the ability to make objects even be made in large, nondescript factories still seem to be exclusive luxuries - is a cynical view. but even in this age of canny consumers, there are clearly many who really want to believe stories created by brands and PR agencies, especially in emerging luxury markets. There is definitely still a belief in the power of these stories and in the importance of branding. One need only look at

Andy Murray's frantic attempts to find his Rado after his win at the U.S. Open to be reminded of the pervasive consciousness of branding and sponsorship.  

Though at times it seems as though we can travel from country to country and see the same brands, a joyful thing for me has been to see the growing strength of smaller brands and the unabashed enthusiasm and support from collectors toward independent watchmakers, whether they are as well known as Urwerk, or more niche like Habring² and Paul Gerber. The fact that it is possible to meet the watchmaker - the name behind the brand - has been a very powerful and successful way to market these watches. It has made the luxury more personal.
Are diehard watch enthusiasts influenced by marketing?
As collectors and consumers, we have quite different (and changing) reasons for why we choose one particular watch or brand over another. Oftentimes, quite critically analytical about brands and models, are we less susceptible to masspirational influences, or are we still subject to similar influences like the broader watch buying public? 
An interesting question was posted on a watch forum a little while ago: it asked members whether they'd been influenced into buying (or not buying) a watch by other members. Do some watch collectors hold great (unconscious) influence because they are seen as men and women of horological taste and acumen?

Returning to the quintessential masspirational watch brand - is Rolex "better" than most brands? How has it managed to retain this broad appeal, the air of desirability for so many, the feeling that somehow owning a Rolex confers upon its owner something that wasn't there before? The most popular "luxury" watch brand in Australia is TAG Heuer. It holds great appeal, especially for younger males who had previously only worn inexpensive watches because of its successful sport-related marketing. Perhaps as importantly, because it's seen as an achievable entry level luxury watch, the very possible next step being Rolex.
Beyond the functions of timekeeping, watches are about something imagined that grabs us in very different ways. However, it's not just watches that try to sell a story; this underpins much of the luxury sector. In the end, all of us, to whatever degree, will find ourselves guilty of buying into at least some of the narrative, whether it be one that has been dreamt up by a marketing team or one with historical roots. Heck, even I bought into it twice, and I haven't regretted it for a moment.