Is The Truth About Watches Debbie Downer? Is TTAW too negative about watch sellers, brands, blogs, owners and watches? I prefer the word “critical” and make no apologies for TTAW’s snarky tone. I started this watch website to be the antidote to anodyne watch blogs. To . . .
tell the truth about watches. I know: what’s “the truth”? Your truth, my truth, the truth? We can at least agree that any discussion of watches involves facts. Case size, power reserve, daily accuracy, etc. Characteristics and performance metrics that can be measured. Wander away from stats and we’re in a gray area.
Or are we? For example…
HoDinkee founder Ben Clymer recently got a large payday. That’s a fact. The truth, right? But what about the story? At watchpro.com, Mr. Clymer had this to say about his and his brainchild’s future:
I fundamentally believe that content is everything, so we will go out and hire new editors, new photographers, new videographers. We want to produce the very best content. We have a track record of that. Content is my background and Jack Forster’s background. We feel really good about the future of our content development. It might surprise some folks, but we believe the future is all about content.
What does Mr. Clymer mean by “the best content”? Based on every article I’ve ever read at HoDinkee, based on the website’s commercial relationship with 28 watch brands, Mr. Clymer’s promise to produce the “best content” has nothing to do critical content. Whether he knows it or not, he’s defining “best” as what’s “best” for HoDinkee.
Millions of readers depend on HoDinkee for their purchasing decisions. If they believe that HoDinkee provides independent news and reviews on watches, they’re wrong. Their choices are based on HoDinkee’s hidden (to most) financial imperative.
Truth, or informed speculation? Is The Truth About Watches being negative to wander on that line? No matter how you slice it, it should be said.
If my “truthful” analysis of HoDinkee turns out to be wrong – if HoDinkee’s writers and editors suddenly got rabies and started biting the hand that feeds – I’d be the first to acknowledge the change and congratulate them on growing a pair. #aintgonnahappen
When it comes to accusations of Debbie Downer-ism, TTAW’s reviews are where the rubber hits the road, and, for some, suffers a catastrophic blowout.
There’s no denying that our reviews are a combination of fact and opinion. Much of it is critical. And surely opinion, especially snarky critical opinion, can’t be truth, can it?
When new writers join the TTAW team, they worry they don’t have the depth of knowledge and experience [they believe] being a watch reviewer requires. I tell them that as long as they write honestly from whatever knowledge level they possess, as long as they check their facts and tell the truth as they see it, they’re good to go.
When a TTAW reviewer writes that he or she dislikes an aspect of a dial’s design, for example, that’s the truth. The reader is free to disagree, but that’s the truth as the reviewer sees it. When HoDinkee or aBlogtoWatch “reviewers” pull their punches – by ignoring faults or muting their objections to the point of flaccidity – they’re not telling the truth. In a word, they’re dissembling.
Objective truth, subjective truth. I’m happy to discuss the differences over a fine cigar or, failing that, in the comments section below. Suffice it to say, my goal with this website is two-fold: entertain readers and tell the truth about watches. While negative copy is more entertaining (and easier to write) than positive, our obligation to tell the truth about watches is a check on the temptation to go for “cheap laughs.”
One last thing: all “true” criticism comes from a place of love, not greed. TTAW criticizes the watch media, the watch industry, watch brands and watches because we care. All of us here love watches and want everyone – including ourselves – to do better. As they say today, we want to be our best self. So we’re listening to your comments and invite your participation. Thank you for that opportunity.
Even $80 or $100 is a lot of money to spend on a watch, let alone $500 or $1,000 on a watch in the “middle tier”. It is cute that Hodinkee does the occasional “value proposition”, but I simply can’t afford to drop $175 on a Timex Q reissue that is going to be as loud as my $30 Timex Easy Reader or $250(?) on a Timex with a Seagull/DG2813 movement that could be found in a much nicer looking (and significantly cheaper) Chinese “homage” to the Tudor Black Bay.
It’s long been the case in the magazine world… car magazines, for example… that they will never publish a negative review, because they don’t want to piss off their advertisers. Road & Track never met a car they didn’t like. The same is true with online blogs about various product categories.
The lack of TRUE critical review has so long been ubiquitous that readers have acclimated to that perspective of 100% positive reviews of everything. Accordingly, when confronted with what we’re doing here… They’re just not used to it.
I got some “feedback” about one of my reviews here on another watch forum. I was astonished to be admonished (see what I did there?) that I was publishing MY OPINION about the watch. I wasn’t being “balanced,” which apparently has been redefined to mean 100% praise of a watch.
“That’s your opinion!” Ummmm… yeah… OF COURSE it is! Of course it’s MY opinion… I wrote it! LOL!
The good news is that the vast majority of feedback I’m getting is very positive! There is definitely a market for critical reviews (critical meaning thoughtful) and even a bit of snark! That’s what makes it FUN!
In my other writing adventures, I’ve always felt that if I’m not pissing off at least someone, I didn’t do it right. My intent is to be informative AND provocative.
If you look at old car magazine reviews they can be pretty tough despite the potential for bias created by accepting manufacturer ads and the reliance on being provided test/“press” vehicles.
I just read a review of the fully redesigned 1978 Ford Bronco where David E. Davis says it is trash and he’s glad that he bought a ‘77 while he still could. Not what Ford wanted to hear about a massive investment in a new vehicle.
The old magazine reviews have objective testing and at least some honesty.
Sure the manufacturers did not like that, but there were three legitimate car magazines, and if you wanted coverage in them you had to accept that they would provide objective testing and some negative opinions to their paying customers. There was probably some unspoken agreement about “the sway”, that some reviews would be bad but some would be good. But as long as some cars were bad and some were good that worked out.
The proliferation of digital outlets across blogs, YouTube, and social media means that manufacturers have lot more power to direct ad money and test/“press” products to the bootlickers. It has never been easier to get objective numbers on a car with a VBOX, and yet it has never been harder to find objective numbers on a car in a car review.
The fact people no longer pay has created even more compromised dependence on sponsored posts and retail relationships.
The glimmer of hope is that people that want to tell the truth about things only need setup a WordPress site. Monetizing it is a different story. I have about eight reviews in my head that are waiting on the year-end pressure with my day job.
Bring it.
Joseph Adams wrote here about how even the most affluent and self-indulgent watch enthusiast is only buying so much, that these reviews are overwhelmingly entertainment for most readers. Certainly the enthusiast tends to have a bit of money to burn, but there is a seemingly deliberate dismissal of the legitimately interested people in the audience that just won’t be spending thousands on watches at any point. Youtube seems to have people focusing on what I’ll call “regular watch reviews” while the print side of the digital realm wants to play with the expensive toys and pretend that this is relevant to a sizable portion of their audience.
When I read customer reviews, I always go to the negative ones. I’m more worried about how bad something can be than how great it might be. Risk aversion is normal. This notion that the reader, the consumer, is just spending money for fun and don’t harsh their mellow with bad vibes does a real disservice.
Decades back, I read a music reviewer admitting that he had a casual disdain for most music he reviewed. It cost him nothing, he didn’t choose it, he listened once and had minimal involvement. Compare that to the person that deliberately chose, spent, and had incentive to justify their decision and commitment. Utter jadedness, being a total malcontent, is the natural disposition of a reviewer. Thus, it’s pretty clear something is wrong when they come off as lotus eaters and Polyannas.
It’s important to be able to be critical without being negative. That’s the tone I think we try for here and to a large degree, I think we succeed. Combined with an irreverence that the esteemed Mr Farago tolerates, the tone of the site just appears…different than everyone else. But I don’t think any of us approach this from the perspective of “what can we say that is bad” about something; just that we don’t really care if someone is offended.
I think it’s important to that the majority of the writers on this site have fairly well remunerated day jobs in different industries; we’re naturally going to bring a little bit of a more jaundiced eye to than the typical only-worked-in-content-production that a lot of these sites employ. It allows us more freedom to be honest and, yes, critical than the access-cravers in other places. That gimlet eye is going to come through in the writing.
Bingo. On all points.
Couldn’t they have said that about TTAC, especially with the GM Death watch? I always enjoyed that especially working for Nissan North America at the time. I think people equate honest with negativity because people want to believe something is special when it really isn’t. I remember sitting in a Frank Mueller presentation and they waxed poetic about how they had this 200 year complication; I remember laughing during the presentation at the time because there’s no way to know the thing worked. Some of it is just trying to market a variation of the mouse trap.