Hublot helps rhino conservation charity with limited edition Big Bang Unico. The re-written press release over at watchpro.com tugs the heart strings of animal lovers everywhere. “Over the last 10 years, two thirds of the rhinos in South Africa’s Kruger Park have been killed by poachers,” WP reveals. “Black rhinos in Kruger Park have disappeared dramatically and today there are estimated to be less than 500 remaining.” After that, the Hublot Big Bang Unico SORAI money shot . . .
SORAI [Save Our Rhino Africa India, link added] is campaigning for protection of these rhinos, and will get a publicity and funding boost from Hublot, which has unveiled a 100-piece limited edition Big Bang Unico SORAI.
A publicity boost? So watchpro.com reckons Hublot deserves kudos for exploiting an endangered species to sell a watch. I mean, using their advertising and PR budget to promote a worthwhile charity. More worrying: Hublot’s potential parsimony. Specifically, their non-specific contribution to SORAI.
A portion of the proceeds from the sale of each watch will be donated to Care for Wild – the largest rhino sanctuary in the world, supported by SORAI – for it to use as it sees fit.
How very nice of Hublot to “allow” the charity to spend the money as they desire. And again we ask, what portion?
The Hublot Big Bang Unico SORAI costs $24,100. To be charitable, let’s say 10 percent goes directly to the animal conservation charity. We’re talking about a limited edition run of 100 watches. So the charity would get $241k. Awesome! If true. If it is true, why not say so? Because industry practice says it probably isn’t (e.g., OMEGA’s Orbis watch).
In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m tired of this virtue signaling via an unspecified charity contribution tied to a watch. While I’m sure demographic research shows that millennials favor companies that demonstrate “social responsibility” – research that cost Hublot’s parent LVMH Group a lot more than $241k – put up or shut up. Show us the money.
Once I’ve got the knives out, let it be known that this “special edition” is a relatively cheap Hublot.
I don’t mean the watch is particularly cheap. I mean that it doesn’t cost Hublot much money to make yet another Big Bang variant (one of nearly 70). Pop a Rhino appliqué (from the previous watch) under the nine o’ clock subdial, stick a sticker on the back, fire up the caseback engraver and Bob’s your uncle.
A first Big Bang Unico SORAI two years ago came in a desert-colored case, but the new piece is in a green ceramic case on a camouflage rubber or green velcro strap.
The 45mm watch . . . has a matte green skeletonized dial exposing the Hublot MHUB1242 UNICO manufacture self-winding chronograph flyback movement.
Talk about serendipity! Hublot releases a green watch at the exact moment green watches are the thing! (Our man Klosoff is about to weigh-in on the trend.) And virtue signaling! Too bad the green watch isn’t supporting a “green” charity.
I like the look of this timepiece. I support animal conservation, ocean conservation, architectural conservation and political conservatives. I do so by writing checks to reputable charities/organizations. But if you believe that a charity or social justice-themed watch is the best way to support a worthy cause, you’re wrong. Unless you think wrist-borne virtue signaling aids your cause.
“virtue signaling via an unspecified charity contribution tied to a watch” and “releases a green watch at the exact moment green watches are the thing” and concerning donation amounts “we ask what portion?”…can’t be much more cynical than that…but I guess if you didn’t want to hear the truth you’d ignore Farago and crew and read The Bullshit About Watches, ie practically all other write ups and 😂impartial😂 you tube videos.
These issues keep me from further buying Oris, I stand for all things decent and uncared for, watches. At least some of the big boys/girls/its often times don’t bother with the charity thing and just pair up with manufacturers of other high end toys to stimulate buying interest. Or pair up with the artist of the day who usually only provides us a view into how low they’ll stoop for a buck.
I guess I’m a hater cause I don’t attend your various house(s) of worship.
Spending $25K on a watch (including a government tax) is all about possessing the thing to stroke one’s ego, as a recent TTAW blog post hammered away. So to help the wealthy customer feel better about his or her selfish desire, the buyer is soothed by a diversion into effortless philanthropy: “I am accumulating and spending wealth for a good cause.” This type of social marketing is practiced at all levels of the economy for the past 40 years. It’s about brand perception, not about the amount. For example, Amazon’s SMILE campaigns function to divert consumer and regulator attention away from its distribution and manufacturing monopolies while the other retailers and most of the product creators assist in their own suicide.
I couldn’t understand why anyone wanted a luxo-item that had some charity’s name on it making it look like a promotional item, until I read this. Guilt over their lucre is an issue for the rich, so what I’d consider declasse serves their purposes.
It’s rather amazing how all three parties get served to some extent. The charity and manufacturer create free publicity and some extra bucks, the maker and the customer get their self-awarded good boy points, and well I guess that’s about it.
I’m not a fan of charity by proxy… with the proxy getting all the “social credit” on my dime. If I want to donate to St. Jude Children’s Hospital, I’m not doing it by adding a donation to my check at the table in Chili’s. I’ll send the money straight to St. Jude. I don’t need and don’t want a middle man who will use it as an opportunity to virtue signal and gain social credit.
In recent years, my wife and I learned a LOT about “charities” when our daughter had leukemia. To cut to the chase…. most of the big (and famous) charities are full of shit. They exist to perpetuate their own existence. The lion’s share (or rhino’s share, if you like) goes to operating the charity. Very little goes to the cause they claim to support.
And, I can tell you that “Locks of Love” and “Make a Wish” are full of it, too. Make a Wish… we’ll send you anywhere you want as long as it’s Disney World, OK? You want Disney, right? (wink, wink) For some reason, they REALLY push Disney on the recipients. We passed on it.
Locks of Love? You know… they get girls to cut their hair and donate it so kids with cancer can get wigs, right? WRONG. Literally NONE of that hair goes to the kids with cancer. Instead Locks of Love SELLS the hair to wig makers (apparently overseas). And, if your kid needs a wig, they’ll SELL you a regular wig (not made from the hair of donors), price based on your income.
Color me skeptical.
Could be the worst form of deceit and deception using the down and out, ill, underserved as a means to bankroll themselves and their operations. Don’t get me wrong, Racer still seems like a skeptic.🤪