nyone who closely follows the watch sector becomes familiar with surveys of the industry, many of which are produced by financial institutions and audit firms such as Morgan Stanley, Deloitte and Vontobel.

Journalist Chris Hall, who has been writing about the watch industry for the past 16 years, wanted to take a different approach and focus exclusively on independent watch brands, which have experienced extraordinary growth since the turn of the century.

Although his report has not been publicly released, its results are of interest to the entire sector. We reached out to Chris Hall for an interview.

Chris Hall

Europa Star: How did you collect the data for this study?

Chris Hall: I contacted over 220 independent watchmaking companies, 81 of which agreed to respond. I felt that many understood the reasons why I reached out to them. This is the first study of its kind and it is very encouraging for the future, as we can include even more brands over time.

How did you define an “independent watch brand”?

It’s not just about not belonging to a group. In this study, I excluded large brands that are the size of a group and major players, like Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet and Chopard, because we can’t really categorise them in the same way as Voutilainen, F.P. Journe or Studio Underd0g. Brands which are recognised as “independent” by collectors, included in the scope of this study, can have different ownership models, such as De Bethune which sold a majority stake to a third party, or H. Moser & Cie and Hautlence, which are jointly owned by a holding company. Lastly, there is a volume criterion: I focused only on companies producing fewer than 10,000 watches per year.

You are an expert in the watchmaking world and have followed independents for a long time. Which of the study’s findings surprised you the most?

II would say the biggest surprise was the high level of optimism among independent brands, in a period of declining exports. An independent brand is particularly vulnerable in its supply chain and cannot put pressure on suppliers in the same way a major player can. A single hiccup can have major repercussions, because they have high costs and limited production. But the general observation is clearly that independent brands are very positive and some even feel 100% confident about the future.

“The biggest surprise was the high level of optimism among independent brands, in a period of declining exports.”

Isn’t there a tendency towards optimism in the industry, anyway? How can you be sure this is a genuine sentiment and not just part of an image?

I believe them for several reasons. Firstly, the incentive to not tell the truth was minimal. It would have been easier simply not to take part, especially as participation was entirely voluntary and findings published on condition of anonymity. Secondly, brands were very direct in their responses and this leads me to believe they chose to answer honestly. Thirdly, I’ve known several of these entrepreneurs personally for years and we have built trust. On the contrary, I find independents are unusually open to scrutiny in an industry where this isn’t necessarily the norm!

So how do you explain this optimism amidst a more challenging period for the sector, after several years of strong growth?

When you run a startup, I think you are naturally inclined towards a form of optimism and resilience. There has never been a better time to be an independent watch brand. Even compared to just a decade ago, it has never been easier to launch a watch brand, create a platform, reach the public, find suppliers... Coincidentally or not, consumers are increasingly open to alternative propositions, to watches that are not necessarily made in Switzerland, to brands that do not have a long artisanal tradition. Master watchmakers are no longer indispensable when launching a brand. Direct online sales have changed the game. They are the main sales channel for independents.

“Consumers are increasingly open to alternative propositions, to watches that are not necessarily made in Switzerland, to brands that do not have a long artisanal tradition. Master watchmakers are no longer indispensable when launching a brand.”

Did the survey turn up any other surprises?

Independents’ lack of interest in watchmaking awards, as well as auctions, came as a surprise, particularly as these are traditionally seen as potential springboards for independent brands. They tend to view them more as good publicity and an opportunity to showcase their credibility and be recognised by experts, but their volumes are too low for this to matter so much. As for auctions and certified pre-owned, a number of brands are too young for this to be a consideration. Lastly, there’s a stereotype that watchmakers don’t always have the necessary business skills but the facts, and our study, have shown this isn’t true.

Going forward, what are your plans for the study?

I’d like to conduct the survey on an annual basis. Among possible additions, it would be interesting to include more elements relating to the secondary market, as well as brands’ financial situation. See you in 2026!

For any questions about this report, please contact Chris Hall at [email protected]