Change of career for Geoges Kern

For me it was a surprise to read that the former CEO of IWC has suddenly left Richemont.
Less than 6 months ago George Kern had been appointed as head of Watch Making , Marketing and Digital at Richemont. Now he stepped down to become the co-owner of Breitling.
Source : Haut Horologie Journal ( HH Journal).
Adrian v d Meijden,
(alwaysiwc).

I think Georges will be very successful at Breitling!
He has shown some nice vintage pieces on his Instagram and seems set to steer Breitling back to their roots.

I'm sure he will do a fantastic job there.
I'm not a Breitling lover though.
Maybe Georges can change that. ;-)

Wish him well at his new career.

Hope IWC gets back to it's roots... and will evolve in the way the did in the past with pioneering like titanium / ceramic/ Kurt complications/ pellaton and just simpel sturdy watches.

And move away from fashion and limited editions...

Just like these... form follows Ingenieur 666/ 866 etc ...functionYour text to link here...

I just hope they bring back the Gentra inspired Ingenieur - a design icon.

I agree re. the hundreds of limited editions. What would be great is more classics with just a few limited editions each year.

Come on IWC, let's rediscover your true identity!

I wish Kern was gone long time ago. Short term profits were realized and long term damage to IWC brand and identity will take more time to recover.

You may or may not find everything cool, that IWC did or does, but I cannot share your criticism.
The brand is at another level than before Georges Kern took over and is ready and fit for the future.
What I would wish that short term profits will not be realized by means of cost cutting in the wrong place. A movement at a 5000 CHF watch should be finished nicely too even if you don't see it usually.

IWC just discontinued the Genta inspired Ingenieur line completely and set up a complete new Ingenieur line.
I am not completely happy with this decision too but the big, hard-shaped watches didn't sell well, so IWC reacted. Your wish is shared but hardly a chance to come true in the next few years.

Not sure if Kern's career change is going to affect the direction IWC is moving in, but I surely wish the manufacture would go back to its "Engineered for Men" motto. And I mean to stress the "Engineered" part. I don't care so much about all the celebrities and red carpets.

A shot to illustrate the kind of engineering I mean.

+1

Kerns affinity to VIPs damaged the brand in my opinion.
Spending a fortune to have dinner with some moviestars - endless "limited editions", etc..

It will take some time to get to the "true identity" of IWC again - but it will come back - without this megalomania..

Cheers
Thomas

Agree with the above sentiments – Kern was good for visibility, but bad for the brand values. Forward-thinking when it comes to retail partnerships and e-commerce, but not even my love for Rosamund Pike changes the fact that all the famous people felt inauthentic to the brand's core. Here's to also hoping IWC sees a return to its former glory under Christoph Grainger-Herr.

+1

I guess in a retrospect, one could say that GK's major contribution to the brand was basically limited...limited to 'limited editions'...

I agree with the opinions here that he indeed stabilized probably the company and filled up its financial reservoirs...however, that has been achieved IMHO more via decorations, parties and glamor, and less through substance, which for me would mean real watch-making achievements.

I think he missed a huge opportunity to revolutionize and reshape IWC's status by turning it back to a real manufacture. He could do this by taking a dramatic decision years ago, through going back to the early days, when all watches were powered by home-made engines....yes, in-house movements...his inspirations in that respect should probably have been Blancpain, Patek or Moser, rather then....Breitling...

Well, all I can say is everyone is entitled to one's own opinion.

I happen to have a lot of respect for Mr. Kern. Like it or not, without Kern, IWC may not be the same IWC the way it is now. This is a commercial world--whether we like it or not, and a cut-throat one at that. Too many manufacturers focus on technicality of things, but many are gone or have become insignificant. IWC has become one of the biggest brands for Richemont. I think that alone is worth some respect from us.

Just because a brand produces lots of limited editions of watches, doesn't mean it doesn't make some of the innovative ones well. IWC needed the money to come up with watches that you and I like. Where does that come from? well, probably from markets that aren't necessarily for us, the "picky collectors."

Anyway, below is an article which I think gives a fair judgement on Kern's contribution to IWC. It is worth a read (in my humble opinion):
Kern's artcile on WatchesBySJX

Well said Kelvin
And I agree, without Georges' input, we might not have an IWC at all.
I think now that IWC is re-established, great things will come!

Thanks, Mark and Tonny.

By the way same token, years ago purists hated it when Porsche released the hideous Cayenne, and Mercedes Benz came out with the front-wheel drive A/B class, and even for Apple releasing a phone with no keypad and then years later, a bigger version of that with which you couldn't use to make phone calls (referring to the iPad).

Well, guess what? yes, while The Cayenne, MB A/B Class and Apple iPhone/iPad may not appeal to many loyal buyers of the brands, no one could argue that they sold like hot-cakes, and were very successful products to give the respective brands lots of revenue--such that they could continue to invest and produce 911-variants, AMG C/E/S classes and Mac/MacBooks that the loyal customers loved.

If all you want is an E63, no one is out there forcing you to buy a B200. Just like no one is forcing us to buy a carbon-fiber Ingenieur, or a Le Petit Prince Pilot, if all you want to buy is a Portuguese Perpetual.

All I can say is, one of the things that really attracts me to IWC is that it does offer a great variety of choices. You can go dressy or sporty if you want... and you don't always have to get the same watch that everyone else's is getting. If there are models that I simply do not care for... say, the Top Gun Perpetual Calendar with red-dial, I could just get something else. I don't have to complain about IWC releasing the red Top Gun. With modern IWC's, at least the brand gives me lots of choices.

My 2c worth only.

I think we all agree that commercial success is important and that Mr. Kern has been a successful leader when it comes to business growth and profitability.

However, I'm not a Richemont shareholder. I belong to another group of stakeholders: I'm a client. What's more, I'm not an average client, but a brand enthusiast, who has bought - and is potentially likely to buy - more IWC's products than an average client.

While Mr. Kern has been successful in creating value for shareholders, he has not been so successful in creating value for me. Based on many comments on this and other enthusiast forums, I dare to say that I'm not alone in feeling this way.

I'm not that worried that IWC has created lots of variety in their product portfolio. What bothers me is that under Mr. Kern, IWC neglected to develop many of the traditional models that attracted me to the brand in the first place. Watches like the basic Ingenieurs, Pilot's watches, and Aquatimers.

There was a time when they were technically ahead of the competition, but while IWC's focus has been on lifestyle-based marketing and attracting new kind of clients, competitors have introduced new, technically more advanced products. These are the kind of watches many of us enthusiasts are seriously interested in. We can all admire Grand Complications, Tourbillons, Perpetual Calendars etc... but the basic three hand watches and some chronographs are the kind of watches most of us actually buy, and now IWC has fallen behind the competition when it comes to technology in this segment.

With all due respect to Kelvin, I think his car industry analogy is not very accurate here. From my point of view, the case is more like if MB's core product, the E-class sedan, would still be based on 1980's W124 platform (which it isn't). As MB enthusiast, I would be sad to see how much more technically advanced new Audi A6 and BMW 5-series sedans are...

I admit using the car industry analogy is not perfect. However, I was trying illustrate a different point.

Anyway, may I ask why you feel IWC has neglected to develop basic models like Ingenieurs, Pilots and Aquatimers? I also want to know whether you are more concerned about IWC’s “seemingly lack of” focus on improving the so-called basic models, or as you mentioned in another paragraph, IWC not introducing more advanced products and technologies when compared with its major competitors?

As I look back in IWC recent history, I noticed that every year or so IWC would revamp a series of watches. Along with revising the line, new movements and features are also introduced. While I am not sure whether these improvements are “enhancing basic models enough,” or introducing “enough advanced technologies,” I do see them as improvements.

Movements alone, IWC under the leadership of Mr. Kern (OK, I am sure these aren’t just his ideas or contributions alone… but at least they happened in Kern’s time) have introduced digital date perpetual calendar for the Da Vinci series, successfully given us a relatively affordable flyback chronograph movement with 68-day power reserve, mono-pusher for Portofino chrono, siderale scafusia for the Portugieser, double-barrel 7-day movement, constant-force tourbillon for the Ingenieur, latest perpetual+chrono movement for the latest Da Vinci, revamped many of their movements with ceramic bearing, etc. etc. Some newer technologies are expensive yet nice, and some are just minor improvements on durability and functionality—but hey, at least they are not just focusing on serving the higher end or mass market of customers. Both get some innovations!

Watch features on the other hand, I could see Ingenieur experiencing with different materials (and not only for the watch, also for the straps), Aquatimer introducing lume in its external bezel, then keeping the external bezel, but making it bi-directionally turnable while just rotating the internal indicator ring uni-directionally for diving safety, not to mention Pilot Timezoner time-zone easily-adjustable feature (OK, I admit this is through M&A, not IWC’s own R&D, but it is an innovation nonetheless), and the rotate-able lugs of the new Da Vinci, etc. etc. These are advancements that even the more “entry-level” users could enjoy. Not only that, but they are practical features that people could actually use, not just fancy enhancements. (Isn’t this what IWC has been known for all along—bringing advancement in an elegant way to its customers at a rather affordable price? I happen to think IWC continues to live up to this promise, at least somewhat)

Perhaps I’m just too easily satisfied, but in my book, I see these as IWC’s recent advancements. Yes, IWC is a bit late to introduce a micro-length-adjustable bracelet, and their movements tend to be too big and too thick… but hey, at least they are making improvements in these areas.

May I turn the table and humbly ask what have IWC’s major competitions bring to us in recent years that are ground-breaking? Yes, Rolex finally gives us a watch with moonphase. Yeah! How about Zenith? Any major technological advancement since the introduction of El Primero movement? True, Omega has co-axial movement and a-magnetic coil—and then what else, please? Let’s not forget co-axial escapement was not even an Omega’s own invention.

Yes, H. Moser & Cie, Richard Mille, A Lange & Sohne, etc. arguably have given the industry a lot more innovations in recent years. However, they are not really in the same league as IWC.

I don’t know, like I said, maybe I am just a happy customer that can easily be satisfied. I certainly have no big complaints on IWC under Kern’s leadership. Sure, Kern is different from Günter Blümlein. Nonetheless, I think the environment and challenges are different. Besides, if Kern is no Blümlein, that doesn’t necessarily mean he was a bad leader.

I understand we all love the brand, and want it to do well. Sometimes the directions it has taken may deviate from our wish. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? I think IWC as a company has a lot to consider, and balances to strike. To me, I simply appreciate what Kern has been through, and the watches that IWC has put out--and that's why I still keep buying.

Just my 2c worth.