Contemporaries

In an interview with STANDARD editor Markus Böhm, Michael Köckritz explains why Rolex is more than just a watch manufacturer to him, why the stories behind the models fascinate him at least as much as the technology, and how the brand has managed to become a cultural phenomenon with extraordinary appeal.

When did you realise you were ”Crazy about Rolex” – was there a specific moment, an encounter, a watch?

There wasn’t a single moment. More like lots of little ones. I kept coming across Rolex time and again, whether in films, in photographs, in magazines or on the wrists of people I found likeable and interesting. And almost always, I liked the cultural context in which the brand appeared. I liked the Submariner worn by Steve McQueen or Sean Connery so much that I started saving up for one whilst I was still a student. But it took a bit longer than I’d hoped before I could actually afford one. 

At some point, I realised that it wasn’t just the watches that interested me, but the stories they tell. The deeper I delved into the world of Rolex, the more fascinating the brand became to me – not just as a manufacturer of exceptional watches, but as a cultural phenomenon. That’s probably where my very own ”Crazy about Rolex” story began.

A watch brand as a cultural phenomenon – what’s behind it?

I believe Rolex has become a cultural phenomenon because the brand has never merely offered functionality. Right from the start, it was also about ideas: a spirit of discovery, reliability, precision, style and the courage to go your own way. Over the decades, this has given rise to stories that extend far beyond the product itself. In this way, Rolex has achieved something that very few brands manage: it has become bigger than its own products. The brand has long been part of our cultural memory. We encounter it in films, in sport, in music, in family stories and in pop culture. Time and time again. It is also a classic ‘love brand’: it thrives not solely on its quality or technical perfection, but on its significance. Quality is the prerequisite. Meaning is the real reason why we fall in love with it. Brands like Rolex foster a sense of identity, spark desire and create an emotional bond that extends far beyond the product itself. Perhaps that is the real secret. We don’t buy a Rolex simply because it tells the time. We choose a story with which we can connect. And that is precisely what distinguishes a ‘love brand’ from a mere product.

But if someone has no particular connection to Rolex: what story, which model or which detail would you have to show them for them to suddenly understand the fascination?

I wouldn’t start with a watch at all, but with people. With Mercedes Gleitze, who swam across the English Channel. With explorers, pilots, racing drivers or mountaineers. For decades, Rolex has been part of stories about curiosity, new beginnings and discovery. Once you know these stories, you suddenly see more than just a watch. You understand why it has become an icon. And at the same time, you realise just how visionary Hans Wilsdorf (the founder of Rolex, ed.) . He realised very early on that technical innovation alone is not enough. It is stories that give meaning. Rolex has never viewed stories as mere decoration, but as part of the brand itself. The brand recognised its stories early on, told them skilfully and has consistently continued to write them across generations.

There is a notorious quote from a French advertiser: ”Anyone who doesn’t have a Rolex by the age of 50 has achieved nothing in life.” Another quote recently did the rounds on Instagram: ”A Rolex isn’t a watch, but a price tag on your wrist.” How do you explain the fact that hardly any other watch brand triggers so many projections and reactions?

When a brand is characterised in this way, it clearly has enormous cultural relevance. After all, what does this statement actually say? That something is perceived as particularly valuable here. However, in a rather sour and envious way, this characteristic is often simplistically associated with the price, which in turn reveals more about our society than about the watch itself.

Of course, there are people who wear a Rolex as a status symbol. To deny that would be naïve. But to conclude from this that it is therefore merely a status symbol is far too simplistic. I am therefore less interested in the question of whether Rolex is a status symbol. I find it more fascinating to consider why we attribute status, significance and so much attention to certain things in the first place. Status is a consequence of quality, significance and fascination, not their cause.

Apart from the status symbolism, there are also issues such as waiting lists, artificial scarcity, high grey market prices, etc. In your view, does Rolex have a problem with its own legend?

I don’t believe Rolex has a problem with its own legend. On the contrary: Rolex has an exceptionally strong legend. And every strong legend inevitably brings with it side effects. Waiting lists, speculation or high grey market prices say less about a problem than of the extraordinary desirability of this brand. One should therefore not confuse these peripheral phenomena with the very essence of the brand . For over a hundred years, this has been based on reliability, quality, precision and remarkable consistency. Rolex has never been the loudest player in the market and has rarely allowed itself to be swept along by the spirit of the times. The brand has always remained true to itself and has followed its own path – calmly, confidently and with staying power.

Having already written several pieces on luxury sports cars and explored the question in ”Luxury” of why people covet things that go far beyond the necessities: is Rolex perhaps the perfect example for you of this beautiful, irrational added value?

Cars and watches fascinate us for the same reason: they are far more than just their function. A Rolex does not tell the time any better than a smartphone, and a sports car rarely gets us to our destination any more efficiently than a family car. And yet we still covet them. Both are little machines of emotion. They are condensed narratives of technology, design and culture, which, when we interact with them, enable special, deeply personal experiences. At the same time, they make identity visible. They say something about their owner. Perhaps we love them so much because they remind us that human beings do not merely wish to be rational, but also to dream.

→ Click here for the article by DER STANDARD.