During a recent visit to a watch shop I was reminded of my state capitol building. A ground floor boutique in a major US city.The two wouldn't seem related: a capitol is the seat of government while a watch shop is a retail setting. But the shop I visited and my state capitol have one architectural feature in common: a mantrap for entering and exiting (also known as a sallyport).
A mantrap is a "neutral zone," or buffer, separating a secure space from the outside world. It features two doors but each door will only unlock if the other door is locked (in other words, both doors will not simultaneously unlock except under extreme circumstances). Entering or exiting a space secured by a mantrap goes something like this: press a button for the door in front of you and someone buzzes it open. You enter the mantrap and the door you just used closes behind you and locks. You're "trapped." Then, provided conditions are right (you present ID or pass some kind of check or the like) the second door is unlocked and you can enter the secure space.
The mantrap is arguably a standalone character in the movie Uncut Gems. The scene from the movie Uncut Gems in which Adam Sandler's character (left) holds three other characters in the mantrap to the right. Early in the movie, Adam Sandler's character becomes quite distressed when he can't unlock the mantrap doors and some of his highest profile customers are stuck in the trap. And, in the film's final scene, Sandler's character intentially holds three others in the trap while he waits for a game result (see screengrab).
Mantraps serve a few purposes. First, they prevent "tailgating attacks" in which one person is "buzzed in" but someone else (or a number of people) follow that person in through the unlocked door. With a mantrap, all these folks would be stuck and confronted with a second locked door. Second, if a thief grabs an item and manages to pass through the innermost door leading to the mantrap, they will be stuck with the stolen item in the mantrap until, presumably, law enforcement arrives.
AI generated image of an office space layout..In general, mantraps are a good theft deterrent since a potential thief "casing" a store may move on once they realize their potential target is "hardened." In general, since mantraps can increase the security of any space, they make perfect sense for luxury watch shops. There is a well-documented recent spike in watch-related crime and corresponding need for added security in shops. For example, in an article from last week, watch recovery specialist Chris Marinello delves into why London has so much watch theft.
In some ways, then, it is actually surprising that I've only encountered mantraps in two watch retail settings. One of these was a real surpise because I believe that, less than five years ago, the store did not have a mantrap. That made me wonder: is watch retail beginning to morph into a new configuration due to watch-related crime? I believe the answer is probably yes. I also believe that one of the biggest shifts is the decision by retailers to "move on up" to higher floors in buildings and abandon the ground floor.
I've visited or seen announcements of seven luxury watch retailers located on the second floor of a building or higher. This relates to store security in a number of ways. First, similar to a mantrap, thieves will find it far more time-consuming to flee from a store if it is located on a higher floor (side note: I find elevator rides generally awkward and I can't even conceive of how weird it would be if someone who just knicked a Rolex was riding along to the lobby, and I'm pretty certain the music would never fit the circumstances). Watchbox's location in NYC, at the time located on an upper floor adjacent other luxury retail locations. Travelling from an upper floor gives police more time to respond and catch a thief. Knowing this, a thief is less likely to attempt theft on higher floors of a building vis a vis the ground floor.
Upper floor retail space is also safer due to the use of a so-called "crash and grab" or "ram raiding" tactic by thieves. In general, such thefts involve stealing a car first (these days made easier by a flaw in Kia cars, in particular), crashing the car into a storefront on the ground level and then taking valuables. Earlier this year, watchmaker Breitling fell victim to such a theft in Basel, Switzerland. In 2023, a Louis Vuitton store in Chicago was similarly looted. Of note is the fact that criminals presumably find it more lucrative and less risky to fence luxury products obtained through use of a stolen car rather than just selling the stolen car in the first place (in other words, a car is probably much harder to fence, easier to track back to the thief, and the proceeds may not be as large).
Of course, as an economist, I often wonder why owners of valuables go to such lengths to prevent theft assuming that they have adequate insurance coverage. In the insurance industry, the disincentive to invest in retail security due to insurance coverage is an example of "moral hazard": insured parties may not spend money or effort to avoid bad results because they know it will not cost them, financially (another example of moral hazard is dangerous driving by those with automobile insurance). My guess is that watch retail insurers offer premium discounts if a retailer adopts certain security precautions, like mantraps or upper-floor location. The second of these options offers an additional financial benefit to a retailer: there is evidence that ground floor space is more expensive. Moving to a higher floor may well offer savings on rent.
It remains to be seen if there will be additional major or widespread changes to watch retail design in the near future. Arguably, the biggest loss from moving away from ground floor siting is the "billboard" effect: ground floor retail likely allows more people to see products and branding due to foot traffic. Otherwise, it is unclear if any of the aforementioned novel security measures actually degrade the retail experience. The view from higher floors is better, after all, and I'm sure that both sales staff and collectors have a more enjoyable experience when they know that a store is safer.
My book on the history of Rolex marketing is now available on Amazon! It debuted as the #1 New Release in its category. You can find it here.
Do you think this only applies to stand alone boutiques? I'm thinking of mall locations with multiple high end boutiques, or locations such as Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, where many will be in a central location. Particularly in Mall situations, where access points are not always ground floor, but sometimes access from multiple levels. Or does the Mall entry also serve as a ManTrap?
What it might look like if Aragon and Argon watches actually went to court over the trademark dispute. My prior post described a disappointing development for those collectors hoping to acquire an Argon Spaceone watch via the brand's Kickstarter campaign. The campaign had reached over $1 million in funding when Kickstarter's management stepped in and froze the whole thing over an "intellectual property dispute." When I posted about this development on Instagram , Hodinkee editor Tony Traina noted in the comments that another brand, Aragon watches, had filed a complaint with the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) back in April (thanks Tony!). Argon's account replied and indicated that they had already filed a registration for their brand name and they were retaining counsel in New York City. On Tuesday, June 27 of this week, more details were offered via a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case is filed on behalf
Among many avid watch collectors, the term "in house movement" seems to elicit eyerolling disdain. Pieces of an assortment, including balance spring, from a non-Swiss movement. There is a sizeable perception that "in house" is, in fact, nothing more than an unnecessary marketing ploy designed to tease more money out of the wallet of buyers (by way of definition, an "in house" movement means that the mechanism inside a watch was predominently manufactured by a brand itself, kind of like "we make our own bread" at a restaurant). I'll confess that I'd begun to think similarly, that is, until I read a 66 page report posted by the Swiss Competition Commision on May 10, 2023. Yes, this is the kind of thing an economist finds interesting on a weekend, or at least this economist. Before we get into the details of this report, in the interest of full disclosure I should say that the original document was in a different language: lawyerese.
There comes a moment in the servicing of a watch that is probably easy to miss among the hundreds of steps required to remove a movement from a case, inspect the parts, repair anything amiss, lubricate all the pieces, and put the whole thing together again. A watch that Rolex's investigator bought at Beckertime for approximately $4,500. The lawsuit refers to this as "Counterfeit Watch One." That moment is when a watchmaker takes the dial and reattaches it to the movement. There is nothing particularly unique when it comes to the tools required or the tasks involved in this step. Instead, what is unique about this moment is that the watchmaker holds in their hand a mark that is not the property of the watchmaker and it is not exactly the property of the watch's owner. In the case of Vacheron Constantin, that mark is a Maltese Cross. For Audemars Piguet, it is the brand's initials. When it comes to Rolex, the mark is a widely recognized crown. If the reassembly
Do you think this only applies to stand alone boutiques? I'm thinking of mall locations with multiple high end boutiques, or locations such as Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, where many will be in a central location. Particularly in Mall situations, where access points are not always ground floor, but sometimes access from multiple levels. Or does the Mall entry also serve as a ManTrap?
ReplyDelete