Counter-Signalling in Luxury: When the Watch Matters Less

A gold watch gives even a casual observer a reason to assume that its owner has spent money. A plain steel watch requires a little more interpretation, particularly when the person wearing it could comfortably afford either. The choice may reflect a preference for the material, an attachment to a particular model or a wish to attract less attention.

It becomes more interesting when the watch is inexpensive and the owner is known for having an exceptional collection. Among friends familiar with that collection, wearing something ordinary might suggest confidence in a position that no longer needs demonstrating. A stranger, seeing the same watch, would have no reason to reach that conclusion.

Counter-signalling in luxury concerns how people communicate status when others already know something about them. It offers a different perspective from the familiar division between conspicuous spending and discreet taste, because the meaning depends as much on the wearer’s reputation as on the object itself (Feltovich et al., 2002).

From gold to the steel sports watch

In The Theory of the Leisure Class, published in 1899, the economist Thorstein Veblen examined how possessions helped people establish and maintain social standing. His account of conspicuous consumption described spending that provided visible evidence of wealth, allowing an object to serve a social purpose beyond its practical use. The ability to pay was part of what other people were being invited to notice (Veblen, 1899).

A gold watch provides a straightforward illustration. Its material contributes to its cost, and that expense can be understood without knowing much about the movement inside. Someone admiring it need not recognise the reference or appreciate the finishing to understand why it might be valuable.

The steel sports watch complicates that relationship between appearance and expense. Rolex introduced the Submariner in 1953 as a watch for divers, with water resistance to 100 metres and a rotating bezel for monitoring time underwater. Its identity was closely connected to what it could do, giving it a practical purpose independent of any impression it might make on land (Rolex, n.d.).

Rolex’s own history describes how its Professional watches became associated with achievement. Yet precious metal retained its place: the Day-Date arrived in 1956, available only in gold or platinum. Steel professional watches and precious-metal models developed alongside one another, which makes the history more complicated than a simple account of wealthy buyers abandoning gold for steel (Rolex, n.d.).

That makes the Submariner a useful starting point for discussing counter-signalling in luxury, although choosing steel does not, by itself, qualify. Material alone cannot tell us whether a person is avoiding attention, seeking recognition or buying the watch they prefer.

What counter-signalling in luxury means

In their 2002 paper, Too Cool for School? Signalling and Countersignalling, economists Nick Feltovich, Richmond Harbaugh and Ted To examined situations in which those best placed to send a conventional signal might choose not to do so (Feltovich et al., 2002).

Their model distinguishes between low, medium and high types. Under certain conditions, the middle group signals to separate itself from the lower group, while the highest group can rely partly on other information available to observers. Declining to signal can then communicate confidence and help distinguish the highest group from the middle. These are positions within a model, rather than fixed personality categories (Feltovich et al., 2002).

Applied to watch collecting, consider an established enthusiast arriving at dinner wearing an inexpensive digital watch. Friends who know the collection might interpret the choice as evidence that its owner feels no obligation to bring something impressive. Someone meeting that person for the first time would have much less information to work with.

This example illustrates a possible reading of the choice, not a finding about how collectors generally behave. The watch might also have been selected because it was comfortable, convenient or already on the wrist when its owner left home. Counter-signalling in luxury helps explain how a choice can be interpreted socially without giving us access to the private reason behind it.

Why quiet luxury is different

Our earlier article on quiet luxury examined how expensive objects communicate through details that informed observers recognise. A watch can be discreet in everyday company and highly conspicuous at a collectors’ dinner, where the people around the table understand its significance.

Berger and Ward (2010) explored this distinction in their research on subtle consumption signals. Across four studies, they found that people with greater knowledge in a particular field could prefer less explicit signals because these distinguished them from the mainstream while remaining recognisable to other insiders. Misidentification by a wider audience did not necessarily undermine the appeal.

For a collector, an unusual dial or an overlooked reference could serve that purpose. Recognition from someone who understands the choice may be more satisfying than a general compliment about an expensive watch. This is close to the territory explored in Why Rolex Collecting Resembles Stamp Collecting, where small details and the knowledge required to interpret them become central to appreciation.

An obscure watch can therefore remain an effective status symbol. Its audience is narrower, but the message may still concern expense, expertise or access. Discretion changes who can recognise the signal without necessarily changing the desire to send it (Berger & Ward, 2010).

Counter-signalling in luxury raises a different possibility: the familiar marker can be left out because other information helps establish the wearer’s position. Buying something costly that few people recognise and wearing something ordinary despite being known for an important collection may look similar from a distance, but they need not perform the same social function (Feltovich et al., 2002).

When the steel watch becomes the obvious choice

There is a further difficulty with presenting the steel Rolex as an escape from conspicuous consumption. Once a watch has an established association with achievement, choosing steel does not necessarily make that association disappear. Rolex’s own account links the appeal of its Professional watches to achievement as well as practical purpose (Rolex, n.d.).

A buyer might prefer the steel watch because it attracts less attention than gold. Another might choose it because the model is exactly what they hope people will recognise. Both explanations are plausible, and neither can be established by examining the case material.

The same problem arises when knowledge of a watch’s price or availability changes how it is received. Our examination of luxury-watch pricing psychology considered how price influences perceptions of value, fairness and legitimacy. The article on waiting-list psychology explored how the circumstances of obtaining a watch can become part of its meaning.

For counter-signalling in luxury, those subjects suggest an important distinction between visual discretion and social discretion. Imagine a watch that looks entirely unremarkable to most people, but whose allocation is known to have been difficult. Among collectors familiar with that difficulty, its owner may be communicating access without needing a conspicuous design.

We should consequently be cautious about describing every preference for steel, vintage watches or unfamiliar makers as a rejection of status. Any of these choices could reflect personal enjoyment, a wish for recognition or some combination of the two.

The limits of counter-signalling in luxury

The claim that the richest person in the room will be wearing the plainest clothes is appealing because it promises an easy way to see through appearances. It also replaces one assumption with another, asking us to treat simplicity as evidence of wealth and extravagance as evidence of insecurity.

Research on luxury consumption does not support such a universal rule. Han et al. (2010) distinguished consumers by both wealth and their need for status. Their findings included wealthy consumers attracted to discreet goods and wealthy consumers attracted to prominent branding. Financial position alone did not explain the preference.

There is also a question of what we choose to admire. Someone enjoying a gold watch should not have to defend that pleasure against the suggestion that an inexpensive alternative would demonstrate greater confidence. Equally, a person wearing an ordinary watch need not be concealing a fortune or making a sophisticated social calculation.

Consider a watch given by a parent, bought after a difficult year or worn throughout a long career. Its owner may continue wearing it for reasons that have little to do with how anyone else responds. Those possibilities deserve as much room in an account of collecting as status, comparison and the desire to belong.

Counter-signalling in luxury is useful because it draws attention to information that the watch cannot provide on its own. It helps explain why an ordinary choice may attract admiration when made by someone whose position is already understood, while attracting no attention when made by someone unknown (Feltovich et al., 2002).

For a collector, that is a reason to be more curious about the person wearing the watch and less certain about what the watch proves. The conversation may reveal ambition, affection, habit or an informed preference, and its value lies in allowing the owner to explain rather than deciding on their behalf.

References