A Bewildering Story of a Swiss Manufacturer Who Would Not Service Their Own Watch

Longtime readers of this blog know how much of a fan I am of Victorinox Swiss Army watches. You could say that I have invested hundreds of hours writing about them and a small fortune purchasing watches made by this brand. This particular article is about a watch that just needed a simple battery change and what happened after the watch was sent into Victorinox Swiss Army’s Watch Service Center.

The story started when I was contacted by a watch owner, Joe*, who asked me how to service his Victorinox Swiss Army Hunter Mach 3 himself. Even though he had previously sent it to Victorinox Swiss Army with a request to replace the battery, it appeared that the company wasn’t going to do it for him. It was difficult for me to imagine this scenario, but Joe produced the generic email response he got from the Swiss Army Service Center to prove that his story was true. Read it for yourself.

Hunter Mach 3

Let’s examine the generic email that Joe received in detail. We’ll start on the first paragraph, which states “Regrettably, this is a vintage model that is either discontinued…”. This statement is true because the Hunter Mach 3 watches were made in the early 2000s.

It continues to say that “…or that we no longer have parts in stock to repair.” This clause might imply that the watch is broken and might require special parts specific to that model to make it work again. Such parts could include movements, hands, dials, bracelets, and items that would have been produced many years ago for that watch. Admittedly, quantities of these items can run out and eventually particular watch models may become unserviceable.

So far everything in the email seems fairly legit, but it’s the next paragraph that states “Given that we are unable to secure parts for your repair…” that could be considered controversial. Taken out of context, this seems like a reasonable thing for a watch company to say, however, we know the context of this repair was a simple battery replacement and not some fancy part.

To be clear, there is no indication on Swiss Army’s Service Request page that they will not service vintage watches. Also, you can see that battery changes are one of the options that the customer may request.

Battery changes are an option on the service request form.

Joe asked to have the watch returned to him, and did not accept Victorinox Swiss Army’s 30% discount as mentioned in their e-mail. Joe bought a $3 battery and figured out how to replace it himself. It’s not really a surprise to me that the watch is working and completely functional. Afterall, Victorinox DOES make good watches. However, I’m just not sure about having them service their own products. It might be worth finding a local watch repair shop using recommendations from your watch pals. You can make up your own mind and also vote on three questions below.

As watch companies get older and their product lines start to stretch back decades, it is reasonable that eventually, service for vintage products may cease. Watch companies stay in business by selling new watches, not necessarily repairing their older watches. Repairs are probably not profitable for them because it is a time-consuming venture that requires labor with very specialized skills. Repairs are often complicated by the scarcity of parts as well.

It can be argued that offering a discount on a new product is a winning situation for both the consumer and the manufacturer. After all, 30% off of a $1,000 watch is a savings of $300. Not too shabby for those who make a habit out of paying full MSRP. It also looks like Joe would have gotten his vintage watch back as well, so no real harm, right? He could always get it fixed elsewhere (like in a Mall Kiosk).

It can be counterargued that a watch battery should never be considered an “unavailable part”. Batteries are consumables that need to be replaced after several years of service. They are not rare and almost any imaginable battery is available nowadays. For instance, I found the Hunter Mach 3’s CR2320 3-volt battery for $2.67 on Amazon. I find it hard to believe that a Watch Service Center would not have any number of batteries in stock or could not easily acquire one. Refusing to replace a battery seems more like a policy based on the watch being vintage and not a parts shortage.

Offering a discount on a new watch instead of replacing a battery sounds like a company was not listening to the customer’s request and was trying to turn a simple battery replacement into a sale. This was not exactly what the customer asked for. The customer felt dejected, and he simply went elsewhere. In this case, he did the job himself. It left a sour taste for the brand because they did not do what he requested and they tried to get him to spend more money to become a “relevant customer” again.

There are a few things that watch manufacturers with similar policies may want to consider. It would be helpful to let consumers know which watches are no longer supported in advance so they could skip having to mail a watch. This would be more transparent. In my opinion, it would not hurt for Swiss Army to have some pride in servicing their older watches. Companies who service their past models add value to those products because it implies that the watches are worth maintaining.

It might have been a prudent business decision on Swiss Army’s part. Customers who have purchased a company’s watches in the past may be easier to sell to than finding new customers. This is because established customers already have an interest in the brand. Arguably, it takes less work to tip them towards a sale. They are also more likely to buy again if they feel supported so making a simple battery change might not have been a bad idea. Joe’s own words sum up the situation beautifully…

“I’d be surprised if they even bothered to open the back. I’m guessing they took one look at the watch, did a quick check on what battery was needed and realized that they don’t stock the battery for that ETA E20.321 movement anymore. That would have been a better response to me. Fortunately for me, I was somewhat familiar with the watches warning signs (of a dead battery), so I wasn’t really buying their story.

They called me and left a message for me to call them back. Since I did not answer, I’m guessing they grabbed a standard email response, modified it slightly and sent it to me. I guess in their defense, they did make an effort to contact me (a phone call and email). I did call them back and talked to someone who just read back to me what the technician wrote down. Fortunately, I saw the email and listened to their voice message before I called them back. It gave me time to think. Sometimes things just work out the way they’re supposed to.

I’m guessing VSA’s business plan is to sell a lot of watches and not invest in maintaining and/or repairing. Which is fine, it just would have been nice to know that before I went to the effort of sending it to them. I guess they didn’t expect that a vintage watch owner would have a sentimental value attached to it. I liked the watch to much to give up on it. I just wish Victorinox felt the same way.”

Well said Joe. I could not agree more.

* I changed the name of the consumer to “Joe” to protect his privacy.