Under-represented and under-appreciated: Deloitte & Watch Femme’s report shines a light on women and the watch industry

Laura McCreddie-Doak

We finally have it in writing. Women are massively under-represented in the watch world. Undervalued too, if you consider that despite 43% of the Swiss watchmaking workforce being made up of women (at bench level, certainly not at boardroom), they are paid on average 24.8% less than men. More illuminating, and sometimes depressing, stats like these can be found in the recently released Deloitte Swiss Watch Industry Insights 2024: Spotlight on the female market. The report is a collaboration between the UK-based multinational professional services network and Watch Femme, the first global non-profit dedicated to promoting and strengthening women’s voices across the watch world. If this report is anything to go by, Watch Femme has met its moment.

6,000 female consumers in Switzerland and across its top export markets were surveyed alongside an informed audience of 107 experienced watch consumers and industry professionals in 13 similar countries. There were plenty of take-homes, but the overall consensus was that the watch world has a lot more to do to get women to spend money. It all starts with representation.

Looking at the various sections of the report from what women buy, to how and where, the one connecting thread appears to be the lack of visibility for women at every level. It could be argued that the reason 50% of women exclusively wear a smartwatch or that 21% of women don’t own a watch at all is a consequence of a dearth of watch advertising or even watch editorial aimed specifically at women and their lived experience. A quick flick through the November 2024 issue of Vogue dredged up a double-page spread advertising the MoonSwatch, a Richard Mille advert with its tagline “a racing machine on the wrist”, and a Breitling ad featuring Charlize Theron – the only one to show a woman wearing a watch. I’m not suggesting we need to see pretty pictures, but if women consider watches as part of an outfit and shop for them accordingly as the report suggests, maybe reflect that in the advertising.

Given the symbiotic relationship between editorial and advertising in print, no watch adverts means no (or rather fewer) watches on the product pages. Again, November’s Vogue had no watches on the shopping pages – only one in one of the fashion shoots and two jewellery-adjacent pieces in a watch-and-jewellery shoot that showed far more of the latter than the former. This isn’t about spoon-feeding watches, but there is something to be said for the power of suggestion. By contrast, the November issue of GQ had six pages of watch adverts in the first 20 of the magazine, with all the editorial support and splashy photoshoots that kind of spend brings. No wonder 63% of the women surveyed did not think “the range of watches that are advertised and labelled for women (in media, advertising, retail environments, etc.) is the same as the range of watches that women actually wear”.

The shopping habit part of the report brings forth some interesting data. For women, the preference for online or brick-and-mortar is evenly split, with both on 48%. Split along generational lines, one of the issues the report highlighted was that 17% of Millennials and 19% of Gen Z-ers say they shopped online because it allowed them to “bypass potential barriers that might deter them from entering luxury stores” – one barrier being sales staff because, as 79% of the informed audience of women in the industry attested, women receive a different experience to men in boutiques, one that can range from patronising to downright misogynist. Before people start “not all men”-ing, let’s just clarify that no one is saying everyone is like this, but it has to be acknowledged that, by and large, the watch world from the boardroom to the newsroom has been male-dominated, and that in and of itself creates a specific kind of culture.

Watches have traditionally been thought of as something men geek out over, in the same ways as cars, for example. It has a language, one you have to learn in order to be admitted to the club. Traditionally, women have not been part of that club, and have been somewhat dissuaded from joining. So, when you find yourself in a watch boutique confronted with a selection of watches that all do the same thing but with subtle differences described in a language you don’t fully comprehend, you’re liable to feel intimidated. Getting women into boutiques is not, as the report seems to suggest, a question of softer furnishings and mirrors, but education.

Part of this is because women’s print media doesn’t cover watches in the same way that men’s magazines do. I started writing about watches in men’s magazines because women’s titles would, generally speaking, run style pieces, ones with images and very few words, especially not words about how a tourbillon works, Tudor’s new manufacture with added robots, or some incredible new bit of mechanical wizardry. If you want to go digging for information, as a woman, watch forums can be a terrifying place, and there is a “where do I even start?” element to doing your own research online. If places outside of men’s magazines or forums covered watches with that same depth and willingness to get technical, women would have the language, and therefore the confidence, to walk into a watch boutique, ask informed questions, and leave with something new on their wrist.

This report has been invaluable in shining a light on how women are underserved by every level of the watch world from representation in the boardroom and pay at bench level, to advertising, media, and how we are served as consumers. However, the one thing it doesn’t do is name the great white male elephant in the room and address the fact that until women as watch buyers, watch writers, and even watch creators, are treated with the same respect as men, brands won’t benefit from the female dollar. The repeated adage is you can’t be what you can’t see. Maybe with women and watches, it’s we won’t buy if brands don’t try.