You are on page 1of 22

Praxis Business School

Phase I – Image Measurement
A report
Submitted to
Prof. Govindrajan
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course

Product and Brand Management

On 1st August 2008


Harish Dalwaipattan B07020

Sampat Bhansali B07035

Sonam Sahu B07040

Vijay Leon B07047


Executive Summary

Fastrack was launched in 1998 as a sub-brand of Titan. The brand entered

the market saturated with International designer labels and has carved a
niche for itself in the youth accessories market (watches and sunglasses),
with designs that are refreshingly different, casual, eclectic & fun with prices
that don’t burn a hole through the pocket.
Targeted at Generation Next, the brand captures the essence and philosophy
of today’s fun loving, free spirited youth through the new positioning
encapsulated in a tongue in cheek colloquial phrase - “How many you have”?
Fastrack is positioned as the ultimate fashion accessory for the youth –
variety, multiplicity and constant excitement being the order of the day. The
brand revealed a new logo signifying the spirit of bonding among today’s
In the following report, we have attempted to determine the status of the
brand in terms of brand strength and stature through a variant of the famous
Brand Asset Valuator model. Also, a qualitative research was conducted to
identify the brand personality of Fastrack. Laddering techniques of
qualitative research has been undertaken.
The BAV model measures the value of a brand along four dimensions -
Differentiation, Relevance, Esteem, and Knowledge. Differentiation and
Relevance build up to Brand Strength, while Esteem and Knowledge are used
to calculate Brand Stature. For the BAV analysis, a judgment sample of 40
watch users has been surveyed through a questionnaire tool.
Fastrack scored high on all dimensions. The only concern, if any, is that the
esteem for Fastrack is low as compared to its knowledge, which brings the
stature score down. Consumers have high knowledge about the product, it is
highly differentiated in its category and consumers see the brand as being
relevant to their want. With lower esteem scores, there is a probability that
consumers may switch over to other brands. This may lead to a decline in
the leadership position of the brand which it currently is maintaining. The
main competitors for Fastrack came out to be Timex and Swatch.
Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one interviewing technique used to
develop an understanding of how consumers translate the attributes of
products into meaningful associations with respect to self. Laddering
provides an association of networks between the attributes, consequences
arising out of them and the values inherent in them to represent
combinations of elements that serve as the basis for distinguishing between



and among products in a given product class. 8 one-on-one interviews were

taken to understand the values consumers attach to a watch.
Four values – Belonging, Esteem, Acknowledgement and Trust, emerged from
the interviews. Fastrack’s current positioning seems to be almost suitable to
the target groups’ expectations. Though there clearly is a category for
elegant and formal watches, going by its past experiences; Fastrack should
not mix that in to its current positioning of a college goers’ watch.

Table of Contents
Brief History of Fastrack............................................................................................ ..4
Launch and Initial Positioning..................................................................................4

Subsequent Repositioning.......................................................................................4

Current Status............................................................................... ..........................5

Instruments of Data Collection...................................................................................6

Brand Asset Valuator Model............................................................................... .........7
Questionnaire.................................................................................... .........................8
Results and Analysis of BAV................................................................................. ..10

Laddering Method............................................................................................... ......13

Reasons for choosing laddering technique...............................................................18
Laddering Exercise for Fastrack brand of watches....................................................18
Summary Content Codes for Fastrack brand of watches.......................................19

Hierarchy Value Map.......................................................................................... ....19

Conclusion of Laddering........................................................................................20

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................ ..................21



Brief History of Fastrack

Launch and Initial Positioning
Titan recognized a need in the market – a reasonably priced watch for the
youth between the age group of 15 – 25 years. Fastrack was launched in the
year 1998 as a sub-brand of Titan, with a range of digital watches starting
from Rs. 795. The brand was aimed at the youth segment (15-25 years).
Fastrack entered the market saturated with International designer labels –
like Citizen, Seiko, Swatch, Casio and Timex – but managed to carve a niche
for itself in the youth accessories market, with designs that are refreshingly
different, casual, eclectic and fun, clubbed with prices that do not burn a hole
through the pocket.

Fastrack was promoted with the slogan "Cool Watches from Titan.” Initially, in
most of the campaigns, the brand was promoted as “Titan Fastrack.” The
brand was targeting young consumers who were moving towards the
competitor – Timex. It was during this time that Timex and Titan had parted

Fastrack had a good start. During the first year, the brand clocked a turnover
of Rs 15 crore. The good run continued till 2001-2002 and was worth Rs 25
crores. But the sales stagnated. Although the brand appealed to youngsters,
the price was a significant dampener. It was found that the target group
which consisted of college students could not afford this brand.

Subsequent Repositioning
During 2003-04, the brand went in for a repositioning exercise targeting the
executive segment as well as the casual watch segment. It was a suicidal
experiment. The brand sales came down to Rs 23 crore. The change in
positioning did not fit well with the brand. The steely look of the watches
emphasized that it was sturdy and long-lasting.

Fastrack was constantly refreshing the designs, but the sales were stagnant.
The trouble lay with the price; the consumers were not willing to pay Rs 1200
– 2700 for a watch that did not have the executive image.

In 2005, the brand went for another repositioning exercise with a new logo
and a new positioning. They adopted the famous break-away positioning of
Swatch and decided to again target the youngsters, the Generation Next. But
for this they had to break the price barrier. The brand discarded the steely



look of the watches and looked at a mix of plastic and steel. It was a perfect
cut-copy from the strategy adopted by Swatch. By doing so, Fastrack was
able to reduce the starting price to Rs 500 and was available in a price range
of Rs. 500 – Rs. 2000.

For its positioning, Fastrack captured the essence and philosophy of today’s
fun loving, free spirited youth through the new positioning encapsulated in a
tongue in cheek colloquial phrase - “How many you have.” Thus they
launched a campaign with the slogan “How many you have.”

Fastrack then promoted itself through a 360-degree media blitz through

television, outdoor, events and promotions to change the perception of
watches as a functional tool to a fashion accessory.

Fastrack was now positioned as the ultimate fashion accessory for the youth
– variety, multiplicity and constant excitement being the order of the day.
They also revealed a new logo signifying the spirit of bonding among today’s

Titan also earmarked Rs 8 crore (Rs 80 million) for Fastrack's advertising. The
campaigns were aimed at students in the 15 to 25 year age group, belonging
to SEC A and B, in the top 30 towns. The communication promoted the idea
that owning several watches is acceptable, if not a required behavior.

The campaign, the positioning and the price was a great hit. The brand sales
zoomed to Rs 35 crore. The sunglasses also contributed significantly to this
sales boost.

Current Status
At present, Fastrack, keeping in mind that it wants to be the ultimate fashion
accessory for the youth has adopted the following core brand values:

 Fashionable and trendy

 Affordable Pricing

 Fresh Communication to attract the young consumers

Fastrack has been maintaining this image by continuously maintaining

freshness in its communication. Most of the Fastrack ads have been
refreshing. The adaptation of the 360 degree approach in its communication
and the use of social media have helped it become the ultimate fashion
accessory of the youth.



In order to satisfy the want created in the market, Fastrack has its presence
through 6000 outlets across 800 towns including 228 strong World of Titan
network, 122 Large Format Chain stores, i.e., Shoppers Stop, Lifestyle,
Central, Westside, Pantaloons and Multi-brand watch outlets.

One can notice this brand in the wrist of most of the students. The brand had
successfully established itself as a fashion accessory rather than as a watch
without compromising on quality.

Instruments of Data Collection

Apart from the Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) Model, we have taken Reynolds
and Gutman’s Laddering Method. We have chosen a qualitative model above
quantitative methods like Aaker’s Brand Personality Model and Kapferer’s
Brand Prism. The rationale behind the decision is that when we purchase any
brand, most of the time the decision is not rationale, rather emotional. A
qualitative research is more effective to determine the emotional influence
behind one associating himself/herself with a specific brand. Quantitative
approach is more structured than a qualitative method (which is
unstructured). Thus gives the researcher the whole universe to work with.
For the BAV model we used a structured questionnaire. This is to give the
research a direction and make sure that the outcome does not go out of the
context. Each question is designed keeping in mind the four dimensions of
the BAV model and the general attributes applicable to watches. Each
question, therefore, tests one or more dimension (Differentiation, Relevance,
Esteem and Knowledge).
For the survey, we have taken a sample size of 40. The key criteria of
selection of the sample were the age and education qualification. The sample
fell in the age bracket of 20 – 28 (both inclusive). The minimum qualification
is graduation and each is an aspiring manager of tomorrow. Our product
being targeted at college goers, we according chose the judgment sample.
In the laddering method, 12 interviews were taken. Of these 8 interviews
were considered for analysis. Here as well, a judgment sample of watch



users was considered to understand the values associated with the use of

Brand Asset Valuator Model

The Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) model was created by the advertising
agency Young & Rubicam and is managed by Brand Asset Consulting, a
division of Young & Rubicam Brands, who provide information to enable
firms, improve their marketing decision-making process and to better
manage their brands.
The BAV model measures the value of a brand along four dimensions -
"Differentiation", "Relevance", "Esteem", and "Knowledge". Differentiation
and Relevance build up to "Brand Strength", while Esteem and Knowledge
are used to calculate "Brand Stature". BAV defines these terms as follows:
 "Differentiation" quantifies the brand's point of difference.
 "Relevance" is how appropriate the brand is to you.
 "Esteem" refers to how well regarded the brand is.
 "Knowledge" is an intimate understanding of the brand.
 "Brand Strength" describes the brand's growth potential.
 "Brand Stature" describes the brand's current power.
Brand Stature is like a report card of the brand, whereas Brand Strength talks
about the future value of the brand.
We have chosen the BAV model for measuring the brand image of Fastrack,
as it would help us understand where the brand stands vis-a-vis its
competitors in the watch industry.



[For all the questions, you can choose more than one option. The options are same
as question1]

1. Of the following, what brands are you aware of?

a. Fastrack
b. Timex
c. Casio
d. Maxima
e. Seiko
f. Esprit
g. Swatch
h. Non branded fancy watches

2. What price do these watches start at? ( Name the start price for as
many as you know)

3. If you were to gift a watch to your friend, which watch would you pick

Which watch are you most likely to wear on these occasions?



4. Formal social gathering

5. Informal social gathering
6. Regular college
7. Official gathering
Name the brand/s for which the following attribute would be a motivator:
8. Availability
9. Variety
11.After sales service
Which brands would you associate with the following attributes?
12. Quality 21. Fun
13. Durable 22. Innovative
14. Energetic 23. Leader
15. Good value 24. Tough
16. Best brand 25. Stylish
17. Trustworthy 26. Prestige
18. Authentic 27. Trendy
19. Gaining in popularity 28. Up to date
20. High performance 29. Worth More

Sample Composition

Sample Size : 40
Age : 20 to 28
Education : Post graduates
Criteria : All watch users



Results and Analysis of BAV

Figure 1 Standing of different brands in terms of absolute scores

Figure 1 has absolute numbers. Therefore we see a big difference between

the relevance score of Fastrack and other brands. To overcome this biasness
we converted the score into a percentile.



Figure 2 Standing of different brands in terms of percentile scores

Figure 2 shows the standing of Fastrack vis-a-vis other brands (in percentile).
The table shows that Fastrack is high on all dimensions. The only concern, if
any, is that the esteem for Fastrack is low as compared to its knowledge,
which brings the stature score down. Consumers have high knowledge about
the product, it is highly differentiated in its category and consumers see the
brand as being relevant to their want. With lower esteem scores, there is a
probability that consumers may switch over to other brands. This may lead
to a decline in the leadership position of the brand which it currently is
We can also infer that the consumer sees the brand as a value for money
brand, but not one with whom they would like to associate.
Let us take each dimension individually and see how Fastrack has performed
on each one of them:
Differentiation: Fastrack is a highly differentiated brand in the eyes of its
target audience (based on our sample). Fastrack has been able to
differentiate itself because of the variety of offerings and the reliable after
sales service it offers. Also, it has always been (or perceived to be) an
innovative and up-to-date brand.
Relevance: Fastrack as a brand has been successful in understanding the
needs/wants of its Target Audience (TA) while also being able to successfully
communicate its product offerings to the TA. Most respondents preferred
Fastrack for regular college wear over other brands. This shows that the
positioning has been successful. Respondents felt Fastrack to be a value for
money and a fun brand. Even when gifting a watch to friends, the most
preferred brand was Fastrack, over other brands and the local non-branded



Esteem: On the Esteem front, Fastrack is second amongst its competitors,

but a second is a second. While the respondent felt the brand was gaining in
popularity, they could not see the brand offering more value. For most
respondents it was a value for money brand and they were not able to
associate prestige with the brand.
Knowledge: Each and every respondent was aware of Fastrack, but as we
know awareness is the first step towards knowledge. A majority of the
respondents could comprehend to whom the brand is meant for. Few were
unaware of the pricing, but largely knew how much they would have to pay
to place the brand in their wardrobe.

Figure 3 Standing of each brand on the BAV model

Figure 3 shows Fastrack has a leadership position amongst its competitors in

the watch industry. It also indicates competition coming from Swatch and
Timex. With the esteem factor for Swatch being high as shown in Table 2.0, if
they improve on knowledge they may in turn improve on their brand image,
resulting in a higher market share.



Laddering Method

Laddering techniques involve the creation; reviewing and modification of

hierarchical knowledge, often in the form of ladders (i.e. tree diagrams).
There are no formal instructions for the laddering process but it basically
involves asking why a person would prefer to be described by one pole of a
personal construct rather than the other. The construct "ladder" usually ends
up with a statement of the values that underlie a person's construing of their
personal world. It is these values that are likely to have wide ranges of
implications and, thereby, are more resistant to change than constructs
lower down the ladder.
Laddering is seen by many practitioners as possibly the most powerful
procedures for eliciting the values a person holds, and with which they
organise their world, to have come out of personal construct psychology.
Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one interviewing technique used to
develop an understanding of how consumers translate the attributes of
products into meaningful associations with respect to self, following Means-
End Theory (Gutman, 1982). Laddering involves a tailored interviewing
format using primarily a series of directed probes, typified by the “Why is
that important to you?” question, with the express goal of determining sets
of linkages between the key perceptual elements across the range of
attributes (A), consequences (C), and values (V). These association networks,
or ladders, referred to as perceptual orientations, represent combinations of
elements that serve as the basis for distinguishing between and among
products in a given product class.
Although it has been used predominantly in the clinical setting, it has been
found of value in a wide range of other settings. For instance Marsden and
Littler (1998) advocate its use in market research and marketing to identify
the personal values associated with products. For example: Laddering can
also involve a set of predefined probe questions, such as "Could you tell me
some sub-types of X?", "Could you tell me how you can tell that something is
X?" and "Why would you prefer X to Y?"
It has also been widely used in the area of management and the study of
organizational cultures and change.



Use of Ladders

Various forms of ladder can be used.

 A concept ladder is particularly important since the way an expert

categorizes concepts into classes is an important key to
understanding the way the domain knowledge is conceptualized.
 Laddering using an attribute ladder is another very useful
technique. By reviewing and appending such a ladder, the
knowledge engineer can validate and help elicit knowledge of the
properties of concepts.
 Hierarchies with other relationships can also be used, such as
composition ladders and process ladders described earlier.
Validation of the knowledge represented in a ladder with another
expert is often very quick and efficient.
The Laddering Interview
A laddering interview is an in-depth, one-on-one structured dialog that draws
out the connections people make between product attributes, the
consequences of those attributes, and the human values linked with those
consequences (means-end chain). Interviews last between forty-five minutes
to two hours and generally record so that interviewers do not lose the detail
of what is said.
Getting respondents to reveal their true beliefs, feelings, and goals requires
warm-up questions to put the respondent at ease with the interviewer and to
help them start thinking about the product of interest. Laddering differs from
other types of qualitative research in that it aims to uncover personally
motivating reasons behind brand choice and link them to product attributes
and their consequences.

Laddering begins by identifying the most important distinguishing

characteristics of the brand for a given usage situation and then moving up
and down the means-end chain to get a complete picture of attribute-
consequence-value identities and linkages. Moving up and down the means-
end chain is done by asking a form of the question: why is that important to



Attitudes toward a product do not often predict choice behavior, but attitudes
toward choice behavior concerning a product typically will. Laddering asks
questions regarding the reasons people have for making the choices they do.
It requires respondents to justify their buying behavior by explaining the
distinctions they make between choice alternatives.
Eliciting Product Distinctions

Laddering research is designed to uncover the reasons underlying purchase

decisions. Both the positive reasons for choosing a brand and the negative
reasons for rejecting a brand should be determined. Simply asking what is
good about a brand or product is not enough. The marketer needs to
understand how a brand is believed to be better than others, or conversely
how a brand is believed to be worse than others.

There are several methods for eliciting distinctions between brands. These
methods are
 top-of-mind imaging
 grouping similar brands
 contextual environment
 preference, usage, and preference-usage differences
 timing of purchase or consumption
 usage trends
 product or brand substitution
 alternative usage occasions

Top-of-mind imaging: The respondent is asked to give one or more first-

thought associations for each of several brands or product types. Polarity
(positive or negative) for each association is also determined. Then, the
respondent is asked why the characteristic is -a positive or -a negative and
the responses are further probed to uncover the ladder. Top-of-mind imaging
identifies the most conspicuous characteristics of a brand, but not always the
characteristics that differentiate it from a close competitor.

Grouping similar brands: This method uncovers the way respondents group
products together and the reasons they use for forming product groups.
Respondents are asked to group brands and/or products into like categories.
Then the primary reason for group membership, either a positive or negative
characteristic, can be elicited and laddered. Additionally, the respondent can
be asked to identify the brand or product that best represents the group.
Important traits and trait performance for the most representative brand can
be identified and laddered as well.



Contextual environment: The contextual environment includes

predetermined physical or need-state occasions of brand purchase or use.
Physical occasions are generally described by time, place, and people when
usage occurs. A need-state occasion is a mental need or inner desire that
can span many physical occasions. For example, need-states include
occasions such as relaxing, rejuvenating, building relationships, feeling
powerful, reducing stress, and getting organized. The method asks
respondents to associate a product or brand with a context such as "those
times when you want to relax," or "after you have just completed a tough job
or accomplished something that is important to you."

Preference, usage-e and preference-usage differences: Comparing brand

preference and brand usage is one of the most direct and commonly used
methods for eliciting brand distinctions. Brands can be ranked with respect
to (1) preference and (2) frequency of use. Then, brands can be directly
compared against each other based on these rankings using such questions
as, "why did you rank Brand A higher than Brand X," and/or "why do you use
Brand B more often than Brand A." Also, the interviewer may ask why a
brand ranks lower on preference than on usage. Often, respondents use price
as the key reason for ranking one brand over another. Avoid the problem by
selecting brands to compare that are price competitive.

Timing of purchase or consumption: Timing issues can influence product

choice and usage. For example, a respondent might be asked to break a
sickness such as the common cold into several stages like onset, full-blown,
and on-the-mend. Then the respondent would relate which brands were
preferred for each time-related stage. It is also common for consumers to use
one brand of product during the day (Coca-Cola) and a different brand in the
evening (sprite).

Usage trends: Respondents are asked to quantify their beliefs about past and
future usage of a brand. For example, an interviewer might ask, "over the
next five years, do you expect to use this brand more often, less often, or
about the same as you have in the past?" Then, reasons for increased,
decreased, or unchanged usage are elicited.

Product or brand substitution: Distinctions between brands can be directly

assessed based on the ability of one brand to be substituted for another. The
brand to be substituted can be a brand currently used by the respondent if a
goal of the research is to increase use (identify what-attribute or
consequence needs to be added or removed) or it can be a brand not
currently used if a goal is to increase trial (identify what attributes or
consequences need to be promoted). For an unfamiliar brand, the
respondent first can sample or be given a description of the brand. Follow-on
questions might include, "how likely would you be to substitute this new
brand for your current brand for this occasion -- why is that?"



Alternative usage occasions: Another method is to alter or add new usage

occasions for the respondent to consider. Alternative occasions can be either
predetermined or provided by the respondent. For example, one might ask,
"think of a new situation or occasion in which you might use Brand A, but
that you currently don't -- why would you consider using Brand A for this
occasion -- what is keeping you from using Brand A for this occasion now?"
Both positive reasons why a brand fits a new occasion and negative reasons
why it does not fit can be elicited and laddered.

In practice, several different elicitation techniques are used in a laddering

study to capture a full range of meaningful distinctions between a brand and
its competitors. For example, a laddering interview might start with "top-of-
mind imaging" to understand general product-category beliefs, and then
increase in brand-related specificity through using "contextual environment"
and "alternative usage occasions."
Laddering Pitfalls
In the course of a laddering interview, the respondent will not always provide
responses that are whole or complete. The interviewer must be able to
identify incomplete responses so that additional probes can draw out useful

Generic statements: Respondents often provide generic answers that have

no specific meaning. For example, "satisfied" can be either physical (feeling
full after a meal) or psychological (feeling content with oneself. Likewise,
"happy" can have multiple meanings; including feeling happy about
something accomplished and feeling happy for another person, and it can
have varying intensity. Slang words like "cool" and "bad" in particular need to
be clarified because they can hold different meanings for different people.
Often, these situations can be resolved by simple asking, "What do you
mean" or "could you describe that feeling."

Not brand specific: Differentiating characteristics should be brand specific

and unambiguous. Distinctions that apply to many brands equally well or
even to the entire category are not useful.

Multiple responses: Respondents may give more than one answer when
providing distinctions or during laddering probes. In these cases, the
interviewer must ask which characteristic or idea is most important for the
given situation and then continue probing from there. It is possible to ladder
multiple "branches" although this can confound the analysis.

Chutes and ladders: Distinctions are most often product attributes, but
respondents may sometimes mention an upper level element as a basis for



differentiating one brand from another. The interviewer can "chute down" by
asking, "What is it about the brand that makes it that way?" Occasionally, a
respondent might ladder directly from an attribute to a value or appear to
leave an important element out. Again, the interviewer can ask, "I'm not sure
how (lower level element) leads to (upper level element)-is there something
about the brand that makes you feel that way?"

Habit: Respondents tend to say "it's a habit" or "I've always done it that way"
when they cannot think of a more rational reason for their usage or
consumption behavior. The interviewer should try to uncover when and how
the habit started, and what brand they would substitute if they could no
longer get their favorite brand, then ladder the resulting distinctions.

I like it: Although similar to a generic statement, this phrase occurs

frequently in laddering and can almost always be handled the same way. For
example, the interviewer can ask,-"could you describe that feeling for me" or
"what is it about the brand that you like."

Reasons for choosing laddering technique

In the previous section, we tried to identify the status of the brand by

quantitative techniques. In this section we had to understand the identity or
the personality of the brand. It is often an observation that the decisions
related to brands are emotional and hardly rational. One would pay a
premium for the perceived additional benefits than the mentioned features.
The heavy inclination towards emotional influencers would limit the
quantitative analysis. Converting emotional reasons in to numbers would not
only be a tough task for the respondent but also for the researcher. Thus, we
choose to carry out a qualitative study to find out the rational and emotional
reasons influencing a consumers’ behavior towards brands.

Laddering Exercise for Fastrack brand of watches

Number of respondents =8
Age group = 20 to 25
Education = Post Graduation
Male: Female = 1: 1
The respondents were users of watches, not necessarily Fastrack.



Summary Content Codes for Fastrack brand of watches

1. Swiss made
2. Recognized brand
3. Attractive
4. Unique look
5. Good Quality
6. Attention
7. Generation next
8. Reliable
9. Impress others
10.Sophisticated image
14.Value for money
15.Smart buyer

Hierarchy Value Map



Figure 4 Hierarchy Value Map of product category Watches

Note: Numbers in the brackets indicate the number of respondents who

choose the parameters

Conclusion of Laddering



From the above map we clearly see that belonging (to a group) is perceived
to be the most important value attached to wearing watches. Attributes such
as recognition of the brand, attractiveness of the design and the unique
looks of the watch, lead to creation of various images in the minds of the
consumers. The image could be one of sophistication or of maturity or of
futuristic personality; they all in essence, are the way the consumer wanted
to see himself or herself as.
Fastrack as a brand has positioned itself as a college goers’ watch. It
portrays the image of a trendy and young brand. The designs introduced by
Fastrack are innovative and appealing to the target group. Thus, the Gen
Next or Futuristic image as well is addressed to. But, definitely Fastrack is not
associated with sophistication or maturity.
Maturity as an image would not compliment the current positioning of the
college goers’ watch. But, sophistication is an image Fastrack could definitely
adopt or add to its existing positioning.
Also, for the target group, attention, impressing others and fishing for
compliments seemed to be important sources of values such as self esteem
and acknowledgement. Fastrack seems to be doing a good job with their
advertising as they are able to portray their watches as attention catching
and impressive.