You’ve probably just noticed a disclaimer written by aBlogtoWatch about the watch company RGM. The natural question to ask is “what is that all about?” Our goal is to provide full and accurate information to our readers, which is the mission of aBlogtoWatch. That means if we say something potentially alarming about a person, company, or product, we want to explain exactly why we are making the remarks. In this situation, however, aBlogtoWatch has been advised to not discuss all the details for legal reasons. However, we have produced the following FAQ below.
What is the purpose of the disclaimer?
aBlogtoWatch recognizes that coverage of a product, service, or company on aBlogtoWatch is interpreted as endorsement of those products, services, or companies. aBlogtoWatch is excited to bring audience members stories and insights into the world of watches, which are often very expensive items whose purchase requires a lot of consideration.
When aBlogtoWatch experiences something that forces us to reevaluate our position or ability to endorse a company, we feel obligated to mention that to our readers as part of our ongoing mission. Therefore, the disclaimer you read is an indication that aBlogtoWatch can no longer endorse a company because we personally would no longer choose do business with them.
What is the disclaimer not meant to do?
Nothing about the disclaimer is meant to specifically suggest anything negative about RGM products, its staff and watchmakers, or its service to customers.
Is there a dispute between RGM and aBlogtoWatch?
Yes, aBlogtoWatch is currently in dispute with RGM’s management over a breach of contract. The dispute is currently a private matter, as aBlogtoWatch does not feel that making it public offers a material advantage to the watch community at this time.
Is the dispute a result of RGM owing aBlogtoWatch money?
No. The heart of the dispute is not about RGM owing aBlogtoWatch money.
What does this mean to the consumer?
It would be inappropriate for aBlogtoWatch to recommend that anyone not purchase products from or do business with a company simply because we have a dispute with them. Our goal is not to disparage or cause harm to anyone despite our own experience with them. We advise all consumers interested in RGM products to do their research and make an intelligent and educated decision about where to spend their money and with whom. Our goal is to help connect people with, and help recognize those watches that offer an enjoyable ownership experience.
Why can’t you explain more about the situation in detail?
We’d really like to explain exactly what happened and all the facts because we feel that the watch consumer community deserves to know precisely what happened. Of course, this would clear the situation up entirely, but unfortunately because of the ongoing dispute we have been advised not to escalate the matter further by discussing all of the facts at this time. We can say that in the future, it is very likely that additional details will be published that should help shed light on the situation.
Why put up disclaimers versus simply taking down all the content about RGM on aBlogtoWatch?
Taking down content is something that aBlogtoWatch feels is akin to censorship. Past articles written by aBlogtoWatch hold true, and unless there are factual errors in those articles, it is our policy not to remove or materially alter them. To remove content and ignore the existence of a brand just because of a current dispute would be against our mission. Disclaimers allow us to offer an important message to readers about aBlogtoWatch endorsement.
Are there other circumstances where aBlogtoWatch has removed endorsement from a company?
Since our founding in 2007, aBlogtoWatch has worked with and covered hundreds of different watch brands and other companies. This is the first time we have ever felt it necessary to mention that we no longer wish to endorse a company. Our hope is that it will be the last.
What does aBlogtoWatch aim to accomplish with the disclaimer?
aBlogtoWatch is written by watch lovers for watch lovers. This is our mantra and we repeat it to remind ourselves that we are writing for people are in our exact position. More specifically, we regard our audience as savvy consumers with a passion for watches who want to learn about products and as much about the industry as possible. Part of our communication style is to speak conversationally, as we would to close friends. When we have experiences which force us to take pause and or change our position on something materially, we feel obligated to let the community know. Unfortunately, in this situation prudence dictates to us that we respect matters related to a private dispute. A dispute that we honestly would like to resolve if possible, but nevertheless a dispute that may require delicacy in its resolution.
We know that aBlogtoWatch’s regular readers and new people coming to the site would fully understand the situation if we were able to share all the details. Ideally we would do that, but right now we’ve agreed that isn’t the best idea and we prefer to take the high-road. It very well might be that in future these disclaimers go away. If that happens, it probably means that the dispute has at least been successfully resolved to the point where we no longer feel it necessary to withdraw our endorsement of a company whose contribution to modern American watchmaking should not be overlooked.
On behalf of the aBlogtoWatch team, we thank you for taking the time to learn more about this situation and hope none of this has put a damper on your appreciation for timepieces. The watch industry, like all other industries, is made up of people who from time to time can make bad decisions which are unrelated to the reason we are all here in the first place – great watches.