There's the story and its quality, but what is perhaps more interesting is its relation to succes.

To me, the 'free' watch shows that they are correlated, but not as much as one would think, or even hope. It shows that in some cases, you don't even need the story, you only need the shell of a story. It is the lowest common denominator - it does the absolute rock-bottom, bare-minimum to communicate 'hip watch brand' to the people who see these ads. And in return they get the tiniest of margins, below which it's too much of a hassle to set up and maintain.

It's funny to see what kind of Pareto-principle based choices are made to scrape the bottom off the barrel, but it's tangential to why I like the article. That has to do with this:

Here's what I find fascinating - this watch is simply the lowest common denominator amongst their audience. Here, that's probably 'people who have ever liked anything related to watches on Instagram and are cheapskates'. Go up a social strata or two and it's a Daniel Wellington. Up a few more and you end up with your Jaquet Droz.

All attempt to conjure up a story. But their success is only very loosely related to the veracity of that story. To make money, the story does not have to be good, it just needs to be convincing enough. I would not be surprised if for every person doing their homework and recognizing authenticity, there is another person who does not bother, does not know their shit, or only pays lip service to authenticity.

I'm sure the higher the sticker price, the less common this is. But it doesn't go away - it's always in the interest of the seller to tell a better story than the truth. It's called capitalism.

At least the 'free watch' guy is being honest about it.