Hacker News Reader

Comment by oostevo | Hacker News Reader

This isn't entirely related, and it's for a totally different reason, but analog watches in advertisements almost always read the same thing, too: 10:10.[1]

Supposedly it's because the watch hands form a 'smile', and this is supposed to evoke feelings of happiness in potential buyers.[2] I'd never noticed it before, but ever since someone pointed it out to me, I've noticed it in _every single_ watch ad I've seen.

[1] http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/intel/08/01/31_eliandtom2_lg... [2] http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/clo...

View on HN

A watchmaker once told me that the hands in any other position have the possibility of either hiding other features (like date) and/or the brand name. 10:10 is the safest position to avoid these.

That doesn't make any sense in the context of watch ads and doesn't explain why the time would be synchronized across manufacturers and watch designs. The watchmaker could easily change the time for each individual watch to avoid hiding features or brand names. As an example, look at the parents first link, first watch. One of the smaller dials is obscured by the hour hand. Wouldn't 8:20 be a better time to choose considering it wouldn't obscure any features or the brand name?

It makes sense if they want to hide the minimum number of watch features and have nearly-symmetric watch hands.

Today's woot reaffirms this: http://www.woot.com/

One of them shows 10 to 2 still a smiley face though.

Irony: TODAY's woot is a digital picture frame with a photograph of someone looking absolutely miserable.

Woo hoo! 10:10 = "Happy Time"

I've heard it also cradles the logo of the watchmaker so your eyes are drawn to it (which the second link also mentions too).

5:01 would work best: Time to go home.

HTC's cellphone ads (all over buses here) show the time 10:08 or 10:10, even though they use a digital clock. It made me smile when I saw it the other day.

Care to explain why this watch shows 4:14? ;)

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/6a17/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com