The Swatch and Audemars Piguet collab wound up well and truly popping off, but not necessarily in a good way. Swatch closed dozens of stores worldwide on Saturday as hordes of hopefuls tried to get their hands on the newly released Royal Pop pocket watch. 

Police had to intervene at boutiques in New York, Paris, and London, with one video on social media showing officers appearing to use pepper spray on crowds at Roosevelt Field Mall on Long Island. French police also fired teargas to control 300 people outside a Swatch shop in Paris, according to The Guardian. Hundreds of shoppers rushed Swatch stores in Times Square and SoHo in Manhattan, as reported by The New York Times. The frenzy resulted in at least one arrest, according to the New York Police Department.

The eight candy-hued bioceramic timepieces, inspired by the AP’s high-end Royal Oak and Swatch’s more accessible Pop line, were officially unveiled on May 12. Some prospective clients began camping outside of stores at that point, while others queued up at 4 a.m. on the day of release, only to be turned away by officials. 

Swatch took to Instagram on Sunday to ask customers not to rush stores, adding that the collection will remain available for several months. It also said that lines of more than 50 people could not be accommodated in some countries. Many in the comments section lamented a perceived lack of organization from the brand. “Maybe posting this yesterday would have been a good idea…” thewatchcaliber wrote. Others called for the collection to be released online. “Drop them online,” wrote jonthrifts. “One per customer.” 

Despite the chaos, some shoppers walked away with watches. The Royal Pops, which retail for between $400 and $420, are now popping up on sites like Chrono24 for up to $6,000. Such flipping was to be expected, given the hype around this particular release. Audemars Piguet is one of the hottest watch brands to date, and the collab has given aspirational collectors a chance to own an AP. The Swiss watchmaker’s Royal Oaks range from roughly $20,000 for a basic steel reference to well over $300,000 for highly complicated iterations, putting them out of the reach of the masses. Until now, that is.

That accessibility has divided the watch world. Some experts believe it will be harmful to AP in the long term. “The ‘accessible icon’ format dilutes the brand entirely,” says CEO and founder of SwissWatchExpo Eugene Tutunikov. “If you want a masterclass in brand protection, look at Rolex. They are absolute business masterminds. When they want to offer accessible pricing, they use the Tudor line. They don’t make a plastic Submariner.” 

Others argue that it is a smart way of gaining more attention. “Swatch has already shown with Omega and Blancpain that you can put the design language in front of a bigger audience without suddenly making the real watch common,” explains Joshua Ganjei at European Watch Co. “The high‑end piece stays scarce; the collab just widens the top of the funnel.” 

Indeed, demand for the Omega Speedmaster only increased after the Swiss watchmaker dropped a collab piece with Swatch. “Based on what we saw with MoonSwatch, these collaborations tend to boost interest in the original rather than hurt it,” adds Ganjei. “Speedmaster sales went up meaningfully after that launch, and I’d expect something similar here: a Swatch is not a replacement for a Royal Oak. If anything, it just creates more future Royal Oak buyers.”

The big question mark here is around the launch itself. With online hype turning into real-life hysteria, brands may need to rethink drop culture or at least make a few tweaks. Some believe that more information before the launch could help prevent public disorder. “It would have helped if the ‘not limited edition’ info was made public before launch,” ticktocktreasures.in wrote on Instagram. “You caused the havoc! It was deliberate. No watch is worth people getting hurt or worse.” Others argue that it is up to individuals to act correctly. “High demand, queues, exclusivity—none of these are an excuse for violence or aggression,” string_ting wrote. “That is a choice people make, and responsibility for that sits with the individuals behaving that way, not the brand.”