How can private practice compete??

This forum made possible through the generous support of
SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Safety and compliance of prescription spectacles ordered by the public via the Internet

Methods
Ten individuals ordered 2 pairs of spectacles from each of 10 of the most visited Internet vendors, totaling 200 eyewear orders.

Conclusion
Nearly half of prescription spectacles delivered directly by online vendors did not meet either the optical requirements of the patient's visual needs or the physical requirements for the patient's safety.


This study has no clinical meaning because there is no control group. They state that 50% of online glasses don't meet standards, but they don't tell you what percentage of glasses bought traditionally from brick'n mortar stores MEET standrds. I mean, that's obviously the critical element - are online glasses WORSE than glasses bought from a store/optometrist? This study doesn't tell you. Maybe glasses out of stores/ODs fail at a rate of 75%? You don't know.

When I was in school in 1996, my geometrical optics instructor was part of a story for 20/20 which showed that an independent, optometrist owned office was the place where you were most likely to get accurate prescriptions. Worst place was commercial department stores like Sears or JC Penney. The story also showed that when there WAS a problem, the independent optometrist office was most likely to be willing to fix the error. The worst offender for that category was the independently owned optician stores. Frequently the person working there would claim that there was nothing wrong with the glasses.

Obviously that's 15 years ago and no internet glasses were involved.

Members don't see this ad.
 
:eek:please do tell, I'd love to see these "studies" you speak of.

perhaps you might read

http://www.optometryjaoa.com/article/S1529-1839(11)00406-4/fulltext

your welcome

Coastal does about $50 million per quarter in revenue, with ridiculous margins. They're growing every quarter. Anyone who doesn't see where this is going, is simply burying their head in the sand. That's a fifth of a billion dollars that used to go through optometry, but is now being completely retailed, with no doctor involvement whatsoever. Coastal is just one online retailer of many.

I've seen junk online, and I've seen stuff that's actually pretty good - certainly good enough to satisfy most online shoppers. There will always be the guy who wouldn't dream of going online to buy his glasses, but he's dying - literally.
 
When I was in school in 1996, my geometrical optics instructor was part of a story for 20/20 which showed that an independent, optometrist owned office was the place where you were most likely to get accurate prescriptions. Worst place was commercial department stores like Sears or JC Penney. The story also showed that when there WAS a problem, the independent optometrist office was most likely to be willing to fix the error. The worst offender for that category was the independently owned optician stores. Frequently the person working there would claim that there was nothing wrong with the glasses.

Obviously that's 15 years ago and no internet glasses were involved.

I can basically believe ODs offer the best "customer service". I once briefly worked beside/with an independent optical for their eye exams. I basically saw no re-dos ever, cause I think the optician was telling patients their glasses were correct and no need to re-check anything. He was avoiding the risk of eating a re-do cost.

What I've seen a bit more and more though, is some ODs who charge patients for re-checks. Had a guy who paid $600 for a pair of designer PALs that were completely useless - but he never went back to get it fixed cause he told me the doc wanted him to pay again to check what was wrong. Pretty messed if you ask me.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Coastal does about $50 million per quarter in revenue, with ridiculous margins. They're growing every quarter. Anyone who doesn't see where this is going, is simply burying their head in the sand. That's a fifth of a billion dollars that used to go through optometry, but is now being completely retailed, with no doctor involvement whatsoever. Coastal is just one online retailer of many.

I've seen junk online, and I've seen stuff that's actually pretty good - certainly good enough to satisfy most online shoppers. There will always be the guy who wouldn't dream of going online to buy his glasses, but he's dying - literally.


coastal has razor thin margins
all that volume and yet they cant make a profit
they had trouble getting more loans and had to cancel a stock payout
stock's taken a nosedive (last I checked)
no surprise really, as one frame rep mentioned coastal has a 50+% return rate!
no wonder they cant generate real profit
my guess is they are floating this business model, hoping to get a loyal client base. Problem is they are burning bridges with that client list with unsatisfactory product and service.
They may turn it around, but I have my doubts. The truth is given the subjective nature of eyeglasses, I think it will be difficult to achieve very large market share. Time will tell.
 
coastal has razor thin margins
all that volume and yet they cant make a profit
they had trouble getting more loans and had to cancel a stock payout
stock's taken a nosedive (last I checked)
no surprise really, as one frame rep mentioned coastal has a 50+% return rate!
no wonder they cant generate real profit
my guess is they are floating this business model, hoping to get a loyal client base. Problem is they are burning bridges with that client list with unsatisfactory product and service.
They may turn it around, but I have my doubts. The truth is given the subjective nature of eyeglasses, I think it will be difficult to achieve very large market share. Time will tell.

I recently bought a pair of glasses through Coastal. I did it solely because the whole pair cost me $10; it was free, with free shipping, and only cost the $10 for high index lenses. Well, the frame is fine and the left lens is fine, but my right lens has a lot of oblique astigmatism when I look away from its optical center. Oblique astigmatism on a single vision lens! It is clear when looking straight through so I know the Rx is correct.
 
coastal has razor thin margins
all that volume and yet they cant make a profit
they had trouble getting more loans and had to cancel a stock payout
stock's taken a nosedive (last I checked)
no surprise really, as one frame rep mentioned coastal has a 50+% return rate!
no wonder they cant generate real profit
my guess is they are floating this business model, hoping to get a loyal client base. Problem is they are burning bridges with that client list with unsatisfactory product and service.
They may turn it around, but I have my doubts. The truth is given the subjective nature of eyeglasses, I think it will be difficult to achieve very large market share. Time will tell.

I knew about the returns/thin margins - but I had never thought about your conclusions before. You're right - given the challenges of internet dispensing (patients who even get the "right" glasses may doubt them), it may never really take off and may remain largely a niche market for the reasons you list here.
 
coastal has razor thin margins
all that volume and yet they cant make a profit
they had trouble getting more loans and had to cancel a stock payout
stock's taken a nosedive (last I checked)
no surprise really, as one frame rep mentioned coastal has a 50+% return rate!
no wonder they cant generate real profit
my guess is they are floating this business model, hoping to get a loyal client base. Problem is they are burning bridges with that client list with unsatisfactory product and service.
They may turn it around, but I have my doubts. The truth is given the subjective nature of eyeglasses, I think it will be difficult to achieve very large market share. Time will tell.

Not sure where the razor thin margins are coming from, unless there's a massive difference between their gross and net profits:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia—For its third fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2012, online optical retailer, Coastal Contacts Inc. (TSX: COA) (Stockholm: COA) generated record revenues of $50.3 million. Gross profit for the third quarter of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011 was $21.4 million or 43 percent of sales compared to $21.1 million or 43 percent of sales.

Additional highlights of the quarter included:

• Total order volume of approximately 584,000.
• Total glasses shipped was approximately 248,000 units.
• Glasses shipped into the U.S. market increased 77 percent to 126,000 units, representing 51 percent of total glasses shipped.
• Total glasses sales were $11.5 million with gross profit margins of 48 percent.
• Total contact lens sales increased 3 percent to $38.8 million with gross profit margins of 41 percent.

• Coastal’s in-house eyewear brands comprised 70 percent of total glasses shipped.
• Coastal initiated investment in a second production line to manufacture free-form progressive lenses in-house.

Year-to-date highlights included:

• Total pairs of glasses shipped were 706,000, an increase of 27 percent.
• Overall revenues increased 8 percent to $145 million.
• Glasses revenues grew 20 percent to $34 million.
• Contact lens revenues grew 5 percent to $111 million.

Roger Hardy, Coastal’s founder and CEO, commented, “We continued to make significant progress in Coastal's key strategic areas throughout the third quarter. Our core contact lens business continued its stable and predictable growth, generating strong operating margins greater than 10 percent on a consolidated basis, which the company is using to fund growth in the glasses category. Contact lens revenues grew 3 percent during the third quarter and 5 percent for the first nine months of fiscal 2012. Our glasses category grew to $45.4 million in the 12 months ended July 31, 2012, compared to $34.3 million in the preceding 12 months, an increase of 32 percent.

“Our early stage online glasses business in the U.S. experienced a revenue increase of 71 percent, while glasses units grew 77 percent during the third quarter, as a result of our strategy to drive customer adoption. We are encouraged by our growth and remain committed to building out the online eyewear segment in the U.S. Replicating the successful Canadian business model in this large and highly attractive market remains a key focus, and we plan to continue investment spending in the coming quarters in order to further accelerate our growth and market penetration. We focused our investments on the core North American glasses market. We are taking a similar focused approach in Europe as we shift investments from multiple markets to those where Coastal has leadership positions,” Hardy said.

Founded in 2000, Coastal Contacts services customers in more than 150 countries through its family of websites, including Coastal.com, ClearlyContacts.ca, Lensway.com, Lensway.co.uk, Lensway.se, ClearlyContacts.com.au, ClearlyContacts.co.nz, Contactsan.com, Coastallens.com and its newest site, Lensway.com.br.

Link: http://www.visionmonday.com/Default...ners/VM2007/SimpleContainer&dnnprintmode=true
 
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=COA:CN

next time, try reading their financials, instead of some talking head being quoted in a funny paper like "vision monday"....lol

currently it appears their contact lens business is funding their eyeglass sales, but that's not enough, and its getting worse and worse

Keep holding onto your pipe dream, chief. I suppose next, you'll be telling me that Amazon is floundering and that brick and mortar book stores shouldn't be worried at all. Hey, anyone been to a Borders lately?
 
Last edited:
Keep holding onto your pipe dream, chief. I suppose next, you'll be telling me that Amazon is floundering and that brick and mortar book stores shouldn't be worried at all. Hey, anyone been to a Borders lately?

Hold on - are you just ignoring his link? You demand everyone in this forum to be objective in their assessments of optometry - would you like to do the same?

"Year over year, Coastal Contacts Inc. has seen their bottom line shrink from a gain of C$3.1M to a loss of C$4.9M despite an increase in revenues from C$153.2M to C$184.1M. An increase in the percentage of sales devoted to SGA costs from 24.98% to 30.82% was a key component in the falling bottom line in the face of rising revenues."
 
Hold on - are you just ignoring his link? You demand everyone in this forum to be objective in their assessments of optometry - would you like to do the same?

"Year over year, Coastal Contacts Inc. has seen their bottom line shrink from a gain of C$3.1M to a loss of C$4.9M despite an increase in revenues from C$153.2M to C$184.1M. An increase in the percentage of sales devoted to SGA costs from 24.98% to 30.82% was a key component in the falling bottom line in the face of rising revenues."

Ignoring? No, I read the link and it shows that there is a massive difference between their gross profit and net income. As I stated in my earlier post "Unless there is a massive difference between their gross profit and net income," which apparently....there is. It changes nothing in the big picture.

If Coastal were the only online materials retailer in existence, optometry might not have as much to worry about.

If young people were saying "Hey, I really don't like this internet buying thing all that much," optometry might not have that much to worry about.

If the people who are slower to buy online were not dying off, literally, optometry would have much less to worry about.

If there were not 6 new OD programs created in the last few years, set to dump thousands more unneeded ODs into an already bloated system, optometry would have a lot less to worry about.

If the entire medical system were not about to get gutted from head to toe, in an effort to "cut costs," optometry would have a lot less to worry about.

But, as it turns out - all of those things are happening. So, while PBEA is high-fiving his own reflection, optometry is sinking under its own weight. Nothing you, PBEA, KHE, Chuck Norris, or anyone on this forum, can change that.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring? No, I read the link and it shows that there is a massive difference between their gross profit and net income. As I stated in my earlier post "Unless there is a massive difference between their gross profit and net income," which apparently....there is. It changes nothing in the big picture.

If Coastal were the only online materials retailer in existence, optometry might not have as much to worry about.

If young people were saying "Hey, I really don't like this internet buying thing all that much," optometry might not have that much to worry about.

If the people who are slower to buy online were not dying off, literally, optometry would have much less to worry about.

If there were not 6 new OD programs created in the last few years, set to dump thousands more unneeded ODs into an already bloated system, optometry would have a lot less to worry about.

If the entire medical system were not about to get gutted from head to toe, in an effort to "cut costs," optometry would have a lot less to worry about.

But, as it turns out - all of those things are happening. So, while PBEA is high-fiving his own reflection, optometry is sinking under its own weight. Nothing you, PBEA, KHE, Chuck Norris, or anyone on this forum, can change that.

I agree optometry is foolish for loading up on the supply side, corporate involvement in a retail/refraction only mindset, leadership problems, etc, but I was just commenting on the online eyeglass aspect and at least in Coastal's case they are demonstrating just how difficult it is to deliver this kind of device/product (and make a profit). That's all. No need to shoot the messenger.
 
I agree optometry is foolish for loading up on the supply side, corporate involvement in a retail/refraction only mindset, leadership problems, etc, but I was just commenting on the online eyeglass aspect and at least in Coastal's case they are demonstrating just how difficult it is to deliver this kind of device/product (and make a profit). That's all. No need to shoot the messenger.

Oh, c'mon now - we both know there was some sass in there. SASS! I'll admit, I was unaware of the hit they take going from gross to net, and that was conveniently left out of the visionmonday article. It was probably written by a fiscally liberal "journalist." :D
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I did some calculations since i am an applicant.

in 2012 - 1732 applicants for 2532 slots --> 69% acceptance rate.

Isn't that a bit too high?
 
The medical school acceptance rate is 45%.

Applicants self opt out of the system...so someone with a 2.0 GPA and bombed the OAT don't even apply.

I wouldn't worry about the high acceptance rate. It doesnt necessarily mean anything. What is important is whether the new schools have a higher rate than the average because they are taking anyone with a pulse. It is less likely that strong candidates are applying to the new schools, thus a higher acceptance rate implies that they are taking weaker candidates.
 
I did some calculations since i am an applicant.

in 2012 - 1732 applicants for 2532 slots --> 69% acceptance rate.

Isn't that a bit too high?

First - do you mean 2532 applicants for 1732 slots?

And even if so, no, it isn't a 69% "acceptance rate". It means that of all the 2532 applicants in last year's cycle, 69% of them ended up in optometry school. Who knows how many actual "acceptances" were given out in order to get those 1732 matriculants?

Some of those who got "acceptances" probably got accepted to medical, dental and pharmacy programs and did not end up in optometry school. Other "accepted candidates" may have gone into public health or law or chiropractic or chiropody. Some may have even decided they couldn't afford optometry school and just went to work. Thus - it is not inconceivable that the acceptance rate to at least one school may have even approached 100%.

To fill 1732 spots with "only" 2532 applicants, many of whom are considering other health care careers, it means basically anyone who applied probably got accepted somewhere, and anyone who wanted to attend optometry school, probably did.
 
First - do you mean 2532 applicants for 1732 slots?

And even if so, no, it isn't a 69% "acceptance rate". It means that of all the 2532 applicants in last year's cycle, 69% of them ended up in optometry school. Who knows how many actual "acceptances" were given out in order to get those 1732 matriculants?

Some of those who got "acceptances" probably got accepted to medical, dental and pharmacy programs and did not end up in optometry school. Other "accepted candidates" may have gone into public health or law or chiropractic or chiropody. Some may have even decided they couldn't afford optometry school and just went to work. Thus - it is not inconceivable that the acceptance rate to at least one school may have even approached 100%.

To fill 1732 spots with "only" 2532 applicants, many of whom are considering other health care careers, it means basically anyone who applied probably got accepted somewhere, and anyone who wanted to attend optometry school, probably did.

Yes, thanks for the correction: there were 1732 1st year seats available, and there were a total of 2532 applicants.

The ratio of seats to applicants is around 1:1.4 - i don't know how that compares to med, pharm/ dent etc.
 
Are those unique applicants or are they counting people who applied to more than one school? If so, the acceptance rate is much higher than 69%.

My take is the total number of students enrolled divided by the total number of individuals who applied to at least one school. That's how the data is usually given.
 
Are those unique applicants or are they counting people who applied to more than one school? If so, the acceptance rate is much higher than 69%.

Unique applicants.

For my college, WesternU, it's all written out, for this last year:

Applications: 812
Interviews granted: 233
Enrolled students: 88

http://prospective.westernu.edu/optometry/competitive

This data does not provide info on how many students were accepted out of the 233.



Of the 233 interviews granted, that doesn't mean they conducted 233 interviews, because students could reject/cancel the granted interview, right?
 
Of the 233 interviews granted, that doesn't mean they conducted 233 interviews, because students could reject/cancel the granted interview, right?

I applied via OptomCAS to Western this year; however, I did not submit my secondary application. Therefore, I was never given an interview because I had already decided against attending there. So, I am sure I will be in the number of applicants for next year, but we are not sure if I would have ever have received an interview invite from them or not to be counted in that number. I have a feeling others probably did the same as me before the school could offer one, and they bumped up the total applicants without an interview as well.
 
Yes, thanks for the correction: there were 1732 1st year seats available, and there were a total of 2532 applicants.

The ratio of seats to applicants is around 1:1.4 - i don't know how that compares to med, pharm/ dent etc.

Edit: 44k apps to 19k seats in 2011 for 43% acceptance ratio.
 
Last edited:
19,000 seats? i don't think thats correct?

I totally agree. I found this on opted.org to back us up:

Applicants
With 21 out of 21 schools in the U.S. and Puerto Rico reporting for the OptomCAS application cycle 2011-2012 for admission to optometry school in Fall 2012:

There were 2,545 individuals who applied for admission to the schools and colleges of optometry in the United States (including Puerto Rico) with a total number of 13,393 applications processed. The average number of applications per applicant was 5.26.


....and this shows how many slots and matriculants each school had in the fall of 2012. (I didn't care to do the math, but it's for sure not 19,000)

http://www.opted.org/files/Profile of the Entering Class 2012.pdf
 
Safety and compliance of prescription spectacles ordered by the public via the Internet

Methods
Ten individuals ordered 2 pairs of spectacles from each of 10 of the most visited Internet vendors, totaling 200 eyewear orders.

Conclusion
Nearly half of prescription spectacles delivered directly by online vendors did not meet either the optical requirements of the patient's visual needs or the physical requirements for the patient's safety.


This study has no clinical meaning because there is no control group. They state that 50% of online glasses don't meet standards, but they don't tell you what percentage of glasses bought traditionally from brick'n mortar stores MEET standrds. I mean, that's obviously the critical element - are online glasses WORSE than glasses bought from a store/optometrist? This study doesn't tell you. Maybe glasses out of stores/ODs fail at a rate of 75%? You don't know.


Shouldn't the Optometry lobby be able to make something out of this with "patient safety" concerns? I mean if Walmart can lobby for forced online sales tax so that they can compete with Amazon, surely Optometrists can manage this since it has much better reasoning. The lawyers are trying to take out online legal services with litigation over licensing issues for fairer competition. If I had to bet, I'd say this will be the next area for the Optometry lobby.
 
Shouldn't the Optometry lobby be able to make something out of this with "patient safety" concerns? I mean if Walmart can lobby for forced online sales tax so that they can compete with Amazon, surely Optometrists can manage this since it has much better reasoning. The lawyers are trying to take out online legal services with litigation over licensing issues for fairer competition. If I had to bet, I'd say this will be the next area for the Optometry lobby.

The optometry lobby going against the Walmart lobby is sort of like the army of a country like say....Bolivia going up against the US Army.

Better reasoning usually matters little when it comes to lobbying. What does matter? I think we all know the answer to that and it involves a lot of dead presidents and some guy named Franklin.
 
I've worn glasses for 20 years. My eyes are too important so I can't risk getting Lasik.

The last pair of glasses I got cost $300 from a brick-and-mortar optometry place.

I watched the 60 minutes special and learned that Luxottica had a monopoly on the eyeglass industry. They make the cheap and expensive brand name eyeglasses apparently.

I still have to go to the store to get a prescription, but my next pair of glasses will be from Warby Parker. Tired of paying for overpriced glasses.
 
See the irony in this statement when it's followed by the plan to get cheap on-line glasses?

Not contradictory. It's just a pair of glasses. Once you have prescription, any monkey in the backroom can make them using the computerized machines we have today. If I'm not happy with them, then get another pair.

I think that people are catching on how much of a ripoff purchasing eyeglasses at brick-and-mortar stores are. Warby Parker is definitely catching on mainstream. Who knows, maybe Amazon will too someday. But traditional eyeglass makers and sellers can compete. Just lower your prices to match of the online purveyors. If you follow what has happened to other industries and companies because of the internet, then this will follow a similar trend.
 
Not contradictory. It's just a pair of glasses. Once you have prescription, any monkey in the backroom can make them using the computerized machines we have today. If I'm not happy with them, then get another pair.

I think that people are catching on how much of a ripoff purchasing eyeglasses at brick-and-mortar stores are. Warby Parker is definitely catching on mainstream. Who knows, maybe Amazon will too someday. But traditional eyeglass makers and sellers can compete. Just lower your prices to match of the online purveyors. If you follow what has happened to other industries and companies because of the internet, then this will follow a similar trend.

C'mon, that's not even close to true.

I think every OD has dozens of examples of people who took their glasses rx to wal-mart, sam's, online or whatever and came back with poorly made glasses.

The PP folks that I knew back when I worked in that field (ophthalmic tech) had good relations with their local glasses folks, or did it themselves, and stood by their work. Generally of much higher quality.
 
Not contradictory. It's just a pair of glasses. Once you have prescription, any monkey in the backroom can make them using the computerized machines we have today. If I'm not happy with them, then get another pair.

I think that people are catching on how much of a ripoff purchasing eyeglasses at brick-and-mortar stores are. Warby Parker is definitely catching on mainstream. Who knows, maybe Amazon will too someday. But traditional eyeglass makers and sellers can compete. Just lower your prices to match of the online purveyors. If you follow what has happened to other industries and companies because of the internet, then this will follow a similar trend.
If you were my patient, I'd encourage you to get your glasses on-line, and then feel free to come back if you're not happy.

If you have a high prescription, astigmatism, or wear a bifocal, I can almost promise that you won't be satisfied with a frame that wasn't fit & measured with you wearing the frame.

A Geo Prism and a Mercedes are both cars, but they're not the same.
Actually, the better analogy is a bike from Walmart vs a Cannondale/Trek.

Warby Parker is a marketing genius. They make an inferior product, charge more for it than a dozen other on-line sites, & have thousands of hipsters convinced they're getting something cutting-edge.

I sell a line just like Warby Parkers for about $39. I just tell patients ahead of time that they're getting something with cheaper componenets
 
If you think that Warby Parker is somehow a "deal" you clearly have no understanding of the differences in frame and lens materials. I can't say I blame you. Our industry has done a lousy job of educating people on the difference.

I can produce what Warby Parker produces for far less than what they sell it for.

As I've told many people, you can buy a $20 disposable camera at the pharmacy or you can buy a $400 Nikon. If you're happy with the $20 disposable camera, have at it.
 
http://www.yelp.com/biz/warby-parker-eyewear-new-york-2

Hmmm...143 reviews, average 4.5 stars, majority are 5/5 stars.

I'll take my chances with Warby Parker. If someone doesn't like it, just go somewhere else. It's just a pair of eyeglasses.

Remember that the brick-and-mortar companies used to say that consumers would never buy shoes, electronics, etc online. That the consumer wanted to touch and feel the product before buying. Oops, they were wrong.

Consumers like lower prices and not getting ripped off. You guys will need to lower your prices to compete in the future. Makes no sense to pay $300 for equally good product that I can get $100 online.
 
http://www.yelp.com/biz/warby-parker-eyewear-new-york-2

Hmmm...143 reviews, average 4.5 stars, majority are 5/5 stars.

I'll take my chances with Warby Parker. If someone doesn't like it, just go somewhere else. It's just a pair of eyeglasses.

Remember that the brick-and-mortar companies used to say that consumers would never buy shoes, electronics, etc online. That the consumer wanted to touch and feel the product before buying. Oops, they were wrong.

Consumers like lower prices and not getting ripped off. You guys will need to lower your prices to compete in the future. Makes no sense to pay $300 for equally good product that I can get $100 online.

There's the rub....it's not equally as good.

Now, it might be "good enough" for YOU. And that's fine. Some people are fine staying at the Motel 6. Nothing wrong with that.

But again....if you think you're getting some sort of fine deal from Warby Parker, you're not correct. Their markup as a percentage is far higher than just about any brick and mortor optical is. As I mentioned before, I can produce and sell what Warby Parker does for far less than they do.
 
http://www.yelp.com/biz/warby-parker-eyewear-new-york-2

Hmmm...143 reviews, average 4.5 stars, majority are 5/5 stars.

I'll take my chances with Warby Parker. If someone doesn't like it, just go somewhere else. It's just a pair of eyeglasses.

Remember that the brick-and-mortar companies used to say that consumers would never buy shoes, electronics, etc online. That the consumer wanted to touch and feel the product before buying. Oops, they were wrong.

Consumers like lower prices and not getting ripped off. You guys will need to lower your prices to compete in the future. Makes no sense to pay $300 for equally good product that I can get $100 online.

Warby Parker isn't really doing anything new or enterprising. Anybody can sell cheap plastic frames with cheap polycarb lenses, walmart does it all the time, they do it for less then warby parker, and they've been doing it for at least the last 10-15 years. You fell for their marketing spin? awwwwww poor biff he not too smart is he?
 
There's the rub....it's not equally as good.

Now, it might be "good enough" for YOU. And that's fine. Some people are fine staying at the Motel 6. Nothing wrong with that.

The difference is I *can* tell the difference(a big difference) between staying at a motel 6 vs the ritz.

I can't tell a difference between the 80 dollar glasses at warby parker and the 350 dollar glasses the optometrists sell. Nobody compliments me any more or less with the 350 dollar pair, and I can't see any better.

I don't think I am alone in feeling that way either. So it's not the same thing at all.
 
The difference is I *can* tell the difference(a big difference) between staying at a motel 6 vs the ritz.

I can't tell a difference between the 80 dollar glasses at warby parker and the 350 dollar glasses the optometrists sell. Nobody compliments me any more or less with the 350 dollar pair, and I can't see any better.

I don't think I am alone in feeling that way either. So it's not the same thing at all.

Funny, I can tell the difference between the glasses I got from my OD and the one time I went Lenscrafters. Then again, I like getting all the bells and whistles with mine (high index, transitions, and so forth.... having an OD for a dad spoiled me in my youth)

I suspect the two MD posters here (ie, you) are young with a fairly straightforward refractive error. You're not going to have as much of a difference as, say, an older person with progressive bifocal lenses or someone like me who gets all the add-ons.
 
I have a friend who sells lenses... He has told me time and again..you will eventually come back to the optometrist to buy your lenses, the others will eventually only make your eyes worse. There are small issues in the Warny Parker's that you won't be able tell until it is too late. It is ultimately your call...I would rather spend more on my eyes and general health then say on dinner out with the wife!
 
The difference is I *can* tell the difference(a big difference) between staying at a motel 6 vs the ritz.

I can't tell a difference between the 80 dollar glasses at warby parker and the 350 dollar glasses the optometrists sell. Nobody compliments me any more or less with the 350 dollar pair, and I can't see any better.

I don't think I am alone in feeling that way either. So it's not the same thing at all.

using that rationale you could get $7.00 online glasses at zenni optical, free glasses from coastal, or maybe $30-$50 at walmart.

why pay the higher cost at warby parker?
 
I have a friend who sells lenses... He has told me time and again..you will eventually come back to the optometrist to buy your lenses, the others will eventually only make your eyes worse. There are small issues in the Warny Parker's that you won't be able tell until it is too late. It is ultimately your call...I would rather spend more on my eyes and general health then say on dinner out with the wife!

How do those glasses make your eyes worse?
 
The difference is I *can* tell the difference(a big difference) between staying at a motel 6 vs the ritz.

I can't tell a difference between the 80 dollar glasses at warby parker and the 350 dollar glasses the optometrists sell. Nobody compliments me any more or less with the 350 dollar pair, and I can't see any better.

I don't think I am alone in feeling that way either. So it's not the same thing at all.

I can not speak for other people's products or markups but I can guarantee you as sure as I've got a crack in my butt that if you spent $350 on a pair of glasses in my office, you would notice a difference over anything from Warby Parker.

Perhaps the hotel analogy was not the best.

Think of it this way then....

You can get a pair of speakers at Radio Shack for $30.
You can also get a pair from Klipsch for $1700.

Which one is better?

Well....maybe some people wouldn't notice much difference or wouldn't care about the difference. That's fine.

But that doesn't mean there's not a difference.
 
Do you know the brand of your car's windshield? I don't. Last time I had to replace my windshield, I got it from some stranger referred to me by an auto-exhaust guy. I met him in a parking lot, he hauled it out of the back of his truck and did the replacement right there. Cost me like 50% the cost it would've cost me had I bought it from a real dealer. Was I happy I saved that money even though it didn't come with all the bells and whistles of a "reputable" sales guy? You bet. Smiled all the way home about the money I saved.

This isn't to say there isn't a difference between $25 frames/lenses and $300 frames/lenses. But you're kidding if you think everyone thinks its worth paying $275 for that difference.
 
I can not speak for other people's products or markups but I can guarantee you as sure as I've got a crack in my butt that if you spent $350 on a pair of glasses in my office, you would notice a difference over anything from Warby Parker.

Perhaps the hotel analogy was not the best.

Think of it this way then....

You can get a pair of speakers at Radio Shack for $30.
You can also get a pair from Klipsch for $1700.

Which one is better?

Well....maybe some people wouldn't notice much difference or wouldn't care about the difference. That's fine.

But that doesn't mean there's not a difference.

If I could tell much of a difference I would care....I just can't. Speakers are a good example imo because I can't tell a difference in that sort of stuff sometimes either.
 
People are in denial if they think that the Internet won't change the way the eyeglass business is run. There will be a lot of price pressure on the stores to lower their costs. Ask yourself for a $400 pair of glasses, how much does it really cost in materials and labor? $50? $100 $200? How much is Luxottica making? How much is your markup? There's no question that there's a lot of fat in the current business model and that companies like Warby Parker will trim some of it off for the industry. This has been played out over and over again from books to electronics to airfare to hotels.
 
People are in denial if they think that the Internet won't change the way the eyeglass business is run. There will be a lot of price pressure on the stores to lower their costs. Ask yourself for a $400 pair of glasses, how much does it really cost in materials and labor? $50? $100 $200? How much is Luxottica making? How much is your markup? There's no question that there's a lot of fat in the current business model and that companies like Warby Parker will trim some of it off for the industry. This has been played out over and over again from books to electronics to airfare to hotels.

The internet has changed the way every single business is run with the exception of maybe septic tank pumping.

In my office, the markup on most products is far faaar less in terms of percentage than what it would be if I sold Warby Parker stuff for the price Warby Parker sells it for.

I could easily produce what Warby Parker does for slightly more than $10. Sell it for 95, and you're looking at a markup of between 700 and 800 percent. I can assure you the products I sell are marked up a small fraction of that.

I really must hand it to Warby. As someone else has said, they have managed to take low end product, mark it up much higher than their competitors and have convinced urban hipsters that they are somehow getting a great deal because the urban hipsters think that anything purchased online is better and/or cheaper.

Kudos to them I guess. But, I'll stick with the high end product going to high end clientele. Much more enjoyable. :thumbup:
 
People are in denial if they think that the Internet won't change the way the eyeglass business is run. There will be a lot of price pressure on the stores to lower their costs. Ask yourself for a $400 pair of glasses, how much does it really cost in materials and labor? $50? $100 $200? How much is Luxottica making? How much is your markup? There's no question that there's a lot of fat in the current business model and that companies like Warby Parker will trim some of it off for the industry. This has been played out over and over again from books to electronics to airfare to hotels.

warby has taken cheap product and marked it up tremendously. They are not trimming any fat, they are ADDING fat.

Are you guys seriously that dense?
 
The public knows they can get a pair of glasses for $30 that works just as good as the last one they bought for $300+.

THAT is a fact and really all that matters.

The difficult fits (progs/high cyl/high Rx) people will learn the hard way and cont to pay more. The other 80% of low to moderate myopia/hyperopes will learn they can save 90% on their glasses + bypass the middleman completely (the OD) and this will continue the rapid decline of modern optometry from an independent profession into an OMD and corporate America's refraction monkey jockey.

Sad from an OD's perspective but very good from the general public's point of view.
 
Top