# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Opticians, Canadians have questions. Can you help answer them?

## Opticians Council

Hi Opticians across Canada,

We asked the public on Facebook to tell us one question they'd want to ask a licensed optician.

We've compiled lots of questions in the comments section of a Facebook post. Can you share your expertise and help us answer them in the comments section of this Facebook post? We've already had a lot of opticians answer, but there are still a few questions remaining

Link: https://www.facebook.com/LicensedOpt...567740/?type=1

Thank you for helping!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Hi Opticians across Canada,
> 
> We asked the public on Facebook to tell us one question they'd want to ask a licensed optician.
> *



Would it not have been better to ask the public: 

" Why have millions of you, and increasing, chosen to buy-purchase your glasses directly at the manufacturer (optical lab),  instead of going through a licensed and qualified specialist optician or optometrist ? "

or, and :

" Who is giving you the service on your factory direct purchase, as the final check against precision made prescriptions and the final adjustments of the frame and lenses to your face ? "

----------


## HindSight2020

> Would it not have been better to ask the public: 
> 
> " Why have millions of you, and increasing, chosen to buy-purchase your glasses directly at the manufacturer (optical lab),  instead of going through a licensed and qualified specialist optician or optometrist ? "
> 
> or, and :
> 
> " Who is giving you the service on your factory direct purchase, as the final check against precision made prescriptions and the final adjustments of the frame and lenses to your face ? "


Great post but not likely Chris, since a large portion of these association's funds are derived from the same company(s) that is circumventing the legal dispensing laws/process without regard to the registered, licenced professionals across Canada.

----------


## idispense

On one of the association web sites they list "VISIONARY PARTNERS"  on a provincial one they list: PLATINUM, SILVER, or BRONZE partners. What's the difference ?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Great post but not likely Chris, since a large portion of these association's funds are derived from the same company(s) that is circumventing the legal dispensing laws/process without regard to the registered, licenced professionals across Canada.
> *



HindSight sharp as usual ...........................

...............however I id not want to extend into optical politics as the public has no knowledge nor interest about that. We should progress a little slower before this thread is at its peak and goes its usual way towards a slow death.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *On one of the association web sites they are listed as "VISIONARY PARTNERS"  on a provincial one they are listed as
> either being: PLATINUM, SILVER, or BRONZE partners. What's the difference ?
> *





idispense .....................  would you mind to give some links to show your point, with a little more explanations and details as a lot of this thread could find its way into the social sites.

----------


## idispense

What does the term or heading  "Visionary Partners"  mean ?

----------


## MT

> Would it not have been better to ask the public: 
> 
> " Why have millions of you, and increasing, chosen to buy-purchase your glasses directly at the manufacturer (optical lab), instead of going through a licensed and qualified specialist optician or optometrist ? "
> 
> or, and :
> 
> " Who is giving you the service on your factory direct purchase, as the final check against precision made prescriptions and the final adjustments of the frame and lenses to your face ? "


The reason the first question isn't asked is because it is an ill strategy. If you ask the public that, you know their answer will be focused on price and Licensed professionals will be looked at as greedy. But if you focus on educating them on the value and knowledge of Licensed Professionals (as the original question does), then you might give them the opportunity to make an educated decision.

As for the second proposed question, you are just backing price-driven customers into a corner, and they will view licensed professionals as greedy. They will say something like "I've already bought online before and it is fine, obviously what you do has no value".




> Great post but not likely Chris, since a large portion of these association's funds are derived from the same company(s) that is circumventing the legal dispensing laws/process without regard to the registered, licenced professionals across Canada.


Even if unregulated online sellers are legally shut down, consumers will always find a "cheaper" way to purchase their optical products unless they are educated on why they shouldn't. Once again, forcing a price-driven consumer into a corner trying to force them to make a grudge purchase is only going to make them look harder in a different direction.

----------


## idispense

> The reason the first question isn't asked is because it is an ill strategy. 
> 
> ..........................
> 
> 
> Even if unregulated online sellers are legally shut down, consumers will always find a "cheaper" way to purchase their optical products unless they are educated on why they shouldn't. Once again, forcing a price-driven consumer into a corner trying to force them to make a grudge purchase is only going to make them look harder in a different direction.


So why bother with paying association annual fees or why bother with legislation or why bother with Colleges and why pay their annual fees ?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *As for the second proposed question, you are just backing price-driven customers into a corner, and they will view licensed professionals as greedy. They will say something like "I've already bought online before and it is fine, obviously what you do has no value".
> *
> 
> 
> *Even if unregulated online sellers are legally shut down, consumers will always find a "cheaper" way to purchase their optical products unless they are educated on why they shouldn't. Once again, forcing a price-driven consumer into a corner trying to force them to make a grudge purchase is only going to make them look harder in a different direction.
> *



They will never be shut down..........they have spread across the world like a wild fire.

You are think they are only on this continent ? They are in Europe as well as the far east and growing fast.

----------


## MT

> So why bother with paying association annual fees or why bother with legislation or why bother with Colleges and why pay their annual fees ?


You bother because the optical products are currently price-driven, when they shouldn't be. If you buy into not believing that you as an ECP has no value either, and talk about "why should I bother being regulated/why does our profession exist?", the consumer will think "ECPs don't even think they have value, why would I?"

The reason why consumers are being forced to be price-driven is because ECP's haven't given enough value to the consumer. For example, even if surgeons weren't regulated,  I would not let any Joe Schmoe operate on me just because it's cheaper. I am aware as a consumer that surgeons are highly educated and skilled. The point is I'd WANT the profession to be regulated. How do we get the current price-driven consumer (when it comes to optical products) to want the profession to be regulated? We educate them on the value of ECP's, and let them make the right decision from there.

And it's every licensed eye-care professionals job to do this. At every point of contact, share knowledge, share expertise, give value.

----------


## MT

> They will never be shut down..........they have spread across the world like a wild fire.
> 
> You are think they are only on this continent ? They are in Europe as well as the far east and growing fast.


Exactly. Hence my response above. Laws are not the issue - consumers will always find a way. You have to educate them on your value as an ECP

----------


## Golfnorth

> So why bother with paying association annual fees or why bother with legislation or why bother with Colleges and why pay their annual fees ?


Gee let's see isn't that the four hundred and fifty third time you've brought this point up on this site?
Why don't you refuse to pay your liscence fees due December 31st and get back to us and tell us all how that worked out for you?

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## idispense

> You bother because the optical products are currently price-driven, when they shouldn't be. If you buy into not believing that you as an ECP has no value either, and talk about "why should I bother being regulated/why does our profession exist?", the consumer will think "ECPs don't even think they have value, why would I?"
> 
> The reason why consumers are being forced to be price-driven is because ECP's haven't given enough value to the consumer. For example, even if surgeons weren't regulated,  I would not let any Joe Schmoe operate on me just because it's cheaper. I am aware as a consumer that surgeons are highly educated and skilled. The point is I'd WANT the profession to be regulated. How do we get the current price-driven consumer (when it comes to optical products) to want the profession to be regulated? We educate them on the value of ECP's, and let them make the right decision from there.
> 
> And it's every licensed eye-care professionals job to do this. At every point of contact, share knowledge, share expertise, give value.


Seems contradictory to your first post. 

If You let on liners run unchecked then what's the point of thinking others should obey the laws?

----------


## idispense

> Gee let's see isn't that the four hundred and fifty third time you've brought this point up on this site?
> Why don't you refuse to pay your liscence fees due December 31st and get back to us and tell us all how that worked out for you?
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth


Worked out fine for the on liners. And who owns the largest on liners ? E ? 

Are you supporting them now ?

----------


## HindSight2020

> What does the term or heading  "Visionary Partners"  mean ?


Fancy term for 'financial supporter'.

----------


## HindSight2020

> HindSight sharp as usual ...........................
> 
> ...............however I id not want to extend into optical politics as the public has no knowledge nor interest about that. We should progress a little slower before this thread is at its peak and goes its usual way towards a slow death.


Thanks Chris. I see your point but I'm more of a straight shooter cut to the chase kind of person. 

That said, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of wining and dining to accompany that relationship or 'partnership'.

----------


## MT

> Seems contradictory to your first post. 
> 
> If You let on liners run unchecked then what's the point of thinking others should obey the laws?


Sorry, not sure where the contradiction is? I've stated several times now that educating the public on the value of ECPs is the best method.

And I'm not saying onliners/unregulated providers etc should be allowed to be run unchecked, but the bottom line is that even if they are prevented by law, the end goal of getting people to buy from ECPs won't happen. Look at pirating, it's illegal but it doesn't stop millions and millions from doing it. An individual will justify their reasoning to do something illegal if they don't think the law should exist. We can fight the long battle of trying to make buying online illegal and impossible, but even if we win (which I feel is impossible), the public will break the law to purchase their optical products.

As long as the public doesn't see the value of ECPs, we're all bound to lose. So rather than fight a losing battle, we educate the public to make the right decision.

----------


## idispense

> Fancy term for 'financial supporter'.


Doesn't "visionary and partner"  suggest that two or more parties are working in unison or partnership to fulfill a joint vision ? 

Now  what's the joint vision ? E runs online stores so does that mean that vision is shared ? 

Does the act of running the ads on their web sites suggest approval ?

----------


## idispense

> Sorry, not sure where the contradiction is? I've stated several times now that educating the public on the value of ECPs is the best method.
> 
> And I'm not saying onliners/unregulated providers etc should be allowed to be run unchecked, but the bottom line is that even if they are prevented by law, the end goal of getting people to buy from ECPs won't happen. Look at pirating, it's illegal but it doesn't stop millions and millions from doing it. An individual will justify their reasoning to do something illegal if they don't think the law should exist. We can fight the long battle of trying to make buying online illegal and impossible, but even if we win (which I feel is impossible), the public will break the law to purchase their optical products.
> 
> As long as the public doesn't see the value of ECPs, we're all bound to lose. So rather than fight a losing battle, we educate the public to make the right decision.



our money flows to the associations  and colleges are they educating the public about the values you speak ?

----------


## MT

> our money flows to the associations  and colleges are they educating the public about the values you speak ?


I assumed that's what original post for this entire thread was all about - educating the public on ECP expertise? You can see in the link that opticians are actually providing value and answers to the questions from the public, it's a small instance of what needs to be done.

----------


## HindSight2020

> Doesn't "visionary and partner"  suggest that two or more parties are working in unison or partnership to fulfill a joint vision ? 
> 
> Now  what's the joint vision ? E runs online stores so does that mean that vision is shared ? 
> 
> Does the act of running the ads on their web sites suggest approval ?


I don't see or interpret it as unison for a common goal. I see it more as pay money to keep the higher ups in charge of policies and policing silent with their heads in the sand.

----------


## MT

> Thanks Chris. I see your point but I'm more of a straight shooter cut to the chase kind of person. 
> 
> That said, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of wining and dining to accompany that relationship or 'partnership'.


Hindsight, you say you're a straight shooter and cutting to the point, but the point you made about "where the money comes from" seems irrelevant to the solution to the situation. It seems like you're saying that if the money came from a different source, say, out of thin air, a different (better?) strategy would be executed.

So, say money is acquired out of thin air, what would you suggest happen from there?

----------


## MT

> I don't see or interpret it as unison for a common goal. I see it more as pay money to keep the higher ups in charge of policies and policing silent with their heads in the sand.


Whether or not this is true doesn't even matter. If the public doesn't see value in ECPs, laws ain't going to change anything. You make buying online illegal, so what? Pirating is too. Millions do it. There's no reason for the public to follow the law even if it exists.

----------


## idispense

> Whether or not this is true doesn't even matter. If the public doesn't see value in ECPs, laws ain't going to change anything. You make buying online illegal, so what? Pirating is too. Millions do it. There's no reason for the public to follow the law even if it exists.


Does that same line of thinking apply to the on liners not obeying rules ?

----------


## MT

> Does that same line of thinking apply to the on liners not obeying rules ?


Sorry, I actually don't quite understand your question. Can you expand on it?

I think what you're saying is that onliners won't obey the rules even if there's laws, and yes, I do think that would be the case. Even if onliners are given strict laws to obey, much like uploaders of torrents (piraters), as long as consumers demand it, onliners will find a loophole or a way to sell.

I think there are really strict laws right now about the owners of some pirating sites, and their owners are being placed in jail etc, but they continue to operate and piraters continue to pirate, because the consumers demand it. But if consumers don't demand it, then there's no reason for them to take the risk (no money)

----------


## idispense

> Sorry, I actually don't quite understand your question. Can you expand on it?
> 
> I think what you're saying is that onliners won't obey the rules even if there's laws, and yes, I do think that would be the case. Even if onliners are given strict laws to obey, much like uploaders of torrents (piraters), as long as consumers demand it, onliners will find a loophole or a way to sell.
> 
> I think there are really strict laws right now about the owners of some pirating sites, and their owners are being placed in jail etc, but they continue to operate and piraters continue to pirate, because the consumers demand it. But if consumers don't demand it, then there's no reason for them to take the risk (no money)


So if that's the case why would we want these sorts as our partners ?

----------


## MT

> So if that's the case why would we want these sorts as our partners ?


Okay, assuming these sorts of onliners are our partners, I'm assuming it is so for the end goal of educating the public. I say, as long as the initiatives aren't flawed by the funding, then who cares where the money comes from? As Chris mentioned before, the public doesn't know nor do they care, so why do you?

Let's look at the alternative, say we aren't partners with the onliners, what happens then? There's no money to educate the public to get consumers on our side. What sort of miracle are you expecting to happen if they aren't our partners?

----------


## idispense

> Okay, assuming these sorts of onliners are our partners, I'm assuming it is so for the end goal of educating the public. I say, as long as the initiatives aren't flawed by the funding, then who cares where the money comes from? As Chris mentioned before, the public doesn't know nor do they care, so why do you?
> 
> Let's look at the alternative, say we aren't partners with the onliners, what happens then? There's no money to educate the public to get consumers on our side. What sort of miracle are you expecting to happen if they aren't our partners?


ethics

----------


## HindSight2020

> Whether or not this is true doesn't even matter. If the public doesn't see value in ECPs, laws ain't going to change anything. You make buying online illegal, so what? Pirating is too. Millions do it. There's no reason for the public to follow the law even if it exists.


Great post Marc. I beg to differ; the fact is this is 100% true and factual and happening.  Regardless if the general public don't see the value in ECP's is irrelevant. 

True, piracy and copyright infringement is also illegal, a small percentage of those 'cheap consumers' do get charged in the courts on a regular basis and rightfully so. 

So, does spinning this thread and the wheel make it right and legal just to save money and step on an ECP who's invested heavily into their own brick and mortar venture?

I doubt it.

----------


## MT

[QUOTE=idispense;494593]


> Okay, assuming these sorts of onliners are our partners, I'm assuming it is so for the end goal of educating the public. I say, as long as the initiatives aren't flawed by the funding, then who cares where the money comes from? As Chris mentioned before, the public doesn't know nor do they care, so why do you?
> 
> Let's look at the alternative, say we aren't partners with the onliners, what happens then? There's no money to educate the public to get consumers on our side. What sort of miracle are you expecting to happen if they aren't our partners?[/QUOTE
> 
> ethics


Okay, so if it's about ethics, then the conversation ends here. I guess there's nothing we can do but sit here and twiddle our thumbs and complain on optiboard!

----------


## MT

> Great post Marc. I beg to differ; the fact is this is 100% true and factual and happening.  Regardless if the general public don't see the value in ECP's is irrelevant. 
> 
> True, piracy and copyright infringement is also illegal, a small percentage of those 'cheap consumers' do get charged in the courts on a regular basis and rightfully so. 
> 
> So, does spinning this thread and the wheel make it right and legal just to save money and step on an ECP who's invested heavily into their own brick and mortar venture?
> 
> I doubt it.


ECP's who have invested heavily into their brick and mortar and are complaining about the law being a problem. I am merely stating that the law is not going to do anything, it's the education of the public that will solve the problem. If we agree on that, then the discussion is HOW and WITH WHAT MEANS we're educating the public. If I'm correct, then the main concern is the moral issue of all this?

----------


## HindSight2020

It's rather humorous when an individual hits a dead end, quotes their own previous quote then throws in the towel.

----------


## HindSight2020

> ECP's who have invested heavily into their brick and mortar and are complaining about the law being a problem. I am merely stating that the law is not going to do anything, it's the education of the public that will solve the problem. If we agree on that, then the discussion is HOW and WITH WHAT MEANS we're educating the public. If I'm correct, then the main concern is the moral issue of all this?


Clearly you have never invested into your own venture and took substantial risk to survive. 

Collecting a salary from an employer regardless of how big they are doesn't count. 

One must step into an owner's shoes to understand.

----------


## MT

> Clearly you have never invested into your own venture and took substantial risk to survive. 
> 
> Collecting a salary from an employer regardless of how big they are doesn't count. 
> 
> One must step into an owner's shoes to understand.


I co-own my own business (hope that counts). We can be upset about the morality about it, but if we do nothing about it but complain, then I feel it's a waste of time. What's done is done, it may suck but as a owner you know that playing victim is not going to do anything. All I'm saying is let's think ahead and start trying to solve the problem.

----------


## idispense

[QUOTE=MT;494596]


> Okay, so if it's about ethics, then the conversation ends here. I guess there's nothing we can do but sit here and twiddle our thumbs and complain on optiboard!


Or fix it then change the funding.

----------


## MT

[QUOTE=idispense;494611]


> Or fix it then change the funding.


Then perhaps this is more an emotional/moral issue than what the original post is about. Sharing our knowledge seems to be the correct direction, so my only point of view was to make the best of the current situation by educating the public, since that is all that we have control over.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *then perhaps this is more an emotional/moral issue than what the original post is about. Sharing our knowledge seems to be the correct direction, so my only point of view was to make the best of the current situation by educating the public, since that is all that we have control over.*



How would you educate the consumer that he should pay xxxx amount more to a B&M store when he can get it delivered to his home in good brand name quality for xxxx amount less ?

You have promoted the latest technologies and products in the field for years and you have already educated the consumer of what to purchase. 
The only difference is the price.

Question:.......Would a good looking women ever go to have her hair cut by a cheaper internet machine ............????        No Way 

However an good optician can properly adjust, measure and check what comes straight from a lab.

----------


## Golfnorth

> Worked out fine for the on liners. And who owns the largest on liners ? E ? 
> 
> Are you supporting them now ?


What I am saying is that you have been whining on about this issue for what seems like years and years. So I'm challenging you to put up or shuttup! If you believe in your cause then refused to pay your own fees instead of going on about it here ad naseum. If not then you are nothing but a rabble rouser with nothing better to do in your spare time then stir things up on Optiboard. 
If I don't see that your liscence has been suspended due to non payment of fees next year you would be nothing but a flake.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *What I am saying is that you have been whining on about this issue for what seems like years and years. So I'm challenging you to put up or shuttup! If you believe in your cause then refused to pay your own fees instead of going on about it here ad naseum. If not then you are nothing but a rabble rouser with nothing better to do in your spare time then stir things up on Optiboard. 
> If I don't see that your liscence has been suspended due to non payment of fees next year you would be nothing but a flake.*



In this world of anonymity as OptiBoard members are discussing finally on an open basis one of the most important situations, worse than ever, during the old days of the "Imperial Optical Empire", we should leave personal feelings against one or the other posters on the side of the track. 

We do not want a thread being closed because it becomes too personal.

----------


## Golfnorth

> In this world of anonymity as OptiBoard members are discussing finally on an open basis one of the most important situations, worse than ever, during the old days of the "Imperial Optical Empire", we should leave personal feelings against one or the other posters on the side of the track. 
> 
> We do not want a thread being closed because it becomes too personal.


Chris......there is absolutely no anonymity going on here.
The other poster and I do actually know one another. I
 have no ill feelings towards him.....only what he writes on most occasions.
Go fish.

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## MT

> How would you educate the consumer that he should pay xxxx amount more to a B&M store when he can get it delivered to his home in good brand name quality for xxxx amount less ?
> 
> You have promoted the latest technologies and products in the field for years and you have already educated the consumer of what to purchase. 
> The only difference is the price.
> 
> Question:.......Would a good looking women ever go to have her hair cut by a cheaper internet machine ............????        No Way 
> 
> However an good optician can properly adjust, measure and check what comes straight from a lab.


What I am exactly referring to is the last sentence you wrote - educating the consumer on the value an optician provides (properly adjusting, measuring, checking among other things), not educating on the technology/products. It's all about the value an optician provides.

----------


## idispense

Who will educate the consumer on the hypocrisy of opticians,maintaining visionary partners that own the on line stores selling into regulated provinces ? Will your education of the public exclude this ? How will your education of the public speak to the licensing and the Minister of Health allowing this? Will you educate about licensing or whitewash it ? 

License fees form a portion of the cost of the consumers eyeglasses, how will you explain why the public should pay this cost when onliners may not be licensed therefore cheaper?

----------


## Chris Ryser

How are you to educate the public, that in the strongest regulated Canadian Province as Quebec, apparently the Government has partially financed a now very successful on-line optical, as
 
*BonLook Eyewear, Montreal

………………….http://bonlook.com 

today's Alexa rating 175,346, in USA****6,589

*(today they announced that they are also shipping in Canada, so some last legal hurdle must have been solved.)



 as per my on-line listings at:  http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm 
where I have been keeping close track of the developments for soon 8 years.

----------


## HindSight2020

> What I am exactly referring to is the last sentence you wrote - educating the consumer on the value an optician provides (properly adjusting, measuring, checking among other things), not educating on the technology/products. It's all about the value an optician provides.


You are completely wrong.  Amongst the various skills where an optician provides exceptional value, there is also an equally important area of technical expertise on products/technology that also must be provided by the optician to the consumer, not the manufacturer.   

The manufacturer's responsibilities include product development, ECP technical training, ECP direct-assist marketing and consumer marketing (simple, brief, non-misleading jargon) to create interest and have the consumers be directed to an ECP, not a non-regulated illegal website.

It's rather humorous how this thread began by the opticians council, started a great debate with many good posts, attracted interest and banter from a key individual associated with the main sponsor of the optician council, now the optician council sits silent and has stopped posting.  Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

----------


## idispense

> What I am exactly referring to is the last sentence you wrote - educating the consumer on the value an optician provides (properly adjusting, measuring, checking among other things), not educating on the technology/products. It's all about the value an optician provides.



Try explaining  to your membership who owns the on liners, then try polling them to see how they feel about this hypocrisy of Visionary Partners vs regulation. You have no credibility. 

How would you expect consumers to have faith in a system built this way ? 

On top of that you are promoting the notion that "it doesn't matter the source of the funding" . Again you have no credibility. 

The moment you try steering consumers towards ECP s vs on liners then the on liners will point out that they are endorsed by ECPs and point the consumers to the appropriate association web sites for vindication. If not that then they'll gladly point out that no regulatory body is pursuing the matter.

----------


## MT

> Who will educate the consumer on the hypocrisy of opticians,maintaining visionary partners that own the on line stores selling into regulated provinces ? Will your education of the public exclude this ? How will your education of the public speak to the licensing and the Minister of Health allowing this? Will you educate about licensing or whitewash it ? 
> 
> License fees form a portion of the cost of the consumers eyeglasses, how will you explain why the public should pay this cost when onliners may not be licensed therefore cheaper?


Because the licensing is the explanation for the additional cost/value. I think I explained this earlier before. As for the hypocrisy, like I said, it's beyond control for ECPs. So, making the best out of the situation is educating the public on optician's value. If you're looking to educate the public on the source of the financial contributions, I would like to know why.

----------


## MT

> You are completely wrong.  Amongst the various skills where an optician provides exceptional value, there is also an equally important area of technical expertise on products/technology that also must be provided by the optician to the consumer, not the manufacturer.   
> 
> The manufacturer's responsibilities include product development, ECP technical training, ECP direct-assist marketing and consumer marketing (simple, brief, non-misleading jargon) to create interest and have the consumers be directed to an ECP, not a non-regulated illegal website.
> 
> It's rather humorous how this thread began by the opticians council, started a great debate with many good posts, attracted interest and banter from a key individual associated with the main sponsor of the optician council, now the optician council sits silent and has stopped posting.  Things that make you go hmmmmmm.


To say I'm completely wrong is ignoring the point I'm trying to make. In order to educate the consumers on why to pay XX amount more at B&M rather than online is to provide value as an optician. All the knowledge attained that online can't provide, and sharing that knowledge so there's more trust than online.

Like I said before, even if there was an option to get surgery from someone unregulated and it was cheaper, we would all still prefer the person that is regulated right? So how do we convey the same value to the public? The issue right now is that public can focus on price because they don't see enough of the value opticians provide

----------


## MT

> Try explaining  to your membership who owns the on liners, then try polling them to see how they feel about this hypocrisy of Visionary Partners vs regulation. You have no credibility. 
> 
> How would you expect consumers to have faith in a system built this way ? 
> 
> On top of that you are promoting the notion that "it doesn't matter the source of the funding" . Again you have no credibility. 
> 
> The moment you try steering consumers towards ECP s vs on liners then the on liners will point out that they are endorsed by ECPs and point the consumers to the appropriate association web sites for vindication. If not that then they'll gladly point out that no regulatory body is pursuing the matter.


What would be the point in seeing what membership thinks? What matters is what your consumers think. They do not know about any of this. We as consumers also do not know the truths about all the products we buy (and i'm sure there's huge corruption involved in some of the products we buy).

Look at Dove, for example: http://bellejar.ca/2013/04/22/dove-d...eel-beautiful/. Consumers have long associated Dove for the opposite of what this article is saying. They are still doing very well as a company. You can find this with almost any successful organization, including Google, who's mandate is to "do no evil".

----------


## MT

> It's rather humorous how this thread began by the opticians council, started a great debate with many good posts, attracted interest and banter from a key individual associated with the main sponsor of the optician council, now the optician council sits silent and has stopped posting. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.


The key individual associated with the main sponsor of the opticians council is? If you're implying it's me, you are so wrong. I have no money to sponsor anything.

The opticians council post is about sharing expertise with the public, and all that is happening is complaining about the source of money. Something that none of the public knows nor cares about. Read my post above

----------


## HindSight2020

> The key individual associated with the main sponsor of the opticians council is? If you're implying it's me, you are so wrong. I have no money to sponsor anything.
> 
> The opticians council post is about sharing expertise with the public, and all that is happening is complaining about the source of money. Something that none of the public knows nor cares about. Read my post above


Let's let the opticians council chime in with some clarification. Heck, this is their thread!

On a more positive note, happy thanksgiving everyone.

----------


## idispense

> What would be the point in seeing what membership thinks? What matters is what your consumers think. They do not know about any of this. We as consumers also do not know the truths about all the products we buy (and i'm sure there's huge corruption involved in some of the products we buy).
> 
> Look at Dove, for example: http://bellejar.ca/2013/04/22/dove-d...eel-beautiful/. Consumers have long associated Dove for the opposite of what this article is saying. They are still doing very well as a company. You can find this with almost any successful organization, including Google, who's mandate is to "do no evil".




"What would be the point in seeing what membership thinks?"

You slay me !  Therein is the problem !!

----------


## MT

> Let's let the opticians council chime in with some clarification. Heck, this is their thread!
> 
> On a more positive note, happy thanksgiving everyone.


Yes, Happy Thanksgiving all!

----------


## MT

> "What would be the point in seeing what membership thinks?"
> 
> You slay me !  Therein is the problem !!


Please explain further what you mean. Perhaps what you see as the problem and what I see is the problem is different.

If it's about ethics/morality than I've explained enough my point of view

----------


## Chris Ryser

I just went on Google and asked the question and got the following answer:





> asking Google
> 
> *GOOGLE  :* *why not to buy glasses on-line
> *
> *answers:     About 181,000,000 results** (0.37 seconds)* 
> Did you mean:  Why not to buy glasses *online*



Why do we want to educate the consumer "why not to buy glasses online" when the worlds largest search engine finds 181 Million answers in a little over 30 seconds.

...................and many of these answers come with and from legitimate website addresses while OptiBoard has:




> *Members**24,979**Active Members**982
> 
> *There are currently 459 users online. 4 members and 455 guests


............where most of the active membership post's under an incognito signature.

I strongly believe that among these 181 Million answers will be many valid ones, you can take into consideration for your purpose to educate the consumer, why not to buy glasses online.

And then to finish I asked the following simple question:





> asking Google
> 
> *GOOGLE  :*       why should we buy glasses on-line
> *answers:  * About 139,000,000 results (0.38 seconds)



The argument is already 50 million answer ahead for the *NOT TO BUY ONLINE side.*

However predictions where that the online glasses sales would increase by about 7 millions in 2014 at the beginning of this year.

Are we not back to:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote

----------


## MT

> I just went on Google and asked the question and got the following answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we want to educate the consumer "why not to buy glasses online" when the worlds largest search engine finds 181 Million answers in a little over 30 seconds.


There's a distinct difference between educating on "why not to buy glasses online" and "why you should buy from an optician". The two are not mutually exclusive. The states have proven that opticians have been able to successfully sell optical products online. I don't think being anti-internet is the direction, it's more like pro-optician.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *The states have proven that opticians have been able to successfully sell optical products online. I don't think being anti-internet is the direction, it's more like pro-optician.
> *



As far as I learned, how can you be pro optician as far as the internet surfer is concerned, if the internet optical s of which a large part is now owned by the worlds largest optical manufacturer and supplier group to the opticians, is advertising the same goods at prices to the consumer at less than 50% of the official retail market.

In the new deflationary mode the world is switching to these days, they just might convince the consumer even more to look for good bargains on the web.

The internet is doing a lot of good by providing instant communication around the world in seconds.

----------


## MT

> As far as I learned, how can you be pro optician as far as the internet surfer is concerned, if the internet optical s of which a large part is now owned by the worlds largest optical manufacturer and supplier group to the opticians, is advertising the same goods at prices to the consumer at less than 50% of the official retail market.
> 
> In the new deflationary mode the world is switching to these days, they just might convince the consumer even more to look for good bargains on the web.
> 
> The internet is doing a lot of good by providing instant communication around the world in seconds.


Well you can be pro-optician by emphasizing the value an optician brings to the table? Do you actually think that opticians have no value or something? Right now, the consumer is only thinking about price in your scenario, but what if there are other factors?

You mention good bargains on the web which is true, but that means you're only focusing on the pricing benefits, and not the health benefits that opticians can provide.

If you're talking about the largest optical manufacturer owning the largest internet optical, I don't think the general public knows/thinks about that stuff. As an independent B&M, just provide value/educate your patients on where your value is and have them make the choice from there

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If you're talking about the largest optical manufacturer owning the largest internet optical, I don't think the general public knows/thinks about that stuff. As an independent B&M, just provide value/educate your patients on where your value is and have them make the choice from there.
> *



MT ......................the young consumers have grown up with computers and lap tops and now surf the web on their pocket devices day and night. The older generation might not know and care. But in no time the middle age ones  which are fully computer savvy will be the older generation in need of glasses in any corner of the globe, and they will know at what to look.

Industry is slowly moving from China to India. The large optical corporations have been prepared for that for many years.

The independent ECP's have to change their age old system and charge for their ability to solve problems and knowing how to function, instead of adding it all into their selling price ahead of the game which makes the product a lot more expensive than offered by the on liners which are selling the bare bones. 

The largest corporation is preparing for the action world wide on the web
and ignoring it is not very wise. The proof is right here listed at the bottom of this post .........all the websites of discount glasses sold by them.

There are right now at least 15 of them I have listed on my website with the links, I mentioned on a thread above. And here they are:


*FramesDirect (Essilor USA)*

*evision.com**, redirects to*
* 1800 Contacts.com*

*Clearly Contacts Canada** (ESSILOR FRANCE)*

*Coastal Contacts-Glasses, * *(ESSILOR FRANCE)*

*Gkboptical.com India (Essilor- India)*

*Clearly Contact* *(Clearly Contacts)ESSILOR* *Australia**)*

*Lensway.co.uk* *(Clearly Contacts UK, ESSILOR)*

*Contactsan* *(Clearly Contacts China. ESSILOR)*

*Clearly Contacts* *(Clearly Contacts,NewZealand, ESSILOR)*

*Lensway* *(Clearly Contacts, ESSILOR)*

*Yasui Lens** (Clearly Contacts, Japan,ESSILOR)*

*MaxLens* *(Clearly Contacts)** Japan, ESSILOR)*

*Myonlineoptical.com (ESSILOR Austin Tx setting up Opticians online)* 

*CoastalLens (**Clearly Contacts)** Japan, ESSILOR)*

----------


## Golfnorth

Chris;

You have been crying wolf for some time now but I have to tell you (and you know) that the percentage of all prescription eyeglasses purchased online is about 4% in the U.S. Yes that's a lot of eyeglasses from a numbers perspective but I am not willing to change my business model and twist myself all out of shape for the 4% bottom-feeder part of the market. If this number spikes significantly I will certainly look at the way I do business closely. The small independents can change on a dime, it's the large corporations that have trouble shifting gears in a timely manner because of their size.

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *The small independents can change on a dime, it's the large corporations that have trouble shifting gears in a timely manner because of their size.*



Golfnorth.....................That is a good attitude and at least you are watching the pros and the cons.

These days you have to watch a global trend and not only the USA or even Canada.

----------


## MT

> Chris;
> 
> You have been crying wolf for some time now but I have to tell you (and you know) that the percentage of all prescription eyeglasses purchased online is about 4% in the U.S. Yes that's a lot of eyeglasses from a numbers perspective but I am not willing to change my business model and twist myself all out of shape for the 4% bottom-feeder part of the market. If this number spikes significantly I will certainly look at the way I do business closely. The small independents can change on a dime, it's the large corporations that have trouble shifting gears in a timely manner because of their size.
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth


Well said

----------


## Golfnorth

Thanks MT;

I know from a previous post that you are 50% owner in an enterprise.
What kind of optical business are you in? 

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------

