# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

## optio

From the LA Times. March 5, 2019

https://www.latimes.com/business/laz...305-story.html

Charles Dahan knows from first-hand experience how badly people get ripped off when buying eyeglasses.


He was once one of the leading suppliers of frames to LensCrafters, before the company was purchased by optical behemoth Luxottica. He also built machines that improved the lens-manufacturing process.


In other words, Dahan, 70, knows the eyewear business from start to finish. And he doesnt like whats happened.


There is no competition in the industry, not any more, he told me. Luxottica bought everyone. They set whatever prices they please.





Dahan, who lives in Potomac, Md., was responding to a column I recently wrote about why consumer prices for frames and lenses are so astronomically high, with markups often approaching 1,000%.


I noted that if you wear designer glasses, theres a very good chance youre wearing Luxottica frames.


The companys owned and licensed brands include Armani, Brooks Brothers, Burberry, Chanel, Coach, DKNY, Dolce & Gabbana, Michael Kors, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, Persol, Polo Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Tiffany, Valentino, Vogue and Versace.


Along with LensCrafters, Luxottica also runs Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Sunglass Hut and Target Optical, as well as the insurer EyeMed Vision Care.


And Italys Luxottica now casts an even longer shadow over the eyewear industry after merging last fall with Frances Essilor, the worlds leading maker of prescription eyeglass lenses and contact lenses. The combined entity is called EssilorLuxottica.


Just so you know up front, I reached out to both Luxottica and its parent company with what Dahan told me. I asked if theyd like to respond to his specific points or to speak generally about optical pricing.


Neither company responded, which was the same response I received the last time I contacted them.


Apparently EssilorLuxottica feels no need to defend its business practices. Or it understands that no reasonable defense is possible.


Dahan, a chemical engineer by training, established a company called Custom Optical in 1977 after designing a machine capable of making prescription lenses appear thinner.


In short order he also was designing plastic and metal frames, and proposed to LensCrafters in 1985 that he supply the then-independent company.


They bought my lens machines, and soon I was selling them a few models of frames, Dahan said. Those were successful, so they kept buying more.


Buying glasses online can save you a lot of money. Heres how to do it »

Eventually, he said, his company was supplying LensCrafters with about 20% of its frames. They called me their crown jewel, Dahan said.


E. Dean Butler, the founder of LensCrafters, remembers Dahan as a real go-getter.


He was a key supplier  good product at reasonable prices, Butler, 74, said in a phone interview from Berlin, where he was meeting with optical-industry contacts.


Hes no longer affiliated with LensCrafters. These days hes based in England, but serves as a consultant to optical businesses worldwide.


Both Butler and Dahan acknowledged what most consumers have long suspected: that the prices we pay for eyewear in no way reflect the actual cost of making frames and lenses.


When he was in the business, in the 1980s and 90s, Dahan said it cost him between $10 and $16 to manufacture a pair of quality plastic or metal frames.


Lenses, he said, might cost about $5 a pair to produce. With fancy coatings, that could boost the price all the way to $15.


He said LensCrafters would turn around and charge $99 for completed glasses that cost $20 or $30 to make  and this was well below what many independent opticians charged. Nowadays, he said, those same glasses at LensCrafters might cost hundreds of dollars.


Butler said he recently visited factories in China where many glasses for the U.S. market are manufactured. Improved technology has made prices even lower than what Dahan recalled.


You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8, Butler said. For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what youd get from Prada.


And lenses? You can buy absolutely first-quality lenses for $1.25 apiece, Butler said.


Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800.


Butler laughed. I know, he said. Its ridiculous. Its a complete rip-off.


In 1995, Luxottica purchased LensCrafters parent company, U.S. Shoe Corp., for $1.4 billion. The goal wasnt to get into the shoe business. It was to take control of LensCrafters hundreds of stores nationwide.


Dahan said things went downhill for him after that. Luxottica increasingly emphasized its own frames over those of outside suppliers, he said, and Custom Opticals sales plunged. Dahan was forced to close his business in 2001.


It wasnt just me, he said. It happened to a lot of companies. Look at Oakley.


Indeed, the California maker of premium sunglasses was embraced by skiers and other outdoorsy types after it released its first sunglasses in 1984.


It raised $230 million with an initial public offering of stock in 1995. Its biggest customer by far was Sunglass Hut, which, like LensCrafters, had stores in malls across the country.


Luxottica purchased Sunglass Hut in early 2001. It promptly told Oakley it wanted to pay significantly lower wholesale prices or it would reduce its orders and push its own brands instead.


Within months, Oakley acknowledged to shareholders that the talks hadnt gone well and that Luxottica was slashing its orders.


We have made every reasonable effort to establish a mutually beneficial business partnership with Luxottica, but it is clear from this week's surprising actions that our efforts have been ignored, Oakleys management said in a statement at the time.


The companys stock immediately lost more than a third of its value.


Luxottica acquired Oakley a few years later, adding it to Ray-Ban, which Luxottica obtained in 1999.


Thats how they gained control of so many brands, Dahan said. If you dont do what they want, they cut you off.


Again, no one at Luxottica responded to my request for comment.


As Ive previously observed, online glasses sales hold potential for pushing retail eyewear prices lower, but the e-glasses industry still has a ways to go before posing a threat to the likes of EssilorLuxottica.


It can be a challenge buying something so central to ones appearance without first trying it on or receiving hands-on help with fitting.


In the meantime, Dahan and Butler told me, federal authorities should step up and prevent price gouging for eyewear  just as theyve done with other healthcare products, such as EpiPens.


Federal officials fell asleep at the wheel, Dahan said. They should never have allowed all these companies to roll into one. It destroyed competition.


Butler said it should be clear from EssilorLuxotticas practices that the company has too much market power. If thats not a monopoly, he said, I dont know what is.


I couldnt agree more. Regulators are currently wringing their hands over further consolidation in the wireless industry, with a proposed merger between Sprint and T-Mobile raising the prospect of just three major carriers.


The eyewear market is in considerably worse shape.


That should be clear to anyone.

----------


## mervinek

It's what we all know... just in print.

----------


## optimensch

so....the ads I see on tv for zenni which promote $6.95 complete eyeglasses - this is not competition? Who says there is no competition? this is a total fluff piece, useless information on the reporter's part.

----------


## lensmanmd

Sensationalism.   No one reports on the outrageous per hr fees that auto mechanics charge, or their markups.  And what about Pharms?   But our industry is under sieg?   Labor, overhead, free redos, all accounts in our pricing.  Zenni, WP, et al, do not offer free redos if the RX is off.  We do.  It’s the cost of doing business.  What about insurance write offs, or better yet, insurance ripoffs.  Part of the price of doing business.  
The EssiLux empire, including EyeMed needs to be sanctioned for their monopoly.  The organization is equivalent to the RICO act.  Manufacturing equipment, frames, lenses, labs, retail, consumables and even online retail.  They have free will to set prices.  How is that not illegal worldwide?   Lobbying governments.  That is how they get it done.  
As for on line opticals, some truth in advertising will go a long way.  Disclose redo policies up front.  That alone will get some to shy away.  Nothing worse than getting stuck with something you can never use.

----------


## mervinek

> The EssiLux empire, including EyeMed needs to be sanctioned for their monopoly.  The organization is equivalent to the RICO act.  Manufacturing equipment, frames, lenses, labs, retail, consumables and even online retail.  They have free will to set prices.  How is that not illegal worldwide?   Lobbying governments.  That is how they get it done.


+1

----------


## optimensch

> Manufacturing equipment, frames, lenses, labs, retail, consumables and even online retail.  They have free will to set prices.  How is that not illegal worldwide? .


Not to be too defensive of Essilor, but I can buy equipment from Topcon, Nidek and various Chinese and American suppliers which are not, to my knowledge, owned by Essilor. I can buy frames and lenses from non-Essilux companies (and I do). So while there are fewer large suppliers than in the past (as in other industries), I am not so sure that there is anything special about optical. Consumers have never had so many options either. Nonsense news articles such as this LA Times crapola are pure laziness, sensationalist and big deal they found a disgruntled "insider" who may have lost his gravy train who is now "telling all". As if.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Not to be too defensive of Essilor, but I can buy equipment from Topcon, Nidek and various Chinese and American suppliers which are not, to my knowledge, owned by Essilor. I can buy frames and lenses from non-Essilux companies (and I do). So while there are fewer large suppliers than in the past (as in other industries), I am not so sure that there is anything special about optical.* *Consumers have never had so many options either. Nonsense news articles such as this LA Times crapola are pure laziness, sensationalist and big deal they found a disgruntled "insider" who may have lost his gravy train who is now "telling all"**. As if.
> *



optimensch,...................If you would have followed the  posts on Essilor's "optical world domination " posts right here on optiBOARD, over the last few years. you would see that they are moving forward step by step without stopping, and counter no visible defensive action at this time.

Their now largest participation in and of any single group, in quality online optical services should give you the shivers, instead of making belittling comments.

The 2 disgruntled "insiders" you mention were the 2 owners of the original "Lenscrafters" chain, who walked away with many millions of Dollars when they sold it to Luxottica.

----------


## optio

> so....the ads I see on tv for zenni which promote $6.95 complete eyeglasses - this is not competition? Who says there is no competition?


Some would say that a would-be customer walking into a mall-based retail environment will not encounter a lot of non-luxottica options to buy eyewear.

A non-competitive monopoly does not necessarily have to imply an absolute monopoly.

----------


## optimensch

> Some would say that a would-be customer walking into a mall-based retail environment will not encounter a lot of non-luxottica options to buy eyewear.
> 
> A non-competitive monopoly does not necessarily have to imply an absolute monopoly.


Malls may not be such a useful example given how they are in a general decline, and as purchases move online there are certainly plenty of non essilux players since the barrier to entry is fairly low.  In Canada we have Centennial, Hoya, Zeiss and surely other non essilux choices and you can go to any major trade show and find plenty of non essilux suppliers of frames, lenses and equipment. I think there is plenty of competition at both the retail and wholesale level, not necessarily an optimal amount, and I am not here to defend essilux at all - I buy from them and I buy from many other suppliers too. Is someone forcing you to purchase from them? Is most of your competition really essilux-owned? How about the contact lens market - is the competition there sufficient in your opinion, both at wholesale and retail?

----------


## optio

> Malls may not be such a useful example given how they are in a general decline, and as purchases move online there are certainly plenty of non essilux players since the barrier to entry is fairly low.  In Canada we have Centennial, Hoya, Zeiss and surely other non essilux choices and you can go to any major trade show and find plenty of non essilux suppliers of frames, lenses and equipment. I think there is plenty of competition at both the retail and wholesale level, not necessarily an optimal amount, and I am not here to defend essilux at all - I buy from them and I buy from many other suppliers too. Is someone forcing you to purchase from them? Is most of your competition really essilux-owned? How about the contact lens market - is the competition there sufficient in your opinion, both at wholesale and retail?


Perhaps you and I are reading something different when we read the article. To me, the the author is reporting about rip-off mark-ups on glasses in the retail environment.  His explanation for this is a Luxottica monopoly.  Whether you believe there is sufficient competition in retail and wholesale lens and frame suppliers is beside the point.  Do you agree or disagree that there are rip-off mark-ups for the average retail consumer?  What, for instance, is your mark-up for the items the journalist is reporting about?

----------


## optio

I'm also going to opine that I don't think you would do very well in a basic test of reading comprehension. 

 The title of the article is:  How badly are *we* being ripped off on eyewear? 

 I think the "we" is intended to describe people NOT in the industry.  So people who aren't (for instance) opticians and optometrists. In either words, neither you nor me.  Yet look at your post.




> Malls may not be such a useful example given how they are in a general decline, and as purchases move online there are certainly plenty of non essilux players since the barrier to entry is fairly low.  In Canada we have Centennial, Hoya, Zeiss and surely other non essilux choices and *you can go to any major trade show* and find plenty of non essilux suppliers of frames, lenses and equipment. It think there is plenty of competition at both the retail and wholesale level, not necessarily an optimal amount, and I am not here to defend essilux at all - *I buy from them* and I buy from many other suppliers too. Is someone forcing *you to purchase from them*? Is most of *your competition* really essilux-owned? How about the contact lens market - is the competition there sufficient in your opinion, both at wholesale and retail?


Why does an article written by and for non-optical people elicit a response from you detailing all your potential (optometric) purchase avenues?  You aren't part of the "we" that the journalist is reporting about.  You (and me) are on the "other" side of his basic argument.  I'm not sure how you missed that.

----------


## optimensch

> I'm also going to opine that I don't think you would do very well in a basic test of reading comprehension. 
> 
>  The title of the article is:  How badly are *we* being ripped off on eyewear? 
> 
>  I think the "we" is intended to describe people NOT in the industry.  So people who aren't (for instance) opticians and optometrists. In either words, neither you nor me.  Yet look at your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does an article written by and for non-optical people elicit a response from you detailing all your potential (optometric) purchase avenues?  You aren't part of the "we" that the journalist is reporting about.  You (and me) are on the "other" side of his basic argument.  I'm not sure how you missed that.


Really. Very collegial comments, thanks.

I started with a reply in this thread that I felt that in fact CONSUMERS have plenty of choice, I did not reference our alternative optical suppliers. In fact I pointed out that strangely, if ESSILUX is a monopoly, that it was notable that the ads I see on TV lately are by Zenni and WP, 2 major low cost alternatives to Essilux. The difference is I can also read between the lines, follow a thread and not be rude. You might consider some manners. This piece has a lot to do with the essilux monopoly and the piece is in the BUSINESS section. Where is the monopoly - at wholesale? retail? both? Is this crystal clear from this article? Why is pointing out myriad competitors at BOTH wholesale AND retail so off topic to you?

----------


## optio

Convenient for you to ignore my earlier post.  Here it is again:

_Perhaps you and I are reading something different when we read the article. To me, the the author is reporting about rip-off mark-ups on glasses in the retail environment. His explanation for this is a Luxottica monopoly. Whether you believe there is sufficient competition in retail and wholesale lens and frame suppliers is beside the point. Do you agree or disagree that there are rip-off mark-ups for the average retail consumer? What, for instance, is your mark-up for the items the journalist is reporting about?_

There is no need to read between the lines.  Just read what the lines say.  The journalist reports:

*“You can buy absolutely first-quality lenses for $1.25 apiece,” Butler said.
Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800.
*
If the article can be distilled into two sentences, these would be the two.  I don't dispute his claim because the prices claimed are consistent with what I know about the optical industry.  Now, the journalist overlooks the price of frames in there (let's say $15).  So two lenses plus frames comes to $17.50. And that item is then sold for $800.  Is that newsworthy?  I'm not a news editor but I'm going to assume the editor of the LA Times is competent, and he deems that newsworthy so I'm going to assume it's newsworthy to non-industry folk.

You wrote:
*>Where is the monopoly - at wholesale? retail? both?*

The article is claiming a monopoly by Luxottica, and (I don't want to put words in his mouth but) it's largely implied the monopoly is occurring at brick and mortar retail.  Though you appear to be in disagreement with the article (you called it a "fluff" piece), in some sense, your listing of the myriad of competitors at the wholesale level provides evidence for the article's main claim.  Because in order for the retailers to buy lenses at $1.25 (which is a pretty small capital investment for a retail item), there must be an active and truly competitive wholesale environment for quality lenses to be sold at such a nominal cost.  So although the journalist doesn't reference healthy wholesale competition, your post in fact is consistent with what the journalist is reporting.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I'm also going to opine that I don't think you would do very well in a basic test of reading comprehension. 
> 
> **The title of the article is:  How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear?* *I think the "we" is intended to describe people NOT in the industry.**  So people who aren't (for instance) opticians and optometrists. In either words, neither you nor me.  Yet look at your post.
> 
> **Why does an article written by and for non-optical people elicit a response from you detailing all your potential (optometric) purchase avenues?**  You aren't part of the "we" that the journalist is reporting about.  You (and me) are on the "other" side of his basic argument.  I'm not sure how you missed that.*



..............................a very good point overall.

As having lived and worked in the world of optical retail for whatever timespan it has been, we have been used to the way it was and now is.

We forget that when the optical retail profession became a specialised field in the early 1900's , the times of primitive instruments, machinery and glass lenses, using  a lot of manual work to make and finish a pair of glasses. If you would break a lens while finishing a job you had to restart all of it again. For that reason alone, opticians would charge a much higher markup, to cover for broken lenses and other redos, than is standard in other commercial fields. Furthermore the now standard historically higher markup in optical retail sales has survived just about a full century by one reason or another.

No wonder that non optical people are trying to get into this field by catering to the masses, at much lower pricing and still making money.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *There is no need to read between the lines.  Just read what the lines say.  The journalist reports:
> 
> “You can buy absolutely first-quality lenses for $1.25 apiece,” Butler said.
> Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800.
> 
> If the article can be distilled into two sentences, these would be the two.  I don't dispute his claim because the prices claimed are consistent with what I know about the optical industry.  Now, the journalist overlooks the price of frames in there (let's say $15).  So two lenses plus frames comes to $17.50. And that item is then sold for $800.  Is that newsworthy?  I'm not a news editor but I'm going to assume the editor of the LA Times is competent, and he deems that newsworthy so I'm going to assume it's newsworthy to non-industry folk.
> 
> You wrote:
> >Where is the monopoly - at wholesale? retail? both?
> *



Butler ..........................sold LensCrafters to Luxottica for millions of $s.

........and the lenses are Polycarbonate,  the easiest and cheapest ones to manufacture.

I have to agree it is newsworthy to the general public.

To follow the MONOPOLY...................just read up on Essilor ....Essilux and their worldwide progress right here on optiBoard.

----------


## optimensch

> Convenient for you to ignore my earlier post.  Here it is again:
> 
> _Perhaps you and I are reading something different when we read the article. To me, the the author is reporting about rip-off mark-ups on glasses in the retail environment. His explanation for this is a Luxottica monopoly. Whether you believe there is sufficient competition in retail and wholesale lens and frame suppliers is beside the point. Do you agree or disagree that there are rip-off mark-ups for the average retail consumer? What, for instance, is your mark-up for the items the journalist is reporting about?_
> 
> There is no need to read between the lines.  Just read what the lines say.  The journalist reports:
> 
> *“You can buy absolutely first-quality lenses for $1.25 apiece,” Butler said.
> Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800.
> *
> ...


The problem with your facile analysis of a news article claiming that glasses "cost" 17 bucks and get sold to ripped-off consumers for 800 bucks, and how this is "consistent" with what you know about the optical industry, is that it reveals that you don't really know all that much about the industry, in my opinion. Do you get an income statement at least yearly from your accountant? Have you examined your COGS? Why not look at the income statement of NEWLOOK, a publicly traded, vertically integrated and fairly successful optical retailer. Why not even look at ESSILUX's income statement for that matter. You show me the 97% margins that you are so familiar wtih and remind me how this is NOT in fact a total fluff piece. Every industry has its particularities and in the business section of a major paper you might expect something a little deeper in the way of analysis than this drivel. A first semester business student would be curious enough to dig at least a little below the surface, and hopefully an experienced optometrist would too. In this day and age, with all the information available at the click of a mouse, with Chris' Alibaba, WP, Zenni and all the other price discovery tools online, to talk about a "monopoly" selling 800 $ glasses with 97% margins as an example of what is going on in optical retail is silly and useless. Again, please, WHERE IS THE MONOPOLY?? Doesn't Vision Monday or one of the large publishers produce a top 100 optical retailers list? Does the monopoly show itself there? Not a single statistic cited in this garbabe article, just a hypothetical, generalized glob of crap about 18$ getting marked up to 800, with ZERO explanation of how this is evidence of a monopoly. Are you SERIOUS?

----------


## optimensch

> Some would say that a would-be customer walking into a mall-based retail environment will not encounter a lot of non-luxottica options to buy eyewear.
> 
> A non-competitive monopoly does not necessarily have to imply an absolute monopoly.


 right. there are no discount opticals in the malls and streets of america. No warby parkers, no costcos, no bonlooks. Only luxottica essilor. No Kering, no silhouette, no zeiss, no tom ford, no walmart, just the non competitive quasi monopoly. What nonsense. There is a lot of competition both at retail and wholesale, you can choose to look at this dumb article to draw your conclusion or actually open your eyes and look around you, and read something actually informative on the subject.

----------


## optimensch

> I'm also going to opine that I don't think you would do very well in a basic test of reading comprehension......Why does an article written by and for non-optical people elicit a response from you detailing all your potential (optometric) purchase avenues?  You aren't part of the "we" that the journalist is reporting about.  You (and me) are on the "other" side of his basic argument.  I'm not sure how you missed that.


I will opine a little further on your attitude. I run an independent full service practice, have more years of experience than I care to mention, have a number of utility patents in eyewear, have manufactured, distributed frames on a world wide basis, run multiple retail locations and basically done a fair bit in optical over the past few decades. I have sold eyewear to some of the biggest chains in the world.  I see patients almost every day, and might be one of the hardest working optometrists anywhere, if by hard working, hours logged count.I have attended countless optical tradeshows around the world and have read financial statements and other information on various players in the field, if only for sport and interest. I love our industry and I care deeply about its future. I don't claim any major expertise in anything and I choose to share some of my honestly held beliefs on this forum, with no ill intent, and with no personal negative attitude towards anyone and for no personal gain. Your little attempt at a smack down deserves a solid smack back, and you might want to reread all of this from the top and maybe take a little care in the future to not be a d--k.

----------


## lensmanmd

Basic formula for $17 COG equates to $99 retail, not $800.  Once payroll and overhead is factored in, profit is around $10, if there are no redos.  An $800 pair would mean COGs for frame and lenses is closer to $230 on average.  Factor in overhead and insurance write offs, profit is close to $90 on average.  
Sensationalist reporters won’t even bother to investigate this part of the business because 10% ROI isn’t as sexy as 400% ROI.  
optimensch, my friend, keep the trolls honest.

----------


## optimensch

“There is no competition in the industry, not any more,” he told me. “Luxottica bought everyone. They set whatever prices they please.”

actually this is the quote from the article which betrays its being total bs.
does this refer to retail or wholesale? 
didn't essilor basically buy luxottica, and not the reverse?
what percentage of retailers in North America are luxottica owned (by number of doors and by dollars sold)
what percentage of eyeglass frames sold in North America are produced by luxottica
what type of lens costs 1.25? is it high index? 1.74? coated? uncut? progressive? single vision? photochromic?
what is the wholesale cost of a luxury frame which retails for around $400 plus, and is produced by luxottica? what about a $400 plus luxury frame NOT produced by luxottica? like for instance LINDBERG or LUNOR? Are they part of the monopoly too? does it matter if the frames are made of better materials and in countries that are not China?
what is the average retail price of a frame in North America, in malls, on the street and online?
what is the average retail price of prescription lenses, by index and coatings? 
and yes, what is the average wholesale cost of said average frames and lenses?
take any recent optical trade show catalogue, how about Vision Expo East?? What percentage of companies exhibiting are Essilux Owned and what percentage of the industry do they "own"
lets look at retail - open up the yellow pages (ok google) and let's see how many retailers are in our town, and how many of these are luxottica owned, and how about we randomly check out 10 or so opticals and see what percentage of the boards are luxottica frames....
lets type eyeglasses into google and examine the search results of the first couple of pages - how many commercial hits are essilux owned? 
since when is a company deciding at what price it will sell its goods considered bad business practice and the sign of a monopoly?
What does a  typical optical retail income statement look like? how about essilux? newlook (the only readily available public optical retailer i could find)
Lots of this information is available on the googles machines by the way, if you cared to dig a little. 
Yet the the writer (and OP?) of the article cares not a whit to do anything more than lazily post a dumb anecdote about 800$ glasses which only cost 17$ therefore there is a monopoly in the malls of america. You want to throw around the MONOPOLY and greedy optical crap  ok, but answer at least some of the questions and show this is the case with some rigor and science. Not dumb anecdotes and gut feelings.

Clearly I must not have good reading comprehension given how much actual relevant  information and all-telling anecdotes are buried in this article.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I will opine a little further on your attitude.* *I run an independent full service practice, have more years of experience than I care to mention**, have a number of utility patents in eyewear, 
> 
> **have manufactured, distributed frames on a world wide basis, run multiple retail locations and basically done a fair bit in optical over the past few decades**. 
> 
> **I have sold eyewear to some of the biggest chains in the world**. 
> 
>  I see patients almost every day, and might be one of the hardest working optometrists anywhere, if by hard working, hours logged count.I have attended countless optical tradeshows around the world and have read financial statements and other information on various players in the field, if only for sport and interest. 
> *





.................... I am just wondering that with such a wide ranging business activity and experience , you still work as an Optometrist seeing one by one customer.

................and with all this experience you do not seem to see the writing on the wall. Your present customers age group is dying off, and are being replaced by another younger generation that embraces totally different ways of spending their money, and buying their goods.

----------


## optimensch

I will further add, on this sleepless night,  that articles such as this, which are so lazily crafted and inane, ought not to be read with too keen an eye and with too much attention because it can make you stupid. Keep it to some sort of meta analysis. Like a psychiatrist listening to a mentally ill patient, once the doctor establishes psychosis, it doesn't matter what the exact details in the story are, just that the person telling the story needs medication. Sometimes you should look with a microscope and sometimes with a telescope. Someone who reads this and believes it provides proof of an eyewear monopoly situation either at wholesale, retail or just in their mind is the person with a dysfunction of their reading comprehension or some other dysfunction. Back to True Detective Season 3, and see y'all at vision expo east where we will play a game of avoiding all booths connected to Essilux.

----------


## optimensch

> .................... I am just wondering that with such a wide ranging business activity and experience , you still work as an Optometrist seeing one by one customer.
> 
> ................and with all this experience you do not seem to see the writing on the wall. Your present customers age group is dying off, and are being replaced by another younger generation that embraces totally different ways of spending their money, and buying their goods.


I love seeing customers one by one and hope I can do it for a long time to come, if I can stay healthy. I am an optometrist and product development is a side passion. I see clients in their teens, twenties and nineties. They all have cell phones, facebook, instagram and mostly have heard of Warby Parker and Bonlook. They are not ill informed or ignorant. They may not be as clairvoyant as you chris, and so they still come to us independents where the choice is better, the service is better and the overall experience is better. It is really that simple. Not so hard to understand. I see the writing on the wall. It is all about technology right now and in the meantime guys and gals like me who integrate technology, new products, the right services at the right price are doing and will continue to do just fine. I was non stop busy all day, people waiting in line for exams and to buy glasses. Admittedly it was the first warm and sunny day in a while and Saturdays are our busiest day of the week, but this was exceptional. Warby who?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I will further add, on this sleepless night,  that articles such as this, which are so lazily crafted and inane, ought not to be read with too keen an eye and with too much attention because it can make you stupid. Keep it to some sort of meta analysis. Like a psychiatrist listening to a mentally ill patient, once the doctor establishes psychosis, it doesn't matter what the exact details in the story are, just that the person telling the story needs medication. 
> **
> Sometimes you should look with a microscope and sometimes with a telescope. Someone who reads this and believes it provides proof of an eyewear monopoly situation either at wholesale, retail or just in their mind is the person with a dysfunction of their reading comprehension or some other dysfunction. Back to True Detective Season 3, and see y'all at vision expo east where we will play a game of avoiding all booths connected to Essilux.
> *



You will not see me at Vision Expo East, I will stay in Florida in the warm weather, keeping my old bones warm in the local sun.

Having done all these exhibitions for many of the last 30 years as an exhibitor, I know all the nice and not so nice parts of it, and actually will not miss it, as it is always the same with some novelties thrown in for the interest.

----------


## optimensch

> Basic formula for $17 COG equates to $99 retail, not $800.  Once payroll and overhead is factored in, profit is around $10, if there are no redos.  An $800 pair would mean COGs for frame and lenses is closer to $230 on average.  Factor in overhead and insurance write offs, profit is close to $90 on average.  
> Sensationalist reporters wont even bother to investigate this part of the business because 10% ROI isnt as sexy as 400% ROI.  
> optimensch, my friend, keep the trolls honest.


Thanks, and gross profit does not equal net income or ebit. That will look even more regular world. If this article is true, eyewear is the most profitable business anywhere and Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and huge sovereign wealth funds, Jonson and Jonson (who know a thing about the optical trade) should be neck deep in optical retail. Elon Musk would be out of the electricity and space business and start opening up vertically integrated optical retail, the greatest business of all time. Yeah. Great article. great insight. Astronomical margins. Maybe they could get COGS to 1%, because you know, that is what builds a great business, they teach this at Harvard Business school don't you know.

----------


## optimensch

"In the meantime, Dahan and Butler told me, federal authorities should step up and prevent price gouging for eyewear — just as they’ve done with other healthcare products, such as EpiPens."

Epipens. Yes, poor consumers who can't afford $450 Oliver Peoples frames and $300 Oakleys will go blind, they have no other options! GOUGING IN OPTICAL will make America Go Blind. Make America See Again. OLIVER PEOPLES BAD. An optometrist posts an article for discussion (wait, was it posted to an optical forum for discussion? maybe I misunderstand the point of optiboard - Steve, am I missing something here?) with an actual line that equates Oakley prices with the pricing of Epipens, therefore federal authorities must act urgently, or else....the public will have no choice but to switch to Foster Grants?? Are you effing serious? Please, tell me you are not a real optometrist, that you are just a troll, and you got through the sign up filter and are just having a laugh, right? I mean you posted this article as farce, and your "experience" in the eyeglass industry is non existent, right?

----------


## Lab Insight

> I will further add, on this sleepless night,  that articles such as this, which are so lazily crafted and inane, ought not to be read with too keen an eye and with too much attention because it can make you stupid. Keep it to some sort of meta analysis. Like a psychiatrist listening to a mentally ill patient, once the doctor establishes psychosis, it doesn't matter what the exact details in the story are, just that the person telling the story needs medication. Sometimes you should look with a microscope and sometimes with a telescope. Someone who reads this and believes it provides proof of an eyewear monopoly situation either at wholesale, retail or just in their mind is the person with a dysfunction of their reading comprehension or some other dysfunction. Back to True Detective Season 3, and see y'all at vision expo east where we will play a game of avoiding all booths connected to Essilux.


We will all one day require the charity of the giant behemoth in many ways, so perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to embrace those booths.

----------


## optimensch

"I noted that if you wear designer glasses, there’s a very good chance you’re wearing Luxottica frames."

And what is that chance? How important is the designer brand for eye health? Are there designer epipens? Don't tell me folks can only get boring generic epipens, no more Gucci? Does this mean there is a dangerous monopoly in optical, or just in the designer frame market? What is the permissible "markup" on designer goods anyhow, is there a federal agency to check in on the prices of Gucci and Chanel handbags? is this also a matter of national security, just like epipens? I wonder if any optiboarder can think of ANY designer brands which are not luxottica owned. What constitutes a designer brand anyhow? Someone tell Kering, Safilo, Marcolin, Marchon others that its all over, all the brand names are gone and it is time to fold the tent. Brand name eyewear frames seem kind of expensive - call the TIMES, get their TOP MAN on it NOW. Bernstein and Woodward.

----------


## optimensch

So here, in sum, we have a hit piece on optical which cites 2 guys, one of whom refers to the other as a real go-getter. These two "experts" cast light on the dark shadow of Luxottica and seemingly most of optical retail and the reporter (A real Mike Wallace obviously) couldn't get a response from Luxottica, so no counter point was offered, no fact checking, cross checking or any rebuttal whatsoever. I guess that means in the entire optical world outside of Luxottica, (or even a Luxottica insider who would speak off the record), no ECP, no one from a Luxottica competitor, no industry spokesperson at all in the whole world, was available to this "reporter"to offer any sort of opposing insight. Not a single statistic or any documentary piece of evidence of ANYTHING to support either price gouging or a monopoly. A total and complete POS useless article -  and for an optometrist poster to just post this crap (which is perfectly fine) but DEFEND it as indicative of his or her her experience in our industry with no critical analysis, is very odd to me. Maybe the OP ought to reread the article, and if no questions arise in his or her mind about the quality of the journalism (and the conclusions) well, I'll leave that to others to address.

----------


## optio

> ... generalized glob of crap about 18$ getting marked up to 800, with ZERO explanation of how this is evidence of a monopoly. Are you SERIOUS?


Your argument that the article is bunk seems to rest on the premise of semantics. Replace "monopoly" with the words "insufficient competition" in your post and see if you still agree with what you wrote.

----------


## optimensch

> Your argument that the article is bunk seems to rest on the premise of semantics. Replace "monopoly" with the words "insufficient competition" in your post and see if you still agree with what you wrote.


 NO. My argument that the article is BUNK rests on the fact that IT IS NOT JOURNALISM. It is a One-sided HIT PIECE with ZERO FACTS presented and most importantly without the other side of the argument. At most it is a frustrated opinion piece, but certainly NOT in any way a researched investigative journalism piece. What THE F does Insufficient Competition mean? What are you talking about? Answer any single question I've posted, and I've posted plenty for you to choose from. Show me ANYTIHNG that looks at like insufficient competition at ANY level of optical retail or wholesale. You read a stupid article like this and eat the pablum? Is that the best you've got?

----------


## optimensch

Eaton's was a dominant player in canada. Sears was a dominant player in North America, TOYSRUS was a big player in toys, America On Line was a big player in internet access. General Motors was a big player in cars. The ground is ALWAYS shifting. There is NOTHING special about eyewear that makes Essilux invulnerable. The day Jeff Bezos decides he likes eyewear, watch out. A technology will emerge that will change everything overnight, who knows. But this tired old nonsense fairy tale, oft trotted out by the media-loved Warby Parker talking heads about the evil empire controlling every pair of glasses sold on the planet and how they price gouge people with their Chanel Frames is a total joke, and for an optometrist to basically barf out the same talking points is a bit sickening.

----------


## optimensch

So given that the competition bureaus around the world green lit the merger - I suppose they are all on the take? I mean obviously they looked at the competitive landscape, they analyzed everything and they all came to the conclusion that either a) there is sufficient competition therefore ESSILOR and Lux can merge or b) there is a monopoly but there is a pay off, conspiracy world wide and the evil empire cabal has illegally subdued the eyewear market world wide. So which is it? Why is this not addressed in the article, I mean the 2 know-it-all insiders you admire are asking for investigation, but you see, there was one to greenlight the merger. SO let's see, why did the journalist not mention this or perhaps ask a government agency for clarification? He only points out that Essilux declined to comment. Now you, experienced OD, claim there is insufficient competition. Again, I ask you, where is this manifest? In your local mall? Where is the problem specifically please, I really look forward to your insight.

----------


## optimensch

Insufficient competition. There are thousands and thousands of independent retailers NOT controlled by luxottica, hundreds and hundreds of suppliers, online glasses, offline glasses and you can buy glasses for basically ANY price and from ANY source your could possibly imagine BOTH AT RETAIL AND WHOLESALE. Yet there are 2 political parties in the USA. Yup. The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz. Let's just compare eyewear with telecom - what a JOKE it is so ridiculous I cannot believe anyone with even a  drop of research into the subject would take this seriously. If it takes you more than an hour to conclude otherwise, you are willfully blind and/or have some other agenda.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *
> - what a JOKE it is so ridiculous I cannot believe anyone with even a  drop of research into the subject would take this seriously.* *If it takes you more than an hour to conclude otherwise, you are willfully blind and/or have some other agenda.*



.........................................one large source for research on the subject is right here on optiBOARD, which contains dozens of posts, that talk of lower priced retail sales than at the standard mega markup for at least the last 14 years. 

This is not a new subject, but it is now wide open, and published even in daily newspapers. So you can not hide behind silence anymore, specially when the largest optical manufacturer of lenses and optical eyeglass frames is officially jumping into the discount retail market and in direct competition to the established retailers.

----------


## lensmanmd

I think a big piece to this confusion is that many in the industry do not know, or care, that many labs and suppliers are under the Essilor blanket.  What may seem to be an independent, is not.  Does that matter?  To some, it does, but the main point is this, if a conglomerate owns, or has a share of over 50% of worldwide supply chain, they can basically fix prices, and consumer opinions.  Plus, they can cripple the independents by effectively cornering the raw materials, real estate and supply logistics if they want.  

Let's look at two favorite darlings of our industry.  OptiSource and Dynamic Labs.  On the surface, both look like independents, both sell similar items for less than Hilco, Grobet or Western, but reality is, Dynamic Labs is independent, where OptiSource is an ESS subsidiary.  National Optronics/DAC and SatisLoh are both under the Essilor umbrella.  Your local wholesale lab is most likely under the Essilor umbrella, as well.  

Good thing is, Essilor allows many of these entities to self manage.  Bad thing is, taking LensCrafters into consideration, Corporate will eventually pressure the CEOs of these "entities".  Pricing goes up, service goes down.  This is what conglomerates do to appease their shareholders.

In short, I do agree with you, but also want you to know that the independent that you deal with may not be independent at all.  Yes, we have choices, and many of us choose to support independents.  We will also end up supporting the conglomerates, as well.  My lab is mostly SatisLoh and NatOpt, with a few MEI, Coburn and Luneau thrown in.  Coating is Ultra and Quantum.  Our LMS is an ESS subsidiary.  Many LMS systems are. So yes, I lament EssiLux, but I also support them in many ways.  My biggest concern is with frames and lenses, our basic commodities.  Consumers are driven by marketing, and ESS is the King of marketing.  Consumers equate this marketing with quality.  Many of us in the industry know better, but not your average VSP client.  

The biggest thorn is that conglomerates throw money around at mass advertising.  Think about Varilux and Transition ads on TV.  Oakley at sports events.  Makes me wonder why Essilor has not yet bought Red Bull.  Red Bull and Oakley seem to go hand in hand at these events, yes?  Smith, MJ, WileyX, Costa, all make better sports products, IMO, and at better price points to the ECP and consumer, yet, consumers are driven to Oakley.  Power of advertising, and the bigger the budget, the more consumer-centric adverting.  Hence the power of the EssiLux empire.  

So again, yes, we professionals have options, and it is up to us to make the best decisions to support and sustain our businesses.  The fast growing Asian market for lenses, hopefully, will change the landscape.  Problem here is the supply chain logistics and minimum qty orders.  Many small labs rely on just in time ordering for commodities.  Asian suppliers typically require bulk orders that tie up too much capital up front.  Then there are customs and tariffs to consider.  It is so much easier to order from existing European and American suppliers, as they have distribution networks here in the US.  

My greatest pipe dream is that the independent optical scene will blossom like the craft brew scene.  It may not drive prices down, but quality, choices and availability will rise.  Better quality products at the same pricing as BO wholesale.  Wouldn't that be nice?  

These journalists are out to make a few bucks with an easy "shock" article.  Quit with the Consumer Reports and tabloid laziness, instead, provide real journalistic integrity.  If they took time and really researched our industry, perhaps they will find that VSP, EyeMed, Davis, UnitedHealth and other vision insurance providers are the ones that drive consumer prices up, just like they do with healthcare.  And while at it, they need to do a deep dive into the frame and lens wholesale industry, not just EssiLux, but other players as well.  They give Pharma a free ride because of the amount of claimed R&D.  What about the Lens industry?  There is quite a bit of R&D here, too.  As for frames, do we really need Dickies, Harley Davidson, Skechers, Champion, Pink by VS?  Yet the market is full of these unnecessary brands that are over priced due to the licensing fees.  Consumers aren't requesting these brands, manufactures are marketing these brands.  Why?

----------


## Chris Ryser

lensmanmd, ....................................What a beautiful and well well written post, that just about says it all.




> *
> These journalists are out to make a few bucks with an easy "shock" article. Quit with the Consumer Reports and tabloid laziness, instead, provide real journalistic integrity. If they took time and really researched our industry, perhaps they will find that VSP, EyeMed, Davis, UnitedHealth and other vision insurance providers are the ones that drive consumer prices up, just like they do with healthcare. And while at it, they need to do a deep dive into the frame and lens wholesale industry, not just EssiLux, but other players as well. They give Pharma a free ride because of the amount of claimed R&D. What about the Lens industry? There is quite a bit of R&D here, too. As for frames, do we really need Dickies, Harley Davidson, Skechers, Champion, Pink by VS? Yet the market is full of these unnecessary brands that are over priced due to the licensing fees. Consumers aren't requesting these brands, manufactures are marketing these brands. Why?
> *



..................these brands let the importer the freedom to purchase a model from anywhere he desires and have his own brand added to the frames he orders from some 25 different suppliers, to make it look as that they have been made in the same kitchen.

----------


## optio

I'll admit I tried reading a few of your stream of consciousness posts, but it was clear it was going to take an effort I wasn't willing to make, so I stopped.

What I will say though, gets back to reading comprehension.  The article is about a claimed Essilux "monopoly".  It is not about you, (I presume) a private practice optometrist. The word "optometry", nor any of its derivatives appear anywhere in the article.  A search of the article for the root word "optom" yields zero hits.  

This is (to use your words) a hit piece on Luxottica.  It's not an expose on rip off private practice optometrists who sell eyewear.  Now, you may also sell eyewear in the "same" competitive environment as Luxottica, but the article isn't about you or optometrists like you (as an aside, something makes me wonder why you get so defensive about a hit piece on Luxottica ripping people off). It's about the fact that when the journalist goes into the Eaton's Center, he sees Sunglass Hut near the entrance, an LC halfway down the mall, and a Sears Optical at the end. They are all controlled by Luxottica/Essilux.  He's also told by an industry insider of absurd markups for the stuff in those stores.  So that's what he's trying to report. 




> Do you get an income statement at least yearly from your accountant? Have you examined your COGS?



This illustrates my point exactly.  Why are you asking me about MY income statement?  I'm not Luxottica nor do I represent them in any way. I presume you don't either. So who cares what my (or your) COGS is?  What does that have to do with anything the journalist has said?  It all gets back to reading comprehension.  This article is about Luxottica, not the private practices of optometrists who sell eyewear.

----------


## drk

How I see it:

1. Journalism is dead
2. Essilor is probably approaching monopoly status in the lab world
3. Luxottica is hardly a monopoly. 
4. Luxottica retail is a snooze fest.  Who cares?
5. EyeMed, like Lux frames, is huge, but has competition.
6. Oh, and the concept of frame prices being "too high" because of "Luxottica's Monopoly" is pure, unadulterated garbage.


So what do we have?  Mainly, Luxottica is fine.  Essilor is bad.  Who knows if Essilor is hiding behind Luxottica, when it comes to this monopoly stuff?  There is certainly a case to be made about the Essilor division, but can they tease out the two?  I don't know.

----------


## optimensch

> I'll admit I tried reading a few of your stream of consciousness posts, but it was clear it was going to take an effort I wasn't willing to make, so I stopped.
> 
> What I will say though, gets back to reading comprehension.  The article is about a claimed Essilux "monopoly".  It is not about you, (I presume) a private practice optometrist. The word "optometry", nor any of its derivatives appear anywhere in the article.  A search of the article for the root word "optom" yields zero hits.  
> 
> This is (to use your words) a hit piece on Luxottica.  It's not an expose on rip off private practice optometrists who sell eyewear.  Now, you may also sell eyewear in the "same" competitive environment as Luxottica, but the article isn't about you or optometrists like you (as an aside, something makes me wonder why you get so defensive about a hit piece on Luxottica ripping people off). It's about the fact that when the journalist goes into the Eaton's Center, he sees Sunglass Hut near the entrance, an LC halfway down the mall, and a Sears Optical at the end. They are all controlled by Luxottica/Essilux.  He's also told by an industry insider of absurd markups for the stuff in those stores.  So that's what he's trying to report. 
> 
> 
> This illustrates my point exactly.  Why are you asking me about MY income statement?  I'm not Luxottica nor do I represent them in any way. I presume you don't either. So who cares what my (or your) COGS is?  What does that have to do with anything the journalist has said?  It all gets back to reading comprehension.  This article is about Luxottica, not the private practices of optometrists who sell eyewear.


So. Have you reread the article you posted. It is about "ripoffs" in our industry, including, apparently, Warby Parker. He says frames are a few dollars and lenses are a couple of bucks. The fact that the fellow interviewed was a Lenscrafters man and later a supplier to lux is an aside. The article is about the Industry. Please read it again and see and see for yourself, this is OBVIOUS. People are paying $800, so it is told, for glasses worth 15$ or so, at most. This is NOT only a slap at Lux. When I suggest you read an income statement I meant, and wrote, to ALSO read Luxottica's. And Newlook's. Why? Because they are both optical retailers and if the $15 becomes $800 story is the least bit newsworthy or true, this would be reflected in either company's COGS. It is a total and complete misrepresentation. I do not want to defend Essilux, I could not possibly care less about them. I care about our industry, and about keeping things truthful. A news story shows at least some effort to vet what is being said by the person being interviewed. It is a garbage article full of misrepresentations. That is my only point. That you choose to post it is NOT at all a problem, as it is good to see what is being said. I am merely pointing out that it is totally flawed, offers absolutely nothing but bs propaganda by a seemingly frustrated former "insider". The article is about the Eyewear industry via an interview of someone who was a Lenscrafters man and then a Supplier to Luxottica - that is his background. He is swiping at all of us. READ. ARTICLE. MAN> before you attack my reading comprehension, examine yours. Please. Thank you.

----------


## optimensch

> how i see it:
> 
> 1. Journalism is dead
> 2. Essilor is probably approaching monopoly status in the lab world
> 3. Luxottica is hardly a monopoly. 
> 4. Luxottica retail is a snooze fest.  Who cares?
> 5. Eyemed, like lux frames, is huge, but has competition.
> 6. Oh, and the concept of frame prices being "too high" because of "luxottica's monopoly" is pure, unadulterated garbage.
> 
> ...


1. Agree
2. Agree because you said so and generally i will take drk's word for anything
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Agree
6. Agree
7. Agree in advance to your next comment

----------


## optimensch

https://www.marketwatch.com/investin...loy/financials

I mean - I am not an accountant and claim only slightly more than ZERO expertise in stock analysis. I see a COGS which is somewhat less than 97%. Can someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me opine? Where are !5$ glasses getting sold for $800 in this statement, and if the statement says otherwise, please feel free to opine on the news article aforementioned. I suggest you examine NewLook (bci.to , you can see their numbers if you check on yahoo finance canada for example) and Luxottica. My point is that if I, a simple optometrist, can IMMEDIATELY see the flaws and lies in this "news" article, why can't an investigative reporter. Again, if we (or Essilor or Luxottica) can, through occult, alchemy and malfeasance, convert $15 into $800 on a sustained basis, thereby threatening the eyesight of america (hence the epipen alarm in the story) via monopolistic tendencies in people of an optical persuasion, why do those pesky numbers is financial statements, prepared by bean counter nerds, not reflect this?

----------


## drk

7.  You're awesome.


I'd really like to see a guy like LabInsight or others on the lab end validate or invalidate my take on their near-monopoly status.

----------


## optio

> So. Have you reread the article you posted. It is about "ripoffs" in our industry, including, apparently, Warby Parker.


It's about Luxottica.  Can you show me where he mentions Warby?  I see it once, when he says this:

“You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8,” Butler said. “For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what you’d get from Prada.”

So his reference to Warby is to imply that Lux is a ripoff.  After all, if you're going to say someone is a rip off, you need to define an alternative.  And so he does.  He makes his point.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *How I see it:
> 
> 1. Journalism is dead
> **1b.    However it still is being published and read by the masses.
> **
> 2. Essilor is probably approaching monopoly status in the lab world
> **2b. Essilux is already in a monopoly status in the world and is working hard
>       to make it also in* *frames + retail* * within the next few years. 
> *
> ...




..................maybe it should look like this

----------


## drk

Well, Chris, your points are well-taken.

If I may summarize your line of thinking:

1. If any one part of Essilux is a monopoly, all parts are a monopoly.  

That's a great question, and I would imagine a corporate lawyer would be needed to hash that out.  Someone like Fester would do.


2. The future is scary.  

Yes, Essilux is poised to do some serious damage.  They're big and scary like Google or Apple or Amazon.  I agree.  


The argument, however, to put a fine point on it, is what they are RIGHT NOW, not in the nebulous dystopian future.

----------


## Lori

I'm not sure who's using a 1,000% mark up but I don't know anyone who is, and we indeed aren't. Plus, it's tiresome that this article fails to acknowledge the cost of R&D in digital lens design, along with all the other apparent expenses involved in running a business. We are no different than any other industry. It takes a lot of people and steps to get a frame and a pair of lenses to the consumer. Sure online companies can do it for cheaper, but the quality is subpar in most examples. David Lazarus did a lousy job investigating the optical industry as a whole. Did he ask to look at any of my optical invoices to see how much I am paying for premium lenses? How about you? Just another poor investigative reporting example by an industry which has grown lazy and biased. It's now wonder readership is down on most major newspaper organizations. Also, Luxottica/Essilor is a giant, yes, but come on people, we in the industry have many options available to us. I don't carry any Luxottica products on my frame boards, and I'm doing surprisingly well, and there are some great progressive designs by Shamir and others besides Essilor. ]

----------


## optimensch

> It's about Luxottica.  Can you show me where he mentions Warby?  I see it once, when he says this:
> 
> You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8, Butler said. For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what youd get from Prada.
> 
> So his reference to Warby is to imply that Lux is a ripoff.  After all, if you're going to say someone is a rip off, you need to define an alternative.  And so he does.  He makes his point.


Again , With Peace and Love. This article is about the ripoff eyeglass industry, it is NOT about Essilux. Essilux, being the beastly presence, is an easy target to point to for there being a monopolistic situation in eyewear. This super hero defender of the masses (did he make a profit back in the day?), robin hood, WORKED FOR AND WITH luxottica, hence his being the "expert" witness for the "journalist" (I mean you have to pretend at least to be doing some sort of reporting, right?). The title of the piece is .....WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF IN EYEWEAR. THERE IS NO COMPETITION ANYMORE. It is a hit piece on all of us. Are you still not getting this? Please, I can take a joke, and don't mind being the butt of your joke, if in fact you are playing me. Just let me go already, enough.

----------


## optimensch

Question for the group.

"Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800."

a direct quote from the farticle. Either the guy is referring to only Lenscrafters based in the usa (why would he all of the sudden do that, since he never distinguishes American domestic lenscrafters from overseas lens crafters) or he is swiping American opticians, optometrists and other riff raff like us peddling glasses.

----------


## lensmanmd

Back to hiding under the Essilor blanket, Shamir and Kodak are subsidiaries, and no longer fully independent.

----------


## Lori

That sucks.

----------


## Lori

> Back to hiding under the Essilor blanket, Shamir and Kodak are subsidiaries, and no longer fully independent.


That sucks. Everyone's in bed with each other. Too bad there's no fun in it.

----------


## lensmanmd

> Question for the group.
> 
> "Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800."
> 
> a direct quote from the farticle. Either the guy is referring to only Lenscrafters based in the usa (why would he all of the sudden do that, since he never distinguishes American domestic lenscrafters from overseas lens crafters) or he is swiping American opticians, optometrists and other riff raff like us peddling glasses. I speaks the english, i reads the woydz. Yall see sumpin different than me?


No. $15 COGs do not equate to $800 retail-at all!   Even if they are stocked and filled under one roof.  I know.  I operate a centralized lab, stock frames and lenses, know the retail pricing and our costs.  

Lazy writing.

----------


## drk

Lensman: How monopolistic is Essilor (forget Lux for the moment)?

----------


## lensmanmd

> Lensman: How monopolistic is Essilor (forget Lux for the moment)?


Equipment, consumables, lenses, freeform designs, subsidiaries, labs, including partner labs, it’s pretty extensive. Add Lux to the picture, don’t quote me, but last I heard was close to 46% of the supply chain.

----------


## optio

> Again , With Peace and Love. This article is about the ripoff eyeglass industry,


Are online sales part of the eyeglass industry? He clearly mentions a cheaper alternative.

“You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8,” Butler said. 

As much as you try to insist, this article isn't about private practice optometry.

----------


## optio

> WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF IN EYEWEAR. THERE IS NO COMPETITION ANYMORE. It is a hit piece on all of us.


You're taking the title out of context.  The context is as follows:

*“There is no competition in the industry, not any more,” he told me. “Luxottica bought everyone.*

This is the scope of his claims:

*The company’s owned and licensed brands include Armani, Brooks Brothers, Burberry, Chanel, Coach, DKNY, Dolce & Gabbana, Michael Kors, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, Persol, Polo Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Tiffany, Valentino, Vogue and Versace.


Along with LensCrafters, Luxottica also runs Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Sunglass Hut and Target Optical, as well as the insurer EyeMed Vision Care.


And Italy’s Luxottica now casts an even longer shadow over the eyewear industry after merging last fall with France’s Essilor, the world’s leading maker of prescription eyeglass lenses and contact lenses. The combined entity is called EssilorLuxottica.*

You like to put words in his mouth.  He doesn't mention private practice optometry anywhere.

He also doesn't "hit" Warby Parker and online e-commerce of glasses.

----------


## optio

*optimensch: * I'm going to mention that you seem to be conflating two different issues.

The article is a "hit" on Luxottica. It's not a hit on other entities that may have the "same" business practices as Luxottica. Perhaps you (in terms of mark-up or whatnot) have a similar business practice as Luxx.  So you read an article like this and take it as a hit on yourself.  But it's not.  It's a hit on Luxottica, not you.  

Show me where he mentions optometry.  You can't, because he doesn't.

----------


## lensmanmd

By association, it is a hit on the entire brick and mortar eyewear industry.  LensCrafters is the white elephant.  WP is the millennial darling.   
So, optimensch is correct, as is optio.  Time to let this die and focus on the actual article, and how it affects us all, as well as the Essilux empire.  
How we compete and co-exist is more important than semantics.

----------


## optimensch

> *optimensch: * I'm going to mention that you seem to be conflating two different issues.
> 
> The article is a "hit" on Luxottica. It's not a hit on other entities that may have the "same" business practices as Luxottica. Perhaps you (in terms of mark-up or whatnot) have a similar business practice as Luxx.  So you read an article like this and take it as a hit on yourself.  But it's not.  It's a hit on Luxottica, not you.  
> 
> Show me where he mentions optometry.  You can't, because he doesn't.


If this article is ONLY about lenscrafters (as the main retail arm of essilux, and the pictured store) or at least about Essilux retail outlets - why is there a link for people to learn how to buy glasses online? Where is it mentioned that not all 800$ glasses are a ripoff? Why not say , hey go to your local independent, where the markups are not 1000%, and where you can request and  find NON ESSILUX frames and lenses? basically, if you buy anywhere BUT online, or pay anything more than around 99$, you are being RIPPED OFF. 

If I sell a Lindberg frame with Zeiss progressive lenses for $800, none of which is touched by Essilux, am I greedy ripoff artist too? Is Zeiss? Lindberg? If the JOURNALIST"S mindset is to send people to buy online, I guess he at least is clear about his agenda and BELIEVES what he is writing. I mean this guy writes as if he has shares in Zenni or some other online outfit (would make perfect sense). You on the other hand are the one CHOOSING to read into this article that it is something OTHER than a hit piece on optical retail, and it is YOUR state of mind and point of view which concerns me WAY more than that of the journalist.

----------


## optio

> By association, it is a hit on the entire brick and mortar eyewear industry.


Perhaps, although the journalist makes no mention of the associations in the article. It is probably true he wouldn't have an issue with discount brick and mortar discount opticals, nor would he have an issue with private practice optometrists who sell at multiples far less than what is referenced in the article. So his alleged (by association) hit on private practice optometrists (a claim I still see no evidence for) only applies to optometrists who sell at the same mark-ups as Luxx.  It would therefore seem to me that the only optometrists who feel the article is a hit on them are those that do sell at those mark-ups.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I don't carry any Luxottica products on my frame boards, and I'm doing surprisingly well,* *and there are some great progressive designs by Shamir and others besides Essilor.** ]
> *



...........read your post all the way.

Shamir is also ESSILOR for your information.

----------


## lensmanmd

> Perhaps, although the journalist makes no mention of the associations in the article. It is probably true he wouldn't have an issue with discount brick and mortar discount opticals, nor would he have an issue with private practice optometrists who sell at multiples far less than what is referenced in the article. So his alleged (by association) hit on private practice optometrists (a claim I still see no evidence for) only applies to optometrists who sell at the same mark-ups as Luxx.  It would therefore seem to me that the only optometrists who feel the article is a hit on them are those that do sell at those mark-ups.


In defense of optimensch, I would love to buy a pair of Lindbergs with Zeiss ID2s and AR for $800.

----------


## optimensch

> In defense of optimensch, I would love to buy a pair of Lindbergs with Zeiss ID2s and AR for $800.


Thanks lensman, I appreciate the sentiment, I am simply asking an optometrist who thinks I can't read to actually READ the article which he or she presented to us  with this thread. By read, and considering I am speaking to a University-educated optometrist, I mean of course, to READ and UNDERSTAND the point. An optometrist who thinks Warby is referenced in the article as a low markup counterpoint to 1000% markups.

I will conclude by easily illustrating that this is not an article defending Warby Parker, given the actual WORDS and NUMBERS presented in this piece,  a "BUSINESS" article which was in business section, interviewing "experts" in  eyewear, who are siamming essentially all of us with a big brush, INCLUDING warby parker. 

"consumer prices for frames and lenses are so astronomically high, with markups often approaching 1,000%"

The article CLEARLY mentions that Warby Parker frames cost $4. Lenses of course, "first quality" are $1.25 a piece. THerefore Warby Parker (owned and operated by savvy Wharton School MBAs who KNOW what "MARKUP" means and know how to negotiate cost prices) are paying $6.50 for glasses which everyone knows (and is advertised AD NAUSEUM EVERYWHERE) they sell for *starting* at $95. NOW KIDS - WHAT IS THE MARKUP IF YOU PAY $6.50 and SELL for $95?

How about 1462 %.

Again, if you think the business journalist, slamming the ripoff 1000% markups in the malls of America, is defending ripped off consumers by advising they go to Warby Parker with their 1462% markup, then Houston, we have a problem.I don't need a defense. YOU however, OP, need a calculator.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *How about 1462 %.
> 
> Again, if you think the journalist, slamming the ripoff 1000% markups in the malls of America, is defending them by advising they go to Warby Parker with their 1462% markup, then Houston, we have a problem.I don't need a defense. YOU however, OP, need a calculator.
> *



However it does not matter how it looks in a financial calculation ............................................

The WP makes 1462% which is good profit, .....................but sells a same and decent product 7x cheaper at a good profit, which is pleasant to the buyer.

----------


## Lab Insight

> 7.  You're awesome.
> 
> 
> I'd really like to see a guy like LabInsight or others on the lab end validate or invalidate my take on their near-monopoly status.


Lens manufacturing and lab services alone, nowhere near a monopoly. In my opinion, it is more of an oligopoly.  On a global scale, Essilor and Hoya are very close in the lead followed by Zeiss and Nikon.

Portfolio diversification is becoming more and more prominent and that includes retail.  Hoya owns and operates a large chain of optical stores in Japan, yet they frantically wave the independent flag and market themselves as the ally of the independent.  Look hard enough at their annual financial statements and you will see it listed in fine print.  

Call it what you want, Essilux has an impressive portfolio built for success, market domination and longevity.  I personally see nothing wrong with that.  Who wouldn't want a piece of that?

----------


## optimensch

> However it does not matter how it looks in a financial calculation ............................................
> 
> The WP makes 1462% which is good profit, .....................but sells a same and decent product 7x cheaper at a good profit, which is pleasant to the buyer.


 You do realize, with your continued references to the power of google and a web search, that a consumer can buy glasses easily for $6.95, right? Do you know that this is NOT an Essilux company selling glasses at this price to consumers? Is a 6.95$ pair of glasses,  (to use your style of math) 13 X cheaper than Warby Parker, not even MORE pleasant to the buyer?
SO, just like a "4 minute abs" workout video being better than a "6 minute abs" workout video, cheaper is better and more pleasant, right? By the way, how do you think Essilux would do if everyone agrees with you, and the journalist, and decided they want $6.95 glasses? I mean you seem to think Essilux the empire is invulnerable, yet you think folks would do better to buy cheap online glasses, but somehow, these 2 thoughts are slightly incongruent, at least a tiny little bit, no ?

----------


## optimensch

> Call it what you want, Essilux has an impressive portfolio built for success, market domination and longevity.  I personally see nothing wrong with that.  Who wouldn't want a piece of that?


Shoulda coulda woulda bought their shares years ago, instead I stuck myself with Canadian energy stocks and a largely blah canadian portfolio. Just because there is a huge megamonster in an industry controlling close to 50% of the market, with the rest split among a bunch of far smaller players, does not a monopoly make. Interestingly we don't address the other oligopoly in our industry, with what I imagine are FAR FAR higher margins and markups and profits, making eyewear look like charity. And that is..............CONTACT LENSES. How about the true "cost" of a 90 pack of TOTAL ONE DAILIES or 1 DAY OASYS? OR HUBBLE? You want margins? forget eyewear. Alcon, JnJ - now that's a business.

----------


## drk

> *“There is no competition in the industry, not any more,” he told me. “Luxottica bought everyone.*
> 
> 
> *The company’s owned and licensed brands include Armani, Brooks Brothers, Burberry, Chanel, Coach, DKNY, Dolce & Gabbana, Michael Kors, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, Persol, Polo Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Tiffany, Valentino, Vogue and Versace.
> 
> 
> Along with LensCrafters, Luxottica also runs Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Sunglass Hut and Target Optical, as well as the insurer EyeMed Vision Care.
> 
> 
> And Italy’s Luxottica now casts an even longer shadow over the eyewear industry after merging last fall with France’s Essilor, the world’s leading maker of prescription eyeglass lenses and contact lenses. The combined entity is called EssilorLuxottica.*


Again, who cares how many brands they license?  Brands are meaningless, and they don't inhibit anyone from buying anything.  That's a Dean Butler + Warby Parker + millenial socialist canard.

What's more, who cares if they own Target, Sears, Pearle, whatever?  Is McDonalds a monopoly?  Go to Target and Sears or don't.  

Plus, Essilor doesn't "make...contact lenses".  More crap reporting.

----------


## drk

> LensCrafters is the white elephant. WP is the millennial darling.





> why is there a link for people to learn how to buy glasses online? Where is it mentioned that not all 800$ glasses are a ripoff? Why not say , hey go to your local independent, where the markups are not 1000%, and where you can request and find NON ESSILUX frames and lenses? basically, if you buy anywhere BUT online, or pay anything more than around 99$, you are being RIPPED OFF.


Double bingo.

----------


## drk

*Defining and measuring oligopoly*

An oligopoly is a market structure in which a few firms dominate. When a market is shared between a few firms, it is said to be highly concentrated. Although only a few firms dominate, it is possible that many small firms may also operate in the market.




Well said, LI.

----------


## optio

Optimensch. Your posts are a morass of pre-conceived notions, prejudices, and defensiveness.  Like - how about this?




> Malls may not be such a useful example given how they are in a general decline,


I was at Yorkdale on the weekend and the LC seemed pretty busy.  If someone wants to spend their money on glasses tomorrow, they'll probably still be open.  Your criticisms of the article are even more unfounded than the issues you bring up with it.

This is the central thesis of the article. Right here.  The article ends with this:
*
Butler said it should be clear from EssilorLuxottica’s practices that the company has too much market power. “If that’s not a monopoly,” he said, “I don’t know what is.”*

As for Warby, it's used as an illustrative example of an option for cheaper glasses.  They are saying you can get LC-quality stuff for e-commerce prices.  Even you essentially say the same thing here:




> so....the ads I see on tv for zenni which promote $6.95 complete eyeglasses - this is not competition?


So the crux of the matter is this.  *Why can Zenni sell glasses for $7 and yet you charge $700?*

----------


## AngeHamm

> So the crux of the matter is this.  *Why can Zenni sell glasses for $7 and yet you charge $700?*


Apples and chicken wings. I'm not selling for $700 any product that is remotely similar to what Zenni is selling at $7.

----------


## optio

What about Warby?  Are they selling something similar to what LC sells, for multiples more?

----------


## optio

> Apples and chicken wings. I'm not selling for $700 any product that is remotely similar to what Zenni is selling at $7.


OK - but I could get your $700 product for about $250 easily, online.

----------


## optimensch

> Optimensch. Your posts are a morass of pre-conceived notions, prejudices, and defensiveness.  Like - how about this?
> 
> 
> *Butler said it should be clear from EssilorLuxotticas practices that the company has too much market power. If thats not a monopoly, he said, I dont know what is.*
> 
> So the crux of the matter is this.  *Why can Zenni sell glasses for $7 and yet you charge $700?*


What type of phoropter do you use? Where did you go to optometry school? Can you name a prof or 2 you liked? See, I have serious doubts that you are an OD - because anyone with a half-ounce of actual knowledge would not post such utter garbage and lies. So if no other optiboarders care to join me in digging in to the comments made by this poster then good luck to y'all, I am gone. Cheer away, and enjoy the insight from total jokes like this.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *You do realize, with your continued references to the power of google and a web search, that a consumer can buy glasses easily for $6.95, right? Do you know that this is NOT an Essilux company selling glasses at this price to consumers? Is a 6.95$ pair of glasses,  (to use your style of math) 13 X cheaper than Warby Parker, not even MORE pleasant to the buyer?
> 
> *



The selling price I mentioned was at Warby Parker at $ 96.00 including the lenses and not $ 6.95.

....................and I do know that WP is not ....yet......belonging to the Essilux family who also sells retail online at some around
the $ 96.00 mark.

So we did not even touch the point of $   6.95 glasses yet

----------


## lensmanmd

Optio.  You clearly do not understand the supply chain logistics of our industry.  
The point of this is that companies that control every aspect of vertical integration need not overcharge, as there no longer are middlemen that others need to rely on.  Frame reps, lens reps and lab services just to name a few.  Each of these add costs, so that 6.95 is longer 6.95.  That $700 retail pair did not cost the practitioner $7.  
Enough said.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> O
> 
> 
> *So the crux of the matter is this. * *Why can Zenni sell glasses for $7 and yet you charge $700?
> 
> *



Zenni buys "discounted discount" frames, end of the line frame, direct ex factory, etc. =  *probably for cents a piece* 

*optimensch buys from a regular distributor and uses his own regular markup  to  get to his selling price.






*

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *What about Warby?  Are they selling something similar to what LC sells, for multiples more?*




LC is owned by now Essilux, formerly Luxottica, who also owns lots of other frame manufacturers.

Warby Parker has its own brand of frames, they purchase directly from various frame manufacturers and have their own  brand name stamped on them, and sell them *for multiples less*.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Lensman: How monopolistic is Essilor (forget Lux for the moment)?
> *




Essilor.............or..............Essilux.................  ....is now concentrating on buying up optical retail outlets from Mam and Pap shops, to online discount opticals and already own the largest batch of them since the merger.

----------


## jasons

I was actually looking for something else and stumbled on this thread. I had to comment. All talk of monopolies and megaliths aside,  last I heard, not one of the online places that sell glasses for 7 dollars are profitable, they are still running off venture capital. (That may have changed recently.) I also can almost guarantee that no no one selling glasses for 800 dollars had a cost of goods of 7 dollars. Apples are not being compared to apples.

----------

