# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  How to hurt Luxottica?

## drk

Here we go again on our "favorite" subject:hammer: 

I spoke with someone (in the know) who suggested that Luxottica's third party plan NEEDS independents to be marketable to employer groups/health insurers.

Heretofore, I have not seen any negative in being an Eyemed provider as an independent. I have felt that it was NOT hypocritical to be a provider, but not support them by using their frames. I figured that the main reason Lux has Eyemed is to sell their frames, and as long as I didn't play that game, I could see the patients.

Now, I'm not sure. By being a panel provider (which I am actually not), would I be supporting Lux by making their network more marketable?

I guess I'm starting to feel it, a little. I can try to replace Rayban or Prada. But it's difficult to replace that patient of mine with the "new insurance plan" (Eyemed)!

Heaven forbid they start getting many, many good groups. I may need to cave. If I cave to one aspect, why not cave to all?

Dang that Luxottica! This is what they want. I feel like I'm dealing with the mob.:(

----------


## Spexvet

The only question you need to ask is "does participating with Eyemed put money in Luxottica's pocket?"

----------


## Mikef

Dr. K

You are right on.  Luxottica does need you!  

I ask my customer one ?  How much more money will you make if you boycot Luxottica.

How much more will you make if you join Eyemed?

How much more will you make if you join Eyemed and but product?

Political or finacial!

----------


## Mikef

Also,

Luxottica bought LC to protect there business.  They got into managed care to protect their business.  The market is saturated with optical shops so the bought Pearle to protect their business.  They need independents for there managed care to protect their business.  If they hurt independents they will hurt their business.


Dr. K   You need to do what is best for you.

----------


## Rich

> The only question you need to ask is "does participating with Eyemed put money in Luxottica's pocket?"



I think the question you need to ask is "does participating with Eyemed (selling Luxottica product) put money in MY pocket?"

I may be in the minority here on Optiboard, but my independent practice makes more money on some Luxottica product than on most other "mass marketed" lines. It's a business decision, not a knee-jerk reaction to their (very successful) marketing plan. I guess I feel that their advertising has created enough consumer awareness and brand recognition that I can easily compete with LC and beat them on service, price, and selection. As long as my numbers justify this I'm glad to do business with the "evil empire."

Sorry if this offends some.

Greetings from the dark side!
Rich.

----------


## Ed_Optician

I know we all love to hate Luxotica.  Unfortunately they do things that upset private practice opticians left and right.  When Luxotica took over Lenscrafters I know many opticians cut out most if not all Luxotica products.  Basic frame s could be easilyy replaced but what about the lines that were not replacable.  People wanted Armani so many places kept the Armani line.  I guess customer demand forces us to deal with them anyway.  

Ed

----------


## Cindy Hamlin

I was in a LC a week or so ago getting a pair of sunglasses.  I thought $100 off and since I buy them out of pocket, why not?  

I have Davis Vision thru work and get a pittance for them from Davis.  I gave them my Davis card and they don't take it.  I asked "didn't you buy them?"  She said yes, but they were keeping the plans seperate.

I wonder what they are thinking there.

----------


## Angels Rock

Ah DrK.  The major dilema.  Do I stand on my principle or do I run my business the best and most effecient way possible.  You are right, Eyemed needs the Independants to survive and you would be helping Lux by joining.  But who knows maybe your area in Columbus is already saturated with providers so they may not need you as much now.  I know there are several areas where I live where they are not looking for providers.  

This is a funny topic, I hate Luxottica so I won't buy their product.  I actually have quite bit of respect for the ECPs that were so offended by the purchase of Lenscrafters that they did not buy any frames what so ever.  No exceptions.  

The ones that I didn't respect as much are the ones that got on their pedestals and preached to all that would listen that they would never buy Luxottica product ever again.  Except of course Giorgio Armani because we need that product.  Now thats a stand with some backbone to it.

Face it, Luxottica is moving on with or without you.  There are some great programs available to all the independants.  All you have to do is take advantage of them.

----------


## Angels Rock

> I think the question you need to ask is "does participating with Eyemed (selling Luxottica product) put money in MY pocket?"
> 
> I may be in the minority here on Optiboard, but my independent practice makes more money on some Luxottica product than on most other "mass marketed" lines. It's a business decision, not a knee-jerk reaction to their (very successful) marketing plan. I guess I feel that their advertising has created enough consumer awareness and brand recognition that I can easily compete with LC and beat them on service, price, and selection. As long as my numbers justify this I'm glad to do business with the "evil empire."
> 
> Sorry if this offends some.
> 
> Greetings from the dark side!
> Rich.


Oh Rich you have seen the light.  Bottom line if it works for you do it and if it doesn't work for you don't do it.  Eyemed doesn't work everywhere.  I have places where its not very strong but  I have lots more areas where it's very strong and getting stronger.

----------


## rep

> How to hurt Luxottica


Instead of staying up nights trying to think of ways to hurt Luxottica, try staying up nights thinking how you can make more money with them,   than their compeditors which do nothing for you and pocket all the money we spend on the private practioner.
Why are you so concerned about a company that only has 20% of the market and 3000 out of the 50,000 stores in the US?Eye Med is the second largest manged care provider in the country just behind VSP.  They already have a huge panel and now that there is no frame requirement practices and practioners  are signing up in droves. Why would you isolate yourself from a huge patient base and send them to your real compeditors your peers and local optical chains? Wouldn't you be the first one screaming bloody murder if Eye Med said " Sorry we don't need any more providers"Finally why would you have the same products that are in every other  office close  to you and not carry Luxottica's hot lines like Prada, Versace, Ray Ban Ophthalmic, Ferragamo and  Mui Mui ? One of the real enlightening responses I get is the Dr who says" I don't want to carry the same products that are in XXXX stores and you look around and he has exactly the same product lines and styles that are in the 10 to 20 surrounding optometric offices around his office. I am beginning to think you are another closet Luxottica user. You like all the benefits,  but you  just love to bash them on the boards. 

Rep

----------


## Spexvet

I don't "hate" Luxottica. I believe they are an empire because they are increasing their control over the industry. I call them evil because they are the competition - think of them the way you would think of the arch rival of your favorite sports team (the Patriots suck! - they don't, but they beat my team, the Eagles). 

They're also evil because they're luring my potential customers away using clever, misleading advertising. What LensCrafters does best is marketing.

They are our biggest competition. The money that you spend on their product, directly or indirectly goes to advertising that entices your customers to buy product from their retail outlets. They don't advertise "buy Prada frames", they advertise "$100 off at LensCrafters" - That's a huge difference.  

Rich, no offense taken. But the knee-jerk reaction is to do what puts money in your pocket today, not think about how that Lux profit will bite you in the butt tomorrow.

Cindy, the single vision poly lenses that I sell for $100, LC sells for $170. The Magic clip frame that I sell for $159, LC sells for $199. If you were to buy the same product and take $100 off the LC price, I'm still $10 less. My guarantee is better, too. Sorry, I'm not open on Sunday, and I don't have a locations all over the country. ;) 

BTW, I have had few people come in asking for a specific Lux designer line, and if they did, I did not lose the sale because I don't carry Lux. I tell them all the chains Lux owns and how we don't want to finance the competition. The patient's expression is usually one of disgust. Then I tell them we carry much better product now. :p 

DRK, hang tough.

----------


## fvc2020

Since this post is more about managed care than product, let me say something.  Not to long ago me and my doctor made a decision to accept eyemed.  We did so to protect patient base that might change largely after the Cole buyout.  We looked at the volume of patients they will have and decided it would give them more power to go after large employers.

We have seen a few but not alot of patients, but the reaction is the same from every one.  Thank god you're on my list.  I'm tired of LC/Pearl etc.  With the exception of exam reinbursment we do well.  We don't sell low end ar or progressives.  So patients pay the difference from a 20% discount.  Sometimes with add on I received more than I do from VSp.  

With that said, we also did a 6 month "consignment" with Lux.  We purchased Prada, Mui Mui, RAy Ban, and Brooks.  We had other stuff until this past week.  The return while hurting the reps(who most are fabulous)there were no reprecussions.  We have done well adding in Prada and Mui Mui.  We have done well with some core product and Brooks suns.  Once we hit July our payment begins for what's left over.  No biggy.  We have six months to pay it off.  Customer service has not been the greatest.  They can not give dates for backorders, and if mistakes are made, it takes an act of God to get them fixed.

I think it's a give and take on Lux..you make it what you want.  Do I feel bad about giving money to the product side of it?  Maybe, but some of it is good stuff.  Do I feel bad taking money from Eyemed patients?  No.  Each practice needs to be in their own comfort zone when it comes to Lux.  

christina

----------


## ziggy

If as an indy shop you can do without them you should do so. If it would hurt your business, buy defult, your family then you should crawl in bed with lux. But if your willing have them in you business remember"in for a penny, in for a pound!" I courious in the eye med paper work the patient gets what locations are listed first? Is it the indy's oor the chains? Stand tough DrK!!:bbg:

----------


## drk

Hey, the title of the thread was pure sensationalism.  I thought that was obvious. :Rolleyes:  

Good responses by all.

I'm almost starting to buy into the theory promulgated by the Lux reps (you know, protect the eyecare market, a rising tide raises all boats, Lux drives patients to your door) BUT...

I just can't get the disturbing picture out of my mind of a freestanding Luxottica opening up in a strip mall across the street.  Already, down the street "at the mall"  they have a Sears, Lenscrafters, Sunglass Hut, and a Pearle.  I have little doubt that eventually, if everything goes right for them, they are going to try to penetrate the smaller "neighborhood" markets that a lot of us make a living in.  Then, I'll be really steamed at myself.

Can Luxottica promise not to open next to me?  I thought not.

Again, no venom towards Luxottica, just disappointment that they felt they couldn't do business through the independents, and had to do the retailing for themselves, and have continued to buy up everything in sight.

----------


## Angels Rock

> Hey, the title of the thread was pure sensationalism. I thought that was obvious. 
> 
> Good responses by all.
> 
> I'm almost starting to buy into the theory promulgated by the Lux reps (you know, protect the eyecare market, a rising tide raises all boats, Lux drives patients to your door) BUT...
> 
> I just can't get the disturbing picture out of my mind of a freestanding Luxottica opening up in a strip mall across the street. Already, down the street "at the mall" they have a Sears, Lenscrafters, Sunglass Hut, and a Pearle. I have little doubt that eventually, if everything goes right for them, they are going to try to penetrate the smaller "neighborhood" markets that a lot of us make a living in. Then, I'll be really steamed at myself.
> 
> Can Luxottica promise not to open next to me? I thought not.
> ...


DrK let me address a couple of your issues.  First off a rising tide does raise all boats.  Come to our side brother, the truth will set you free.  :D 

On a more serious note you wondered if Luxottica can promise that they will not open next to you and the answer is no.  I can't promise and I don't think anybody else can either.  But what I can tell you is about my accounts that are literally right across the hall in a mall from a Lenscrafters.  After the initial shock their business is up substantially and I will tell you why.

All through these boards everybody is constantly bashing Lenscrafters.  I read where one guy sold his lens for $100 and LC sold for $170.  The customer service is crappy at LC while yours is great.  LC is pushy and you are not.  My only question is why are you not capitalising on LC faults.  

Here's a news flash for everybody.  Us reps hate Lenscrafters too.  They are nothing but a pain in our keisters and we don't make a nickel from them.  I would never and I mean never get my eyes examined or get my frames from them.  The difference between us and you is that we just deal with it and try to make the best out of the situation because its not gonna change.  

Think about this for a second.  What if it was Cole Vision and Sears that bought Lenscrafters instead of Luxottica.  Thats a whole segment of the population that you have no chance of getting into your offices.  At least when we bought them we opened Eye Med to everybody which was not the case before that.  Do you think that Sears and Cole  Vision would have done that?  Unlikely.  

One last thing and I will jump off my soap box.  You say you are disappointed about the vertical integration and getting into the retail side of business.  Personally I wish we were back in the old days when things were much simpler but Lux did not start this trend.  I can tell you about a meeting that I was at in Scottsdale, AZ in 1990 when Claudio Del Vechio, who ran the business at the time, got up as said "mark my word, in less than 5 years VSP will be in the frame business".  Guess what, they got into our business, copied our frames and gave them to you for free.  You readily accepted their generous offer and instead of buying a Carlos from Lux you got the Carlos knock off from Altair and didn't have to pay for it unless you sold it.    You may not like Del Vechio but he's no dummy.  He saw the writing on the wall and made his move.  

Sorry for being a wind bag.  I hope some of you come to Vegas for Expo.  Look me up, I actually love discussing this subject.  I'll leave you with this.  Stop listening to reps from other companies who think they know what we are doing.  If their business was any good they wouldn't have time to worry about us.

----------


## Judy Canty

I was never a big believer in "trickle-down economics".

----------


## For-Life

> I was never a big believer in "trickle-down economics".


Niether am I

Too many flaws

----------


## Angels Rock

Who said anything about trickle down economics.  Eye Med will give you $10 just for filing a claim online.  Thats $10 hard cash for every claim.  What other frame vendor is doing that for you.  Geez I guess its true, you can give somebody a gold bar and they'll still find something wrong with it.  You can continue to moan and complain all you want but if you want to do something about your bottom line the tools are there to help.

----------


## drk

Thanks for the straight-forward talk, Angels.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Eye Med will give you $10 just for filing a claim online. Thats $10 hard cash for every claim. What other frame vendor is doing that for you. Geez I guess its true, you can give somebody a gold bar and they'll still find something wrong with it. You can continue to moan and complain all you want but if you want to do something about your bottom line the tools are there to help.*


Angels Rock................. I just loved your speech on your previous post. You put up some really good arguments for your employer, .......guess thats why you got sent this way.

Above quote deals with a $ 10.00 handout.......a freebie....hard cash and so forth.

I have learned along the way that there are *NO* freebies in this world and have never been in the business community. Everything is calculated into the selling price somewhere along the line and into products sold. Anybody getting a $10.00 of hard cash has to pay back in some other form and shape.

----------


## 35oldguy

Experience really counts and also what your real investment is!






> Angels Rock................. I just loved your speech on your previous post. You put up some really good arguments for your employer, .......guess thats why you got sent this way.
> 
> Above quote deals with a $ 10.00 handout.......a freebie....hard cash and so forth.
> 
> I have learned along the way that there are *NO* freebies in this world and have never been in the business community. Everything is calculated into the selling price somewhere along the line and into products sold. Anybody getting a $10.00 of hard cash has to pay back in some other form and shape.

----------


## DocInChina

> I have learned along the way that there are *NO* freebies in this world and have never been in the business community. Everything is calculated into the selling price somewhere along the line and into products sold. Anybody getting a $10.00 of hard cash has to pay back in some other form and shape.


It seems we always gravitate back to the Lux issue. The proponents have strong arguments and will not be dissuaded no matter what. The proponents argue is "I think the question you need to ask is "does participating with Eyemed (selling Luxottica product) put money in MY pocket?" This is a short sighted way of thinking. The issue is not only how much working with Lux puts in your pocket; the issue is how much do you put in their pocket and how much of that goes to advertise and try to take your market share. 

Think of this as a trade embargo against an evil empire in the world. Yes it would be more convenient not having one because you have to find alternative sources, but the purpose is to have that evil empire changes its course of action. Today Lux has 20% market share. What will that be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? 

There are many global and historical examples we can draw on (which I will not do) that proves boycotting Lux and every division from their company would have an affect. But Lux knows that their are many optical people willing to do business with them so they have no reason to change their direction.

All the businesses participating in Eyemed, buying Lux frames is handing Lux a free market/demographic report which will help them plan their expansion. From a business (and military standpoint) it is a brilliant plan. Lux is not an evil empire, they are growing because of the support they receive by non-Lux companies.

Doc

----------


## Mikef

> It seems we always gravitate back to the Lux issue. The proponents have strong arguments and will not be dissuaded no matter what. The proponents argue is "I think the question you need to ask is "does participating with Eyemed (selling Luxottica product) put money in MY pocket?" This is a short sighted way of thinking. The issue is not only how much working with Lux puts in your pocket; the issue is how much do you put in their pocket and how much of that goes to advertise and try to take your market share. 
> 
> Think of this as a trade embargo against an evil empire in the world. Yes it would be more convenient not having one because you have to find alternative sources, but the purpose is to have that evil empire changes its course of action. Today Lux has 20% market share. What will that be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? 
> 
> There are many global and historical examples we can draw on (which I will not do) that proves boycotting Lux and every division from their company would have an affect. But Lux knows that their are many optical people willing to do business with them so they have no reason to change their direction.
> 
> All the businesses participating in Eyemed, buying Lux frames is handing Lux a free market/demographic report which will help them plan their expansion. From a business (and military standpoint) it is a brilliant plan. Lux is not an evil empire, they are growing because of the support they receive by non-Lux companies.
> 
> Doc


Don't take this the wrong way but BLAH BLAH BLAH

Lenscrafters spends a certain % of its gross sales on advertising.  
Luxottica knows every demographic in every town.
They can't afford to open stores on every street corner because they would not make any money.
They need independents to reach the other 80% that they can't.
If a new mall opens up in a busy area Lenscrafters will be there.
Simple business.

----------


## Mikef

> Angels Rock................. I just loved your speech on your previous post. You put up some really good arguments for your employer, .......guess thats why you got sent this way.
> 
> Above quote deals with a $ 10.00 handout.......a freebie....hard cash and so forth.
> 
> I have learned along the way that there are *NO* freebies in this world and have never been in the business community. Everything is calculated into the selling price somewhere along the line and into products sold. Anybody getting a $10.00 of hard cash has to pay back in some other form and shape.


But

Luxottica product is on average about 15 to 20% cheaper than companies like Safilo and Machon.
If you join Eyemed you will see more patients and make more money and so will Luxottica.
If you join Eyemed and buy Luxottica product you will see more patients and make even more money.

IF you buy frames you can get and extra $10 for every Eyemed patient that buys any frame Lux or not. 100 claims = $1,000

IF you increase you Lux business from the previous year you can get up to 7% back in free frames.

Bottom line is your bottom line is better.

----------


## Judy Canty

Gee, 7% in free frames...slowly and inexorably filling your available board space with Luxottica product and squeezing out other vendors.  It has been my experience that no one makes serious money from insurance plans except the company shareholders.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *IF you increase you Lux business from the previous year you can get up to 7% back in free frames*. 
> Bottom line is your bottom line is better.


Figure out the markup Lux must have on their frames. In order to make a direct offer like the one above their markup must support the 7% discount right from the start.

Therfore the one who does not increase Lux business is overpaying any purchase from the company by the 7% or the $ 1000.00 per month for claims.. As I said before..........*there are no freebies in business*............beside opticians adjusting frames.

----------


## DocInChina

> Don't take this the wrong way but BLAH BLAH BLAH


Why would I take your reply the wrong way? My words are not supportive of your company and I would have actually expected stronger words from you. 




> Luxottica knows every demographic in every town. They can't afford to open stores on every street corner because they would not make any money..


Which means they know which corner to choose and which corners to keep their eye on for shifting demographics. If Lux has a customer that is buying big quantities from them, and their obvious sales increase greatly year by year, are you saying that Lux will not use these indicators to target new locations for their company? Interesting busy model if they do not.





> They need independents to reach the other 80% that they can't.


At what % market share will Lux need to reach where, for them, the independents will not be needed?

Doc

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Which means they know which corner to choose and which corners to keep their eye on for shifting demographics. If Lux has a customer that is buying big quantities from them, and their obvious sales increase greatly year by year, are you saying that Lux will not use these indicators to target new locations for their company? Interesting busy model if they do not.*
> Doc


Customer traffic study for new store locations a la McDonalds Hamburger fame

----------


## drk

> Gee, 7% in free frames...slowly and inexorably filling your available board space with Luxottica product and squeezing out other vendors. It has been my experience that no one makes serious money from insurance plans except the company shareholders.


I wonder about that, myself. Is Davis Vision getting big bucks to their shareholders? How about Spectera; are they turning a buck for UHC? These companies are insurers and insurers only; they live and die from it. VSP is non-profit, so I know their officers are living fat. But just how much are VISION plans making, in general?

The reason I ask? Is Luxottica expecting a profit center from being a vision insurer? I'd doubt it. It's probably a bit of an administrative and sales monster. That's why they bought a used car. Not only that, but they have their main competition with giant VSP, who, I think, due to their non-profit model, can provide better services for less.

I really do think its to sell frames, Luxotica's core competence (aside from global domination;) ). They are building the networks, now, and selling the plans, but I can't see the "no frame requirement" hanging around too long. I'd give it 3 years, and then the water will start to heat up around the proverbial frog... :Eek: . It's a discount and cash-back "carrot" now, but probably a lesser-reimbursement "stick" later.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Is Luxottica expecting a profit center from being a vision insurer? I'd doubt it. It's probably a bit of an administrative and sales monster. That's why they bought a used car.* 
> 
> *I really do think its to sell frames, Luxotica's core competence (aside from global domination;) ). They are building the networks, now, and selling the plans, but I can't see the "no frame requirement" hanging around too long.*


The insurance came along with the used car ......................and the car will be re-built and re-newed and re-painted  with european ideas that do work across the atlantic.

The ultimate goal is to sell frames.......frames.........frames....frames, and when they sold enough frames they will buy one of the smaller or larger lens producers. Or may they will go the other way round.

----------


## chm2023

What intrigues me is the issue of the relative margins of the Lux frame biz and its retail branch.  Generally speaking a well run manufacturer is much more profitable than a well run retailer;  so while sales dollars increase (addition of the retail sales and the increase in frame sales with captive distribution), are margins (%) eroding?  (That question is less interesting if Lux is privately held, which I think it is????)  Theoretically of course as the volume of the frames goes up due to the forward integration strategy, the per unit cost will go down.  And of course there is the 3rd party question.  Interesting to think what the Lux long term strategy is, simply going into retail (any retail these days) doesn't make a lot of sense minus the other considerations.

----------


## drk

CHM, you make a good point that I was not aware of.

If retailing is less efficient than manufacturing, that lends credence to the stated reason for the chain purchases: simply to protect marketshare.

Therefore, it is more believeable that the Cole purchase is primarily to buy their third party organization; maybe they _did_ do it to protect marketshare loss to third party plans that have poor frame allowances. I can see Lux as having gotten hurt as third party increased worldwide, pushing the quality of frames way down.

And, VSP _has_ created it's own frame division, and has partnered in stategic relationships with other manufacturers, ostensibly in order to preserve competitiveness with other third party providers. And if Safilo and Charmant can't buy their own network, they _can_ piggyback on the big one.

I'm beginning to see Luxottica's strategery, perhaps. What a PR nightmare, though! :Confused:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *.......................Theoretically of course as the volume of the frames goes up due to the forward integration strategy, the per unit cost will go down.*


That is usually or very often not correct in a vertical integrated corporation.

Very often the mother house sells their satellites the products at a higher price than they would to somebody else. The figures are twisted and turned so the satellite makes as little profit as they possiblly can arrange. Then the satellite needs financial help which becomes a tax deduction for the parent firm.

----------


## chm2023

> That is usually or very often not correct in a vertical integrated corporation.
> 
> Very often the mother house sells their satellites the products at a higher price than they would to somebody else. The figures are twisted and turned so the satellite makes as little profit as they possiblly can arrange. Then the satellite needs financial help which becomes a tax deduction for the parent firm.


I am talking about cost in the traditional manufacturing sense.

I don't think we are at odds: I am saying greater volume drives down unit cost (i.e. cost to make) of goods, positively affecting the manufacturing margin; you are saying the transfer price may well go up, resulting in the tax scenario you describe. These are not in conflict.

I am in no way a tax expert; it would be interesting to analyze the value of profit pooling in Italy versus the US as per your scenario. There may well be a tax incentive for exports that also comes into the mix.

----------


## Aarlan

> (That question is less interesting if Lux is privately held, which I think it is.


Publicly traded on NYSE under ticker symbol  LUX , but one family (The DelVecchio family) has a controlling interest, and managerial clout.  

As much as everyone is against LC as a corporation and how they affect us as independents, Leonardo DelVecchio's is a tremendous success story. 

Forza Leonardo DelVecchio!!!

AA

----------


## rep

> I wonder about that, myself. Is Davis Vision getting big bucks to their shareholders? How about Spectera; are they turning a buck for UHC? These companies are insurers and insurers only; they live and die from it. VSP is non-profit, so I know their officers are living fat. But just how much are VISION plans making, in general?
> 
> The reason I ask? Is Luxottica expecting a profit center from being a vision insurer? I'd doubt it. It's probably a bit of an administrative and sales monster. That's why they bought a used car. Not only that, but they have their main competition with giant VSP, who, I think, due to their non-profit model, can provide better services for less.
> 
> I really do think its to sell frames, Luxotica's core competence (aside from global domination;) ). They are building the networks, now, and selling the plans, but I can't see the "no frame requirement" hanging around too long. I'd give it 3 years, and then the water will start to heat up around the proverbial frog.... It's a discount and cash-back "carrot" now, but probably a lesser-reimbursement "stick" later.


 
If you  prediction is true how do you explain that they lowered the requirement every two years until there was no requirement at all.

Let me assure you that VSP and Eye Med are very profitable. You are also dead wrong about non profit models providing better service.  VSP has oabout 14,000 of the 17,000 optometrist on their panels. Luxottica has their retail operations and about 10,000 private practioners to boot. How can VSP serve the families that have both husband and wife working 9-5? They can't. Most of the companies with manged care contracts want a broader range of providers with a wider range of hours. 

Rep

----------


## klewless70503

Rep,
Are you saying that--under VSP's plan--patients cannot see a provider because they are "working from 9 to 5" and ALL of VSP's providers are only open those hours?

I'd love to hear from some other opticals/optometrists/MD's offices on this board about hours.  I'm not aware of any independent shop in my area that is only open from 9 to 5, M through F.  Most are open evenings, and many even on Saturdays.

----------


## Angels Rock

> Angels Rock................. I just loved your speech on your previous post. You put up some really good arguments for your employer, .......guess thats why you got sent this way.
> 
> Above quote deals with a $ 10.00 handout.......a freebie....hard cash and so forth.
> 
> I have learned along the way that there are *NO* freebies in this world and have never been in the business community. Everything is calculated into the selling price somewhere along the line and into products sold. Anybody getting a $10.00 of hard cash has to pay back in some other form and shape.


Hi Chris,

Just to set the record straight I got sent this way from an optician, not the company.  I';m just a rep and have no desire to work corporate.  I like my freedom and sales gives me the opportunity.  

As far as freebies go, you are right.  There are no freebies.  This is nothing more than trying to entice you to come over to our way of thinking.  And why not, nobody else is giving you $10 for anything.  It's the same concept that VSP used to get you to file claims online.  Do it online and get a couple extra bucks reimbursement, do it manually and lose that incentive.

----------


## Angels Rock

> I wonder about that, myself. Is Davis Vision getting big bucks to their shareholders? How about Spectera; are they turning a buck for UHC? These companies are insurers and insurers only; they live and die from it. VSP is non-profit, so I know their officers are living fat. But just how much are VISION plans making, in general?
> 
> The reason I ask? Is Luxottica expecting a profit center from being a vision insurer? I'd doubt it. It's probably a bit of an administrative and sales monster. That's why they bought a used car. Not only that, but they have their main competition with giant VSP, who, I think, due to their non-profit model, can provide better services for less.
> 
> I really do think its to sell frames, Luxotica's core competence (aside from global domination;) ). They are building the networks, now, and selling the plans, but I can't see the "no frame requirement" hanging around too long. I'd give it 3 years, and then the water will start to heat up around the proverbial frog.... It's a discount and cash-back "carrot" now, but probably a lesser-reimbursement "stick" later.


Ah drk, I always enjoy your posts.  You always have the most relative questions.  

Let me start with Spectera and Davis.  Why does anybody even carry those plans.  They are the two worst two plans in the business.  You waste more time trying to crumble Lux and just accept the crap that those two plans throw at you.  You carry those plans you deserve what you get.:hammer: 

Secondly, you better believe its our plan to sell more frames.  We are after all in the frame business.  We have never made it a secret that if we could not sell more frames than there is no sense in being in the managed care business.  EyeMed is not our profit center.  It is more of a convenience and yes a tool to sell more frames. 

Will the no frame requirement be scrapped after three years like you suggested.  Who knows, but I hope so.  Afterall why should we send you patients just so you could send them a Safilo frame.

----------


## Snitgirl

> Rep,
> Are you saying that--under VSP's plan--patients cannot see a provider because they are "working from 9 to 5" and ALL of VSP's providers are only open those hours?
> 
> I'd love to hear from some other opticals/optometrists/MD's offices on this board about hours. I'm not aware of any independent shop in my area that is only open from 9 to 5, M through F. Most are open evenings, and many even on Saturdays.


We have appointments as late as 6pm and we are open on saturdays as well..

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Will the no frame requirement be scrapped after three years like you suggested. Who knows, but I hope so. Afterall why should we send you patients just so you could send them a Safilo frame.*


I just love it. And I am just about ready to make a bet that you will get quite a few customers with that sceem.

Every gimmick has a goal of some sort. I am fascinated how the company proceeds to re-gain part of the market they might have lost through the recent move of aquisitions.

As I said for a long time..............domination of a market is a very political game.

----------


## DocInChina

> Will the no frame requirement be scrapped after three years like you suggested. Who knows, but I hope so. Afterall why should we send you patients just so you could send them a Safilo frame.


You heard it here first folks. Reminds me of an expression: WHEN THE *TAIL* END *WAGS* THE *DOG.* 

Just to set the record straight; Lux's business strategy is perfect. I am sure it is working better than they even had hoped since so many ECP embrace every facet of Lux's business. 

Doc

----------


## Jacqui

I've been watching this thread since the beginning, and it's about time to say something. The only way to hurt Lux is to help other smaller companies sell more than Lux does. Take all of thier market share possible and keep it. This is going to take some inventive marketing on everyones part. Lux does not have a perfect marketing plan, no one does. Just find the small parts of the market that Lux and company aren't serving properly and expand, expand, expand. I think of it this way; the coyote doesn't go after all the available food just a part, but they keep spreading and growing and now have a big chunk of the food and territory. All big companies eventually fail, Lux will too, we just need to be persistant and keep nibbleing at them.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *All big companies eventually fail, Lux will too, we just need to be persistant and keep nibbleing at them.*


Jaqui,  You brought up a good point. The question is............when?

Imperial Optical in Canada controlled the optical market retail and wholesale at 30% for about 50 years.

B&L is gone of the ophthalmic market, American Optical is only a name, Sola has become a subsidiary of Zeiss, Rodenstock lived as a family business forever and is now functioning mostly in their home land under new owners.
Some of the old name German frame manufacturers (Metzler, Nigura) are names only and the products are made by Moulin (another giant)

Retail chains have been passed on to new owners over the last many years but still somehow survived, at least by name.

The larger a corporation the more red tape is being used. They become non-flexible and decisions are made by people that might not even have notion of the trade they are working in.

However they should not be under estimated in the way of handling their business.

----------


## Jacqui

Actually, I think it could happen sooner then later. We all need to work together to do it. There have been several good ideas, our own insurance, our own central labs, etc. We don't need to follow Lux's way, we need to show them that as independents we can create our own way and show the world that we can do things more profitably, with a better product and better service. What I'm trying to say is, we need to pull together. I know this is hard for independents, but extinction is forever.

----------


## DocInChina

> Actually, I think it could happen sooner then later. We all need to work together to do it. There have been several good ideas, our own insurance, our own central labs, etc. We don't need to follow Lux's way, we need to show them that as independents we can create our own way and show the world that we can do things more profitably, with a better product and better service. What I'm trying to say is, we need to pull together. I know this is hard for independents, but extinction is forever.


 
Well said.

----------


## Angels Rock

> I just love it. And I am just about ready to make a bet that you will get quite a few customers with that sceem.
> 
> Every gimmick has a goal of some sort. I am fascinated how the company proceeds to re-gain part of the market they might have lost through the recent move of aquisitions.
> 
> As I said for a long time..............domination of a market is a very political game.


I don't follow you.  Since Eyemed has been started it has actually gotten easier to be on the panel and there is no gimmick involved.  It started out that you had to have 200 frames to join in four different price categories.  We found two problems with this: 1. The very small shops that carried only 200 or so frames were certainly not capable of filling their entire stock with Lux, something that we do not advocateanyway, believe it or not.  2.  In the beginning there were lots of areas that did very little Eyemed so people did not want to stock frames when they were not seeing patients.

So we evolved a little bit.  Eyemed said fine, if you are seeing less than 26 patients per year than there is no frame requirement.  Anything over that you had to do $100 worth of business with Lux.  Everybody should be a winner, you get patients and we sell you good quality frames, unlike the Davis tower or Spectera box of not so good frames that you are required to have.

But guess what.  Even though the Drs. signed a contract agreeing to these conditions there were some that blatantly broke their word.  I have an acct. that literally saw 600 Eyemed patients and did not do any business with us.  It was not in anybodys best interest to start kicking people off the panel so we evolved again.

Same rules as before but now if you meet the requirements its a reward system and not a punative system.  If the same guy that saw 600 patients does not want to do business with us, so what.  Thats his business but he could be getting back $6,000 in reimbursements.  I don't know about you but I'll take a $6,000 raise anyday.  Maybe his three opticians could have a $2000 a year raise.  I bet they wouldn't mind selling Lux frames for that.

Bottom line is you have to buy frames from somebody.  You can either buy ours that are good quality and fairly priced and earn a little extra from Eyemed or you can buy the other guys who give you........a frame.:idea:

----------


## DocInChina

> Bottom line is you have to buy frames from somebody. You can either buy ours that are good quality and fairly priced and earn a little extra from Eyemed or you can buy the other guys who give you........a frame.:idea:


 
.....or you can buy the other guys who give you........a frame and do not look to compete with you for the retail market share and buy off your compliance to their aspirations with a short term carrot.  

Doc

----------


## Angels Rock

> .....or you can buy the other guys who give you........a frame and do not look to compete with you for the retail market share and buy off your compliance to their aspirations with a short term carrot. 
> 
> Doc


Yes you are right.  You can continue to buy frames for 15 to 20% more and pass that on to your patients.  You can continue to buy frames from companies that do nothing but sell you frames at a lesser discount than they sell to the chains.  Gee I wonder how I know that.  You don't have to buy frames from a company that actually drives patients thru your doors unlike any other frame company out there.

Face it.  Lenscrafters was your competition before Lux and they are still your competition, just like the OD down the street is your competition.  The difference is that the goal for US Shoe, when they owned LC, was to put you out of business.  It's been 10 years since the acquistion and you still seem to be in business.  Lots of my customers are doing better than ever and despite what you think Lux is not trying to put the independent out of business.

----------


## Mikef

Why is Luxottica always th only Evil company.

Highmark(Owner of Viva and Davis) has almost 3 times the revenue of Luxottica. They are buying up small retail chains across the country.

Luxottica's frame prices are about 10 to 20% less than other big frame venders. The reason: because those venders give bigger discounts their big customers and let the little independents pay for it.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Why is Luxottica always th only Evil company.


Hear! Hear!  There are plenty of Evil companies - enough to go around for everyone!  Let's not let one company have all the fun. ;)

----------


## Mikef

> Hear! Hear! There are plenty of Evil companies - enough to go around for everyone! Let's not let one company have all the fun. ;)


Thanks Steve,

Sometimes you don't see how dumb you sound unitl someone points it out.

My point was Luxottica has been a smoke screen for many other companies. Most independents that do well worry about the bottom line first and the political second.

On the Sunglass side -- Very few(or none) independent sunglass shops operate without doing business with Luxottica. They don't care (I guess) Because most of them are doing great.

OH Well!

----------


## rep

> Rep,
> Are you saying that--under VSP's plan--patients cannot see a provider because they are "working from 9 to 5" and ALL of VSP's providers are only open those hours?
> 
> I'd love to hear from some other opticals/optometrists/MD's offices on this board about hours. I'm not aware of any independent shop in my area that is only open from 9 to 5, M through F. Most are open evenings, and many even on Saturdays.


Of the 17,000 private OD's few are open all day Saturday and practically nil on Sunday. How many do you know who are open until 9:00pm 6 days per week?

Rep

----------


## rep

> We have appointments as late as 6pm and we are open on saturdays as well..


Are open until 9:00 pm six day a week and until six on Sunday.

How many independent OD's do you know who are open on Sunday?

If you and your husband both work every day from 9:00 to 5:00 when would you go for an eye exam and glasses? Most people in the optical profession fail to put themselves in the publics shoes.

Rep

----------


## Chris Ryser

[QUOTE=Angels Rock]
*......................Lots of my customers are doing better than ever and despite what you think Lux is not trying to put the independent out of business*.
[QUOTE]

Of course they dont want you out of business...................they want to own you, and dominate you as wellas all the all the others.

----------


## GOS_Queen

> Are open until 9:00 pm six day a week and until six on Sunday.
> 
> How many independent OD's do you know who are open on Sunday?
> 
> If you and your husband both work every day from 9:00 to 5:00 when would you go for an eye exam and glasses? Most people in the optical profession fail to put themselves in the publics shoes.
> 
> Rep


Excluding emergency clinics and hospitals, How many pediatricians are open 7 days a week ?  Internal Medicine Dr's ?  Dentists ?  

Karen

----------


## drk

> On the Sunglass side -- Very few(or none) independent sunglass shops operate without doing business with Luxottica. They don't care...


Are independent sunglass shops, on the whole, run by licensed opticians?  I doubt it.  Sure, they don't care.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Are open until 9:00 pm six day a week and until six on Sunday.* 
> Rep


Where is the consideration for employees? Either they work six days a week...........and get much better pay..........more holidays................extra benefits for extra hours supplied.

Or you need more personel to do the work and replace during off time.

In any case business wise this a much more expensive way of working.........plus you people do not have a regular work week and days off.

Maybe if somebody tips off a powerful union.......they might get unionized.......have to negotiate contracts and all that goes along with it.

----------


## 35oldguy

I buy what I can sell to my customers. I do not care who owns Lux. Neither does my customer. They only care about the service that I can provide.






> Why is Luxottica always th only Evil company.
> 
> Highmark(Owner of Viva and Davis) has almost 3 times the revenue of Luxottica. They are buying up small retail chains across the country.
> 
> Luxottica's frame prices are about 10 to 20% less than other big frame venders. The reason: because those venders give bigger discounts their big customers and let the little independents pay for it.

----------


## For-Life

Right on the front of its webpage Sears is offering _exclusive_ Ray Ban styles.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I buy what I can sell to my customers. I do not care who owns Lux. Neither does my customer. They only care about the service that I can provide*.


35oldguy.........please answer the following question:

If there would be another company selling the same type frames, giving the same type service................... which one would you prefer?

----------


## 35oldguy

Chris:

I am from a small town. The OD down the street did not stop selling LUX. I am the only independent. I sold their products for twenty years. Should I give the OD's all my old customers because I can no longer supply them with the same quality frames. They ask for the same frames because they got good quality and service from carrying that brand.




> 35oldguy.........please answer the following question:
> 
> If there would be another company selling the same type frames, giving the same type service................... which one would you prefer?

----------


## impact500

Chris: <<Where is the consideration for employees? Either they work six days a week...........and get much better pay..........more holidays................extra benefits for extra hours supplied. Or you need more personel to do the work and replace during off time. In any case business wise this a much more expensive way of working.........plus you people do not have a regular work week and days off.>>

If your goal is for the independents to stop losing market share, I suggest you start viewing things from the customer perspective. Many benefit significantly from expanded hours and it is one of the factors in the success of the chains. 

35oldguy: <<I buy what I can sell to my customers. I do not care who owns Lux. Neither does my customer. They only care about the service that I can provide.>>

Chris, 35 will prosper. His eyes are correctly focused on the customer. You seem more angry and it hinders your efforts to help other independents fight the evil empire. 

Chris: <<Maybe if somebody tips off a powerful union.......they might get unionized.......have to negotiate contracts and all that goes along with it.>>

If you think that will help accomplish your goals, what are you waiting for? Make the call yourself.

----------


## Spexvet

> Chris:
> 
> I am from a small town. The OD down the street did not stop selling LUX. I am the only independent. I sold their products for twenty years. Should I give the OD's all my old customers because I can no longer supply them with the same quality frames. They ask for the same frames because they got good quality and service from carrying that brand.


Why not keep your account open with Lux, in case they want exactly the same frame, but let them know there are better lines at lower prices than Lux? Wouldn't that be win for the customer, win for you, and lose for Lux? The best of all three worlds!
:bbg:

----------


## 35oldguy

I am small potoates. I do not think they would try to buy me out. Some day when I would like to retire I wish they would.

Of couse what portion of market share do I lose to the evil LUX? I am sure some of my customers run to the big city to get all that selection and fast service but as soon as they see the high prices they come back. And lack of good service!


[QUOTE=Chris Ryser][QUOTE=Angels Rock]
*......................Lots of my customers are doing better than ever and despite what you think Lux is not trying to put the independent out of business*.



> Of course they dont want you out of business...................they want to own you, and dominate you as wellas all the all the others.

----------


## drk

35 is not in the US. He's not getting his market gobbled. He can buy from whomever he wishes.  If I were not in the US, I'd buy a lot of Luxottica, because it's very good.

----------


## 35oldguy

I do not just have LUX on my boards. Maybe ten other companies brands. I try to carry what I think will sell and provide good service to my customer.




> Why not keep your account open with Lux, in case they want exactly the same frame, but let them know there are better lines at lower prices than Lux? Wouldn't that be win for the customer, win for you, and lose for Lux? The best of all three worlds!
> :bbg:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If you think that will help accomplish your goals, what are you waiting for? Make the call yourself.*


Impact500, I believe you are wrong in your long statement............

I do NOT hate Luxottica.............actually I admire them and try to learn from them........as we have never finished learning. Shrewd and modern thinking people who are achieving their goal which merits some admiration.

My interest seeing how things evolve. So far I have been right in looking ahead of what has been going on and the results that happened so far.

----------


## 35oldguy

Now Now DRK. I guess I am speaking in the past. I am trying to show all of you that the customer is the one that is important not US!

When you advertise you try to get the customer to come to you by offering something that will benefit them not US. The customer is my main concern whether I live here or there.



> 35 is not in the US. He's not getting his market gobbled. He can buy from whomever he wishes. If I were not in the US, I'd buy a lot of Luxottica, because it's very good.

----------


## impact500

Chris: <<I do NOT hate Luxottica>>

I apologize. I thought you considered LUX the evil empire.

Chris: <<So far I have been right in looking ahead of what has been going on and the results that happened so far.>>

Yup. You are smartest poster here. What will happen next? Will LUX continue to increase market share? Will the independents continue to shrink? Who will LUX buy next? Will the FTC ever stop them? Will poor service and/or high prices do them in at some point?

----------


## 35oldguy

You can only forecast THE FUTURE! You have to live in the present! and remember the PAST!




> Chris: <<I do NOT hate Luxottica>>
> 
> I apologize. I thought you considered LUX the evil empire.
> 
> Chris: <<So far I have been right in looking ahead of what has been going on and the results that happened so far.>>
> 
> Yup. You are smartest poster here. What will happen next? Will LUX continue to increase market share? Will the independents continue to shrink? Who will LUX buy next? Will the FTC ever stop them? Will poor service and/or high prices do them in at some point?

----------


## Jason Carruthers

> Chris: You are smartest poster here.


I thought I was!
As for LUX, they will continue to eat everything in their path until they eat themselves to death.  Dinosaurs big and powerful are extinct and one day LUX will also be.  Evolution is underway and its survival of the fittest, not survival of the biggest or most powerful.  Your definition of "fittest" will determine your fate.

----------


## drk

My prediction:

Luxottica will achieve their immediate goals by virtue of the Eyemed strategy. Becoming a viable third-party vision care plan, they will eat into VSP's marketshare and continue with their current better groups, thereby reducing their perceived exposure to third party. They will inevitably have to cut some cheap plans loose, which will be gobbled by Davis or UHC or whomever.

With guaranteed marketshare, Lux will have less and less resistance from independents, who will want on the provider panel. It's a short skip and a jump to incenting Lux product for these lives, their ultimate goal. 

Luxottica will not destroy the independent, for they know that it is a market niche they cut their teeth on, and still value. They will cater certain "exclusive" product to independents as a balm. Mollified independents will think Luxottica is doing them a favor, despite the bad customer service and long back-order waits.

Ultimately, Luxottica will have it all ways: independents, chains, private pay, third party, retail sunglass outlets, etc. 

Until the challenge of managing such a monstrosity rears its head. Acquisitions are one thing: managing effectively is another. Long, long term, I think it is not sustainable, but we're talking ten years, out, which is forever. I think the industry may re-fragment, eventually.

One thing's for sure: the independent has been here from the beginning, and will be here at the end.  Like cockroaches, we are an adaptable bunch.  Just not getting rich.
_Luxottica's motto sewn into Delvecchio's silk thong underwear: "Where there's a threat, buy it" (in Italian, of course)._

----------


## 35oldguy

I wonder who will gobble up Luxottica? Someone bigger and better! My prediction: WalMart!




> My prediction:
> 
> Luxottica will achieve their immediate goals by virtue of the Eyemed strategy. Becoming a viable third-party vision care plan, they will eat into VSP's marketshare and continue with their current better groups, thereby reducing their perceived exposure to third party. They will inevitably have to cut some cheap plans loose, who will be gobbled by Davis or UHC or whomever.
> 
> With guaranteed marketshare, Lux will have less and less resistance with independents who want on the provider panel. It's a short skip and a jump to incenting Lux product for these lives, their ultimate goal. 
> 
> Luxottica will not destroy the independent, for they know that that is a market niche they cut their teeth on, and still value. They will cater certain "exclusive" product to independents as a balm. Mollified independents will think Luxottica is doing them a favor, despite the bad customer service and long back-order waits.
> 
> Ultimately, Luxottica will have it all ways: independents, chains, private pay, third party, retail sunglass outlets, etc. 
> ...

----------


## LENNY

Chris said:   
Maybe if somebody tips off a powerful union.......they might get unionized.......have to negotiate contracts and all that goes along with it.

I think THIS will be a good answer to the tread question!
Chris you are always right!

----------


## Mikef

How much better off would Independents be if Luxottica never bought Lenscrafters or any of the other chains that were already there?

Who do you compete more with Chains or other Independents?

Who are you more like chains or other Independents?

----------


## Mikef

> Impact500, I believe you are wrong in your long statement............
> 
> I do NOT hate Luxottica.............actually I admire them and try to learn from them........as we have never finished learning. Shrewd and modern thinking people who are achieving their goal which merits some admiration.
> 
> My interest seeing how things evolve. So far I have been right in looking ahead of what has been going on and the results that happened so far.


I often bash companies that I admire too Chris.

What were you prediction??????

When was the last time you sold a frame retail?

----------


## For-Life

> How much better off would Independents be if Luxottica never bought Lenscrafters or any of the other chains that were already there?
> 
> Who do you compete more with Chains or other Independents?
> 
> Who are you more like chains or other Independents?


Any dollar lost is still a dollar lost

----------


## Angels Rock

> Why not keep your account open with Lux, in case they want exactly the same frame, but let them know there are better lines at lower prices than Lux? Wouldn't that be win for the customer, win for you, and lose for Lux? The best of all three worlds!
> :bbg:


Enlighten on what those lines might be.

----------


## Angels Rock

> Impact500, I believe you are wrong in your long statement............
> 
> I do NOT hate Luxottica.............actually I admire them and try to learn from them........as we have never finished learning. Shrewd and modern thinking people who are achieving their goal which merits some admiration.
> 
> My interest seeing how things evolve. So far I have been right in looking ahead of what has been going on and the results that happened so far.


Just curious Chris, what did you forsee when Lux bought LC and what negatives directley against the ECPs have actually happened.  Everything that I was hearing from ODs and opticians 10 years ago have not happened.

----------


## Spexvet

> Enlighten on what those lines might be.


Must I? I'll give you three guesses.  :Cool:

----------


## Angels Rock

> Chris said: 
> Maybe if somebody tips off a powerful union.......they might get unionized.......have to negotiate contracts and all that goes along with it.
> 
> I think THIS will be a good answer to the tread question!
> Chris you are always right!


Good luck, unions are getting weaker not stronger.

----------


## Angels Rock

> Must I? I'll give you three guesses.


Yes you must and try not to make me laugh.   :Confused:   :Confused:

----------


## LENNY

Tooooo Baaaaaaaaddddd

----------


## Angels Rock

Anybody know what that means?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I wonder who will gobble up Luxottica? Someone bigger and better! My prediction: WalMart!*


Not yet, in order to spin the wheel a little further *you will have another optical marriage which will put the nook around all your necks*.

Lux and Essilor.................or vise versa...........after each has eliminated major and smaller competition in his own field, which they are doing right now and over the last few years.

This is also a highly political game business wise. They are brainwashing you the retailer, with sweet efficient advertising towards you the professionals as well as the public, to successfuly create a demand for their products which are not any better or newer than the ones from a good smaller competitor.

*I have said it before............their goal is to control the business from A to Z............which means you will become the order and pickup station for finished glasses. There will be no more do yourself operations in the retail end and the less regulated the trade is, the better for them.*

----------


## drk

Do we have a precedent in the industry that will predict whether Luxottica's concept can succeed?

Yes, I think we do: Essilor and the independent labs.   Essilor has it's "direct to consumer (in this case, optician) campaign driving it's sales, and presumably driving the sales to the independent labs, who must buy these lenses from their own wholesale lab competitors.  Essilor labs continue to spring up everywhere.

What's keeping independent labs from boycotting Essilor, who is taking money out of their pockets?  Fear of not providing the "leading lens" to it's accounts?  I guess so.  I think, also, that there is always the hope of the big "cash out" at the end.

Maybe, eventually, all the labs that are worth buying _will_ be bought.  We'll be living in a "Ryserian" world...

----------


## For-Life

> Do we have a precedent in the industry that will predict whether Luxottica's concept can succeed?
> 
> Yes, I think we do: Essilor and the independent labs. Essilor has it's "direct to consumer (in this case, optician) campaign driving it's sales, and presumably driving the sales to the independent labs, who must buy these lenses from their own wholesale lab competitors. Essilor labs continue to spring up everywhere.
> 
> What's keeping independent labs from boycotting Essilor, who is taking money out of their pockets? Fear of not providing the "leading lens" to it's accounts? I guess so. I think, also, that there is always the hope of the big "cash out" at the end.
> 
> Maybe, eventually, all the labs that are worth buying _will_ be bought. We'll be living in a "Ryserian" world...


I deal with an Essilor lab, but if I was an independent lab I would boycott Essilor products.

You can do rather well with Sola, Zeiss, Hoya, Signet Armorlite, Younger, and who ever elses products.

----------


## drk

I think I would, too.

BTW, it's interesting the approach Hoya takes: use their lab or don't get the product at all.  Have to admire their guts.  Essilor gets it both ways, like Lux.  Sola-Zeiss will acquire labs, as well, I don't doubt.

The question is: how much consolidation of little local labs is desireable?  I think they only go after mega-regional-type labs, like Omega was in TX.  That will leave the small change sitting around for the independent to dig through the couch for.

That's Lux's plan for us as well...where there's market too small for them to penetrate efficiently, they will depend on selling within an independent's office for maximum marketshare.  Can't blame them for that.

This would never work if independents weren't so greedy and short-sighted.  But I'm not a big believer in human nature, so now I think it will.  I'm cynical.

----------


## Jacqui

> I deal with an Essilor lab, but if I was an independent lab I would boycott Essilor products.
> 
> You can do rather well with Sola, Zeiss, Hoya, Signet Armorlite, Younger, and who ever elses products.


Actually, I do boycot Essilor products in my lab.  :) My customers must be boycotting Lux frames too,  I've only seen 2 this last month. :)

----------


## Spexvet

> Yes you must and try not to make me laugh.


Safilo, Marchon, Viva, Tura, Europa, Aspex, Lawrence, Kenmark, Revolution, Hart Specialties, Value Eyewear, Windsor, Zimco, Silver Dollar, Nouveau, Shane Michael, CharmontCapri, Clear Vision, Elite Optik, Zyloware.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> * Essilor gets it both ways, like Lux. Sola-Zeiss will acquire labs, as well, I don't doubt.*
> .


Essilor and Zeiss, as well as Hoya, own already all major labs in Europe.

----------


## Fezz

DRK-concerning Hoya, you can get their lenses from other labs. Interestingly enough, often cheaper. I order them thru Walman and have used Premier Lens Lab which has them listed on their price list.

Fezz
 :cheers:

----------


## Jacqui

Laramy-k has them too, cheaper than Hoya

----------


## Mikef

I guess all the Luxottica bashers must be right.

If Luxottica never bought Lenscrafters independents would be doing much better. Luxottica has gained market share by buying up other chains that already exsit. They have not really added many stores and use the same % of ad dollars as they did 10 years ago. But they have managed to take more business away from independents everyday! I guess Luxottca just knows how to run opitcal shops better than Independents do. They also have been able to charge more than many independents and still get the business. Just think of how much business independents would lose if Luxottica bought Walmart optical and then bought every other exsisting chain. It would be ONE chain against the independents.

Is this what you guys mean?

Would you guys be better off if Luxottica did not own LC? and Why?

If they buy every chain that is already there how does that hurt?

How has not buying Luxottica product made you more money?

How has not being on Eyemed made you more money?



I hear everyday how Idependents are going to go the way of independent pharmacys. Why did most of them go out of business. ANSWER: Because they refused to change they stayed at inconveinent location they did not put in drive thru service and they did not offer the hours or products that the customers wanted.

Everyday I see Independent folks. Some doing well some not. Some changing some still operating the same way their grandfather did 50 years ago!

I believe that Independent optical can thrive but many MUST change to meet the changing demands of the customer!

Lastly, I am PRO independent my family has 2 locations and I make no money off chain stores. I have seen some independents do some great things in a tough business. I do pretty well for myself and hope you all do too.

Im tired

----------


## LENNY

Goooooodddd night!!!

----------


## iwear2020

As i began reading this thread, i was excited that i am not alone in this desire to bash L-------a. Now I am bored. We have agreed to boycot them by not purchasing frames from them, not signing up with the E----d program and we also have the great reps from L-------a who have stood like a great soldier defending the monopoly that will eat us all up. We said similar things when WalMart got in the optical end and we are saying the same thing about Essilor buying up the labs and not to mention the internet! Look, if you think that the insurance companies are not the ones in your pocket, check again. VSP is the main one. Sure it is a great plan but for who? if the patient adds up premium and out of pocket expense after upgrades it is very similar to your retail charges they would have paid anyway. What makes E----d different is that they are owned by L-------a and now you freak out? The insurance companies for the most part are profit giants...any company who is not is..well not in business. The patients will go to wherever their plans take them because it changes every year these days because their company they work for shops for better premiums to save money....sound familiar? L-------a will be around for a long time as you will be. So they make billions, and you make millions, hundreds of thousands, etc. Who cares really. Ask your patients, "do i make you happy?" "Will you return to me?" "How can i be better?" Will you refer me to your friends?" Not rocket science questions.... just rocket powered. 
Look Ladies and Gentleman.....as I have said before. It is just a piece of metal and plastic. Go get it!  L-------a is not the only MFG. and darn sure not the best. You are.
Craig Moore,
Padre Island

----------


## DocInChina

There have been many good points brought up here (time and again). Iwear2020 brought up Essilor. We all know Hoya , and soon SOLA-Zeiss, will be buying up labs. Not only should you all be looking at the eyewear manufacturers, you must look at the lens companies too. Once the lab market is controlled by these giants, the prices will be controlled. There are many independent labs and wholesale stock lens companies out there still. I encourage you to seek them out and support them. I was never a Varilux presciber simply because I didn't think they were the best product and I didn't want Essilor's advertising directing how I prescribed. My patients trusted my recommendations and rarely did I have a patient go against my advice. There is alot of excellent private label product. Test different companies until you find what is right for you.

Doc

----------


## jjbons

[QUOTE=drk] 
BTW, it's interesting the approach Hoya takes: use their lab or don't get the product at all. Have to admire their guts. Essilor gets it both ways, like Lux. Sola-Zeiss will acquire labs, as well, I don't doubt.

The question is: how much consolidation of little local labs is desireable? I think they only go after mega-regional-type labs, like Omega was in TX. That will leave the small change sitting around for the independent to dig through the couch for.

QUOTE]

DRK,

As previous posters have indicate you are incorrect about HOYA lenses only being available from HOYA owned labs. HOYA lists over 100 independant distributor locations as authorized labs.

In the interest of full disclosure, I not only work for HOYA, I am the person that manages our independent distribution channel.

JB

----------


## Spexvet

> I guess all the Luxottica bashers must be right.


Finally! :p

----------


## Spexvet

> Why are you so concerned about a company that only has 20% of the market and 3000 out of the 50,000 stores in the US?
> 
> Rep


Rep,
What was your source for 50,000 stores in the US?  :Confused:

----------


## drk

I was unaware that Hoya went through indy labs.  Hoya has some amazing lens materials, and I understand the Summit CD is really good.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I was unaware that Hoya went through indy labs. Hoya has some amazing lens materials, and I understand the Summit CD is really good.*


Most lens materials come from the same very few sources.............and are used by different lens manufacturers but they sell them under their own brand names. 

What you can get fom one you can get from another.

----------


## Jacqui

About a week ago I received samples of some generic progressives from the Far  East, the published map and what I could tell from examining them looked just like GP wides, hmmmmm.

----------


## For-Life

I still argue that there are only grades of lenses.

For instance, Panamic's, Sola Ones, Gradal Tops are at the top.

VIP's, Adapters, Naturals are below.

There are a difference between the grades, but minor differences between the products in each grade.

----------


## Angels Rock

> Safilo, Marchon, Viva, Tura, Europa, Aspex, Lawrence, Kenmark, Revolution, Hart Specialties, Value Eyewear, Windsor, Zimco, Silver Dollar, Nouveau, Shane Michael, CharmontCapri, Clear Vision, Elite Optik, Zyloware.


Well the vast majority of those lines are in a different category and you're right they are cheaper.

The one I was looking for is your first choice.  Great product, great names but price wise much higher.  Also just curious as to why its OK for Safilo to own retail establishments and not OK for Lux.  :idea:

----------


## DocInChina

> The one I was looking for is your first choice. Great product, great names but price wise much higher. Also just curious as to why its OK for Safilo to own retail establishments and not OK for Lux. :idea:


Probably because Safilo is not in his backyard. In truth Safilo should receive the same bashing but for now, their threat seems to be less of an issue.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Probably because Safilo is not in his backyard. In truth Safilo should receive the same bashing but for now, their threat seems to be less of an issue.*


Actually bashing the Tiger is more successfull and effective in cases like these, before the animal is fully grown and become a real threat.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *About a week ago I received samples of some generic progressives from the Far East, the published map and what I could tell from examining them looked just like GP wides, hmmmmm*.


There are new and modern ways of copying lens surfaces to new molds. A generic today can be an exaxt replica of the original brand name and more or most expensive type lens. You can now purchase progressive lens molds in the far east for a fraction of the price they cost in this part of the globe.

Now that the large companies like Essilor et al  have diverted all their manufacturing to the far east, your most expensive brand names also come from there and are made by chinese machines and hands.

So what the heck is the problem.................they all come from that part of the world...........are the same...............look the same.........are made in the same place by the same fingers.............*but:*

*They do not have the sweet, heavy duty brainwash advertising for which you pay with every pair of lenses you purchase, and dispense to the public        !!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Is is not time to reflect and think a little further than your nose. In every field the smart companies dealing with the far east have made it big. Look at the Wal-Mart and others selling brand name items that are made better (and in the far east)  than 15 years ago for half the price they used to cost and they are making the same profit margin as they would have 15 to 20 years go, but more people can afford to purchase them. Therefore their income is not reduced in comparison but has probably increased manifold.

It is time to stop bashing the far east and the chinese made products because even in our field it now looks like a fact that just about 90% of the finished products are made there and you buy and sell them every day believing you are still selling the good old brand names.

I just run across a chinese made lens engraving machine you can purchase for a few hundred dollars and engrave the lens, even a generic one with any fancy name or brand yourself.

*Conclusion:*
*Opticians are a very conservative crowd resisting changes to modern times, and haveen forever, and take a long time to adapt. Times have changed and not every good brain is working for the large corporations, which are banking on this mentality.*
*There plenty others left that can come up with new ideas all the time, but in general only become valid when the large corporations adopt them.*

----------


## Jason Carruthers

> *They do not have the sweet, heavy duty brainwash advertising for which you pay with every pair of lenses you purchase, and dispense to the public !!!!!!!!!!!*


The generic progressives might be exact copies, but how could you convince people without the heavy duty advertising?  Furthermore, who has time to hire a team of scientists to continuously examine and test every lens?  The easier way is just to buy the lens that everyone else is buying because, if everyone is buying it, it must be the best, right?

----------


## drk

Well, I just had to turn away my first patient this morning because I am not an Eyemed provider. Drove away in her Jag...

Check out this tidbit from Eyemed's website (cut and paste):
*Choice* The freedom to choose from an extensive network of private practice 

optometrists, ophthalmologists, opticians or from the nations leading

optical retailers including: 


**



And check this tidbit out:
Our Customers

EyeMed Vision Care administers vision care programs for over 120 million members nationwide. Some of our clients include: 



And get this!:
New! Replacement Contact Lens By Mail Service

*Effective January 1, 2004, all EyeMed Vision Care and ECPA members will have the option to purchase replacement contact lenses for great prices via the Internet, and have the lenses mailed directly to their homes.*

*Benefits of This New Service For All EyeMed and ECPA members:*
This service will provide a quick and easy option for ordering replacement contact lensesGreat pricing for replacement contact lensesThe convenience of having lenses mailed directly to your home*Please Note: If you have a contact lens allowance with your core in-network benefit, it is not applicable to the replacement lens service.* You should always receive a comprehensive contact lens exam and your initial pair of lenses from your EyeMed or ECPA professional provider for proper fit and follow-up care.

*Here's how it works...*
You must be an active EyeMed Vision Care or ECPA member to order replacement lenses.You must have a valid contact lens prescription to order lenses from the site. The prescription details will be requested for release from your EyeMed or ECPA Vision Care provider. Orders will not be processed without the release of the contact lens prescription from your eye care provider.You will be asked to select the name of your vision care provider, enter in the brand and quantity of lenses you wish to purchase to meet your needs until your prescription expires, as well as requested billing and shipping information. _This service is not part of your core in-network benefit, so you will be responsible for all expenses incurred from utilizing the service_. The cost of your order will display on the screen. There is a standard $5.95 shipping charge for all orders, however, if the manufacturer is offering any type of special offer or free shipping at the time of your order, you will be able to take advantage of the special offer.Eyemedcontacts.com will do the rest! Upon release of your contact lens prescription by your eye care provider, your lenses will be mailed directly to your home.Click *HERE* to go to eyemedcontacts.com.


They almost had me going for awhile, but that replacement CL scheme is just about the lowest form of life I've seen in awhile...

Did the 3 O's really need big brother to step in to prevent the "downmarketing" of frames from the proliferation of low-rent vision-care plans?

Do we need Luxottica's "brand advertising media blitz" to raise brand and quality awareness to the general consumer?  (One which I've yet to experience.  BTW, didn't Lux claim they bought LC "for it's advertising budget"?  They've had plenty of time to Prada and Rayban the public, but I've yet to see it...)


No, I've come to the conclusion over and over that Lux, OF COURSE, is covering their exposure to 3rd party by joining them.

And I've maintained the reason, OF COURSE, that Luxottica purchased LC is for a retail outlet for their frames. 

'Nuff said.

----------


## rep

I spoke to an optometrist yesterday who use to work in Manhattan. The SAG (screen actors guild) has their member benefits tied to Davis. She relates that all of the sag members would come to their practice and get only what Davis paid for when they could afford anything. It's human nature.

I am sure there are many others that have never graced your door because you choose not to be a member. Look for lots more to leave your store in the future.  When it really begins to hurt is when your own patients leave. They will leave in a heartbeat,  if their company changes plans, without even batting an eye. 

I see nothing outrageous regarding the contact lens replacement program. It's nothing new and almost every big managed care provider is doing the same. 

In conclusion, by going all out to "hurt" Luxottica  the reality is you hurt yourself.

Rep

----------


## DocInChina

> You can now purchase progressive lens molds in the far east for a fraction of the price they cost in this part of the globe.


Not only can you purchase the lens molds you can have your surface lens work made in China and delivered to your office within a few days. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and China all have companies offering this service. 






> Now that the large companies like Essilor et al have diverted all their manufacturing to the far east, your most expensive brand names also come from there and are made by chinese machines and hands..


I can confirm this to be true. Additionally, I can confirm Safilo and Lux are manufacturing in my province. 





> Is is not time to reflect and think a little further than your nose. In every field the smart companies dealing with the far east have made it big. 
> 
> It is time to stop bashing the far east and the chinese made products because even in our field it now looks like a fact that just about 90% of the finished products are made there and you buy and sell them every day believing you are still selling the good old brand names.


Chris, I truly enjoy reading your posts. You have an excellent perspective of our field. Hopefully your experience and advice will open the eyes of others in our field. 

On a different note, can you send me the details about the chinese made lens engraving machine. I have some customers that would like the lenses they buy to have their own logo.

----------


## Spexvet

> ...Great product, great names but price wise much higher. ... :idea:


How can you say that they priced higher - they don't sell the same products?

----------


## For-Life

I still blame all of the independents for not creating their own vision care plans to offer to these companies.

----------


## Angels Rock

> How can you say that they priced higher - they don't sell the same products?


You selectively took one sentence and placed it out of context.  Go back and read it again. :Eek:

----------


## drk

> I am sure there are many others that have never graced your door because you choose not to be a member. Look for lots more to leave your store in the future. When it really begins to hurt is when your own patients leave. They will leave in a heartbeat, if their company changes plans, without even batting an eye. 
> 
> I see nothing outrageous regarding the contact lens replacement program. It's nothing new and almost every big managed care provider is doing the same. 
> Rep


Point 1: Totally agree.  That's when it hurts.  I'll kiss butt as a conquered vassal then, but not until.
Point 2: Unless you're saying that the practitioner gets the money, then you're competing all over again against the practioner.

I am wrong?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *The generic progressives might be exact copies, but how could you convince people without the heavy duty advertising? Furthermore, who has time to hire a team of scientists to continuously examine and test every lens? The easier way is just to buy the lens that everyone else is buying because, if everyone is buying it, it must be the best, right?*


Jason,  I hope you don't dream in colours if you think that the big time advertisers use teams of scientist's to check every lens made. Once the mould exist's lenses are moulded in it day and night and no further ckecking is necessary than to see that it is cured properly. The scientists are there to develop the curves and not to check finished lenses.

Being an optician and licensed in Ontario you have a pretty good optical background and education as they are all supposed to have in that corner of North America. 

Sales psychology can also be learned and is very helpful in order to convince a customer that the only difference between a heavily advertised product and the same thing under a generic label will be as good but less expensive.

I bet you that you know when you go to Loblaws (largest supermarket in Canada) and look at the "*President's Choice"* products you can tell that they are exactly the same as brand name products that sell for 15-20% more. Very often they are identical brand name product....only re-packaged. Even optical lens manufacturers do the same thing and sell prime products in generic packages.

When you are sick............you probably ask the phamacist to give you the doctors Rx in a generic product at half price, knowing it is the same chemical formula than the original brand name.

----------


## slaboff

> I still blame all of the independents for not creating their own vision care plans to offer to these companies.


 
For life you nailed.... if we want to compete in the future we will need to start our own direct marketing to companies... however it is difficult to do because most companies want a national plan with thousands of providers... it would require a monumental effort on the part of independents to agree on it and put forth the effort required...

----------


## chm2023

> For life you nailed.... if we want to compete in the future we will need to start our own direct marketing to companies... however it is difficult to do because most companies want a national plan with thousands of providers... it would require a monumental effort on the part of independents to agree on it and put forth the effort required...


Ask yourself, who else has a big stake in keeping the independent part of the market robust?  Seems to me the independent labs and lab networks--i.e. Lightbenders, OSI, even the OLA.  They also have the critical mass.

----------


## Jason Carruthers

Chris:


You make good points and your logic is impeccable.  But you are applying it to individuals.  Individuals are smart enough to know the generics are just as good.  But markets do not behave the same as individuals.  Markets purchase the leading brands.  Presidents Choice will make some money but President's Choice cola will never sell more than a fraction of Coca-Cola.

The same is true in the optical business.  You're right, sales psychology can help you sell a generic lens to an individual.  But it will never gain acceptance in the market at large.

----------


## drk

> Ask yourself, who else has a big stake in keeping the independent part of the market robust? Seems to me the independent labs and lab networks--i.e. Lightbenders, OSI, even the OLA. They also have the critical mass.


Sorry to burst the bubble, but the cost of developing, marketing, selling, administrating such a plan would be astronomical.  Who has that kind of money?  Nobody!

----------


## slaboff

currently the only insurance that is keeping the independents in the game is VSP... I am not a huge fan of vsp because they do not allow independent opticians to join their panel... which is unfair... however i do appreciate that they are the ones keeping us independent folks afloat

----------


## chm2023

> Sorry to burst the bubble, but the cost of developing, marketing, selling, administrating such a plan would be astronomical. Who has that kind of money? Nobody!


Don't agree.  It's a matter of re-directing resources, utilizing existing strengths. There are 20,000 plus independents out there.  That's a huge base over which to spread cost.  Of course it would require some vision.  On the other hand, if you are convinced the glass is always half empty, then by all means go buy yourself a nice white flag.

----------


## Spexvet

> Well the vast majority of those lines are in a different category and you're right they are cheaper.
> 
> The one I was looking for is your first choice. Great product, great names but *price wise much higher*. Also just curious as to why its OK for Safilo to own retail establishments and not OK for Lux. :idea:


How can you say that they priced higher - they don't sell the same products?

----------


## For-Life

> Sorry to burst the bubble, but the cost of developing, marketing, selling, administrating such a plan would be astronomical. Who has that kind of money? Nobody!


I don't think so.

If everyone pitched in just a little it could easily get off the ground.

What I would suggest is trying it out in one State first.  Maybe all of the Wisconsin independent opticians and labs get together and try to get a some small to large companies on board.

Offer them better benefits for the glasses.

----------


## slaboff

I agree it can be done, but getting enough retailers to agree on anything is a task in itself... i think if they can agree on something then the money would really not be as much as an issue...

----------


## Jacqui

Most of us independents are toooo independent   :hammer:

----------


## drk

> Don't agree. It's a matter of re-directing resources, utilizing existing strengths. There are 20,000 plus independents out there. That's a huge base over which to spread cost. Of course it would require some vision. On the other hand, if you are convinced the glass is always half empty, then by all means go buy yourself a nice white flag.


CHM, you are usually the fiscally-conservative one...

Can you see all these independents getting together and agreeing on _anything?_ 

Can you see independents pony-ing up bucks to take a reduced fee-for-service, and then getting some sort of share-holder's profit distribution later in the year?

Can you compete with the sophistication of modern third-party companies, with all their money when you knock on the door of IBM to sell your plan? 

Paper claims or electronic? Credentialing? Liability requirements? Customer service?  Provider relations?  Website presence?  Member literature? It's a massive undertaking.

Can you think of the possible "political" implications with current vision-care plans like VSP, Specterrible, Davis, when they find out some of their provider panel is now their competition for marketshare?

----------


## 35oldguy

Why not? Simply get togther form your own advertising company and make it work! How many independents are there? Join forces. It may be necessary to stay afloat. Stop just talking about it and do it!!!






> Sorry to burst the bubble, but the cost of developing, marketing, selling, administrating such a plan would be astronomical. Who has that kind of money? Nobody!

----------


## drk

Ok!  I'm pumped.  I'll donate $5,000 to make the venture work.  I'm sure many will follow.  I'm sure we'll see a good return on our investment as we out-compete the current vision-care insurance companies!:hammer: It's a sure thing.  I'm glad so many of us rich independents are lining up in lock-step.  That's why the AOA and OOA are so strong and effective...

NAH!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *You're right, sales psychology can help you sell a generic lens to an individual. But it will never gain acceptance in the market at large.*


I knew, I was right............as you state it would sell generic to an individual.

*The market at large consist's of a lot of individuals, thats how it is made up and we can not change that. Therefore sales are made to individuals by individuals .................*

According to above statement, we should be able to assume that by learning and apply some good sales psychology, we can and should be able to convince the market at large that has been brainwashed prior to the fact. 

*After all who is the last and final professional the customer is seeing, ..................the optican.*

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Can you think of the possible "political" implications with current vision-care plans like VSP, Specterrible, Davis, when they find out some of their provider panel is now their competition for marketshare?*


Have you ever heard that any startup business is asking their future competition for advice?

I personally think that opticians would be a natural choice to start a vision plan with nothing else besides. Lux who now owns one of them is now direct competition where a few years ago they were simply a plain supplier............did they ever ask anybody what the reaction and implications would be.

They just assumed that the optical business is so loose and could never get organized, so there would be no implications, political or other. In general I think they were right.

----------


## drk

I think you've bolstered my point there, Chris.

----------


## 35oldguy

Nah!

And that is why they the big companies will always have the upper hand! Too much apathy!

OAA and other organizations I do not know! Seems like they just have meetings!! 

From a business viewpoint in would be in everyones interest to work together much like a buying group!

But as I said before there appears to be too much of a bad attitude for anything worthwhile to work!





> Ok! I'm pumped. I'll donate $5,000 to make the venture work. I'm sure many will follow. I'm sure we'll see a good return on our investment as we out-compete the current vision-care insurance companies!:hammer: It's a sure thing. I'm glad so many of us rich independents are lining up in lock-step. That's why the AOA and OOA are so strong and effective...
> 
> NAH!

----------


## Spexvet

> Can you see independents pony-ing up bucks to take a reduced fee-for-service, and then getting some sort of share-holder's profit distribution later in the year?
> 
> Can you compete with the sophistication of modern third-party companies, with all their money when you knock on the door of IBM to sell your plan? 
> 
> Paper claims or electronic? Credentialing? Liability requirements? Customer service? Provider relations? Website presence? Member literature? It's a massive undertaking.


As I understand it, under the current system, the process, simplified, goes something like this: The patient pays Clarity (for example) for their vision coverage. The patient sees the provider, pays a copay, and the provider bills Clarity, which pays a little more. 

How about offering a simple discount plan? Cut out the patient payment to the "insurance company", and make it so the patient will pay the amount that would have been the reimburement from the "insurance company". The patient's total outlay should remain about the same - reduction in payment to insurance company, offset by the addition of the copay amount. This would reduce our outlay to sales and marketing - no processing claims, etc.

How's that as a staring point to keep down start-up costs?

----------


## For-Life

Drk, you are looking at this in a way too complicated way.

Do not set up the frames and the lenses.  Instead go to these companies and offer a flat rate.  Maybe like $200 for glasses every two years.  Have independents buy in to be able to take part of this plan.

----------


## 35oldguy

Davis and all the others had to start somewhere...from zero I think!

Are'nt these companies just insurance companies. They have stolen what is rightfully yours- profit.

In my business we could easily charge less and get a hugh profit. Volume sales is the way to do it. How many of you only have a few sales a day because you lose to the 3rd parties.

Of the plans I saw when I lived in the states the reimbusement was very high. The consumer did not get much of a discount at all.

If you work it right you could put them out of business. After all they are just insurance companies. What kind of good service do JQP get from them?

Just a paper claim!







> CHM, you are usually the fiscally-conservative one...
> 
> Can you see all these independents getting together and agreeing on _anything?_ 
> 
> Can you see independents pony-ing up bucks to take a reduced fee-for-service, and then getting some sort of share-holder's profit distribution later in the year?
> 
> Can you compete with the sophistication of modern third-party companies, with all their money when you knock on the door of IBM to sell your plan? 
> 
> Paper claims or electronic? Credentialing? Liability requirements? Customer service? Provider relations? Website presence? Member literature? It's a massive undertaking.
> ...

----------


## 35oldguy

Bravo!!! Yo se que la gente que esa optica es muy inteligente!

My spanish is not too good but I think we have a lot of intelligent people on these boards!





> As I understand it, under the current system, the process, simplified, goes something like this: The patient pays Clarity (for example) for their vision coverage. The patient sees the provider, pays a copay, and the provider bills Clarity, which pays a little more. 
> 
> How about offering a simple discount plan? Cut out the patient payment to the "insurance company", and make it so the patient will pay the amount that would have been the reimburement from the "insurance company". The patient's total outlay should remain about the same - reduction in payment to insurance company, offset by the addition of the copay amount. This would reduce our outlay to sales and marketing - no processing claims, etc.
> 
> How's that as a staring point to keep down start-up costs?

----------


## Jason Carruthers

> we should be able to assume that by learning and apply some good sales psychology, we can and should be able to convince the market at large that has been brainwashed prior to the fact.


Again Chris, your logic is sound and I like learning from you.  If I understand your point, you're saying that a product can beat an identical product if the price is lower, regardless of the name.  But again, I insist that the masses don't behave logically, as individuals do.

An example:  Hundreds of thousands of blind taste tests have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Royal Crown cola tastes better than Coke.  So why is Coke the leader and Royal Crown nowhere?  Because of marketing.  When you buy a can of Coke, are you drinking the contents or the label?  Individuals know that Royal Crown tastes better but the market still prefers Coke.

Same thing with lens and frame brands.  When people wear Panamics are they wearing the front surface design or the name?  I say the name.

----------


## drk

> Drk, you are looking at this in a way too complicated way.
> 
> Do not set up the frames and the lenses. Instead go to these companies and offer a flat rate. Maybe like $200 for glasses every two years. Have independents buy in to be able to take part of this plan.


Let me see if I get this right...

Let's offer $100/yr of benefit to the member.  Now, where do we get that $100?  From the employer.  But we can't charge them $100, can we?  No, otherwise the employer could just dole it out themselves.  We have to charge them, say, $50 per member per year.  Then, we have to assume risk.  That's what insurance is: "risk management". It's a gamble that a substantial portion of the members NOT utilize their benefits to reduce our payout to our providers (ourselves, in this case) if we want to turn a profit at the insurance level, or even if we want to break even, like VSP apparently does (after paying all the salaries).  Not to mention family plans...

So, assuming we break even, then we have captured part of the market by offering a $100/yr benefit that they can spend only in our office.  Maybe we can get our U&C fees, and the member gets a $100 off benefit.

In the bad years, we do not break even, and we have to dip into the reserve to pay out all those benefits...what reserve?

Do we have to be rated by the insurance industry?  You bet.  Do we have to follow state and federal insurance industry regulations?  You bet....

----------


## For-Life

> Let me see if I get this right...
> 
> Let's offer $100/yr of benefit to the member. Now, where do we get that $100? From the employer. But we can't charge them $100, can we? No, otherwise the employer could just dole it out themselves. We have to charge them, say, $50 per member per year. Then, we have to assume risk. That's what insurance is: "risk management". It's a gamble that a substantial portion of the members NOT utilize their benefits to reduce our payout to our providers (ourselves, in this case) if we want to turn a profit at the insurance level, or even if we want to break even, like VSP apparently does (after paying all the salaries). Not to mention family plans...
> 
> So, assuming we break even, then we have captured part of the market by offering a $100/yr benefit that they can spend only in our office. Maybe we can get our U&C fees, and the member gets a $100 off benefit.
> 
> In the bad years, we do not break even, and we have to dip into the reserve to pay out all those benefits...what reserve?
> 
> Do we have to be rated by the insurance industry? You bet. Do we have to follow state and federal insurance industry regulations? You bet....


You work it into the benefits with other companies.  

Take a look at how Canada does it.

Liberty Health, Blue Cross, Green Shield all offer it. 

Now you go to them and you work something out with them.  

Also, for the big companies it is not a problem, because not everyone at the company wears glasses.

----------


## drk

Yeah, but usually the employees have to pay a certain amount to enroll, as well. They ain't enrollin' if they's see-in good.

Chris and Jason: "Get a room"

This is the most incoherent thread in awhile!

----------


## DocInChina

> So, assuming we break even, then we have captured part of the market by offering a $100/yr benefit that they can spend only in our office. Maybe we can get our U&C fees, and the member gets a $100 off benefit.
> 
> In the bad years, we do not break even, and we have to dip into the reserve to pay out all those benefits...what reserve?


Most 3rd party plans that I had participated in offered a basic plan to their members. For those benefits not covered under the plan the members had to pay a discounted rate for each item (frame upgrade, lens upgrade, coatings, etc). Additionally, the patients had to pay for other testing (DFE, Visual fields, etc). We never lost money on these plans no matter how terrible. Its important to understand the plan fully and work with it. 

Also, their are much less expensive alternatives to Essilor, Hoya and Zeiss products. You are the professionals and it is up to you to prescribe and educate your patients. Seek out alternatives for both eyewear and lenses. Work with private label contact lenses from the manufacturers. Marketing only costs alot of money if you are unwilling to market one patient at a time. Use the brand names to advertise and use your knowledge to prescribe and advertise the same way the brand names are using you and marketing directly to your patients.

Doc

----------


## rep

> As I understand it, under the current system, the process, simplified, goes something like this: The patient pays Clarity (for example) for their vision coverage. The patient sees the provider, pays a copay, and the provider bills Clarity, which pays a little more. 
> 
> How about offering a simple discount plan? Cut out the patient payment to the "insurance company", and make it so the patient will pay the amount that would have been the reimburement from the "insurance company". The patient's total outlay should remain about the same - reduction in payment to insurance company, offset by the addition of the copay amount. This would reduce our outlay to sales and marketing - no processing claims, etc.
> 
> How's that as a staring point to keep down start-up costs?


...........................you don't know the first thing about how managed care works. 

Managed care is a benefit from employers. Some employees pay a portion of their health care cost but the majority of it is paid by the employer who wants, to pay less than retail, wants to know what his outlay is going to be and wants multi providers, in multi states with administration. ( someone has to verify eligibility - unless of course you want everyone to get the discount) Finally they want some type of certification and credentialing of the providers. All of this cost lots of money. 

OAA and a number of state societies have had discount plans. There was no income to support sales or advertising. Firms refused to pay firm dues, individuals refused to pay individual dues. And state societies refused to pay state society dues. That program and many others went away. Funded plans were impossible to secure because every state society wanted a little piece of the action and didn't want to pay administrative fees. Michigan had a mildly sucessful program call HAN. I am not sure if they are even around any more and so did California. I doubt it. 

Every major group I can think of offers discount optical plans (usually packaged with dental) to their members. 

I think there are even optical buying groups that have managed care plans.

I don't think it is possible with the competition at the leval it has reached in todays market. It was probably possible 10 years ago when this was being attempted but not today. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> Again Chris, your logic is sound and I like learning from you. If I understand your point, you're saying that a product can beat an identical product if the price is lower, regardless of the name. But again, I insist that the masses don't behave logically, as individuals do.
> 
> An example: Hundreds of thousands of blind taste tests have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Royal Crown cola tastes better than Coke. So why is Coke the leader and Royal Crown nowhere? Because of marketing. When you buy a can of Coke, are you drinking the contents or the label? Individuals know that Royal Crown tastes better but the market still prefers Coke.
> 
> Same thing with lens and frame brands. When people wear Panamics are they wearing the front surface design or the name? I say the name.


What you are going to try and sell is " I have this great product it's better than the "brand" name and I can sell it to you cheaper. Wow gee shouldn't it be cheaper if your not spending any money on advertising or promotion!!! 

Great marketing strategy - Good Luck 

Employers want the name brands cheaper, not your generic brand cheaper.
Their employees already think they're getting screwed by the company. Why would they want to risk an even tougher position with generic products? Most of these companies sell products and services that have name brands. Do you really think you would have a chance of convincing them the generic brand is just as good as their own name brands. 

Rep

----------


## DocInChina

> What you are going to try and sell is " I have this great product it's better than the "brand" name and I can sell it to you cheaper. Wow gee shouldn't it be cheaper if your not spending any money on advertising or promotion!!! 
> 
> Great marketing strategy - Good Luck 
> 
> Employers want the name brands cheaper, not your generic brand cheaper.
> Their employees already think they're getting screwed by the company. Why would they want to risk an even tougher position with generic products? Most of these companies sell products and services that have name brands. Do you really think you would have a chance of convincing them the generic brand is just as good as their own name brands. 
> 
> Rep


I understand that this topic does not please Lux or Lenscrafters people. To date Lux has made and is making alot of money from many of the posters (and non-posters) on this site. It is also entirely reasonable for the 3 O's to feel threatened by Lux's ownership of Lenscrafters, Pearle, etc since they are competing for the same patients no matter how you slice it. Its not reasonable for Lux people to have a condescending attitude towards people who realize this threat and have an open discussion on this board on how to address it. The point of the discussion is a free flow of ideas and to build upon another persons thoughts. We already know the reps from Lux will defend Lux and bash those against Lux. Your not going to sway this discussion so I don't see the point of your continued haranging of those no inline with your companies way of doing business. 

Doc

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
> Employers want the name brands cheaper, not your generic brand cheaper.
> ...
> 
> Rep


Funny how often I see crappy PALs worn by patients who have third party plans.

----------


## LENNY

Yes Yes Yes

Super No Line rules!

----------


## Jacqui

I've been watching most of this thread and replying here and there. As a lab owner, I would be more than happy to join in on a discount or an independent insurance program. The volume would more than make up for any loses. 

Someone had a good idea, start it in one state and let it spread.

----------


## For-Life

But here is the thing.  Any independent insurance plan I want 10 percent of.  I have been pushing it for months and want credit in cash form ;)

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Employers want the name brands cheaper, not your generic brand cheaper.*
> 
> *Their employees already think they're getting screwed by the company.*


The optician or optometrist is the final professional that discusses the sale, of the device called glasses with the patient/customer.

*When properly trained in sales tactics, he can steer the customer into another  way of thinking about the upcoming purchase without any problem. There is always something equivalent or better than the heavily advertised product, whose advertising cost are paid by the purchaser in the price of the product.* 

Employers do not give a sweet hoot about the brand of a frame as long as it is inexpensive to them and has a decent quality.

*And above all lets not forget that today's brand name frames, as well as lenses are made in many different places and countries by many different people working in many different companies.................have started out as a generic frame until somebody stamped the brand name on them.*

----------


## chm2023

> CHM, you are usually the fiscally-conservative one...
> 
> Can you see all these independents getting together and agreeing on _anything?_ 
> 
> Can you see independents pony-ing up bucks to take a reduced fee-for-service, and then getting some sort of share-holder's profit distribution later in the year?
> 
> Can you compete with the sophistication of modern third-party companies, with all their money when you knock on the door of IBM to sell your plan? 
> 
> Paper claims or electronic? Credentialing? Liability requirements? Customer service? Provider relations? Website presence? Member literature? It's a massive undertaking.
> ...


Oh I agree it would not be easy, but the issue is not expense, it's as you note, getting agreement.  Similiar things have been done in other industries--hardware (ACE etc), florists (FTD), mechanics (NAPA???)    .  I think the lab groups are the ones that could make this happen--they have size and ability to organize.   

And yes, I think the independents could sell against the third party companies quite well, they would have the advantage of not having to provide profit to the third party (who adds no value!!).  If you look at companies that provide a vision benefit, it is typically one of the low cost benefits to the company.  At the same time, it's a highly visible and "feel good" benefit.  I think there is a story that this independent plan allows employees to shop where they want, get superior vision care, and not be limited to "Glasses R Us".

----------


## drk

Ok, CHM, thanks for your input.  You got me thinking...

...do third party vision plans add value commensurate with their remuneration?  

Hardly, but I have a glass-of-lemonade thought here I'd like to float:
Vision plans add value because they've pre-sold eyecare/wear to the member  and they are likely to pre-sell it year after year.  All we have to do is harvest said eyecare/wear.  

Utilization, baby.  And it doesn't make me feel as "dirty" as it used to.  I have adjusted my thinking to considering these vision plans as "service contracts", like you'd get for your lawn, or your auto.  There is a defined cost, and a defined benefit, which the member would be silly not to take advantage of.  Maybe they do not truly need annual IOP checks, but why not, if it's covered?

Heck, even if I get some inexpensive frames for frame benefit off-years, we can alway make a pair of sunglasses, computer glasses, etc. for little cost to the member.  That way they take advantage of their pre-paid benefits.
I wonder, though, if, in the long run, increased utilization leads to decreased insurer profits, therefore increased premium costs?  Oh well, can't save everyone in the world...

----------


## Spexvet

I got a letter today recruiting NJ licensed opticians for Pearle. Maybe I'll do my part to hurt Lux by going through the hiring process, then turn them down. The cost of recruiting, the psychological profile, the drug testing, etc, is probably about $3,000. That might just push them over the edge into chapter 11. :D

----------


## Jacqui

Meanie  :)  :)  :)  ROFLMAO  :)  :)  :)

----------


## LENNY

Spexvet!

Maybe you can try to work for them!
It might hurt them even more!:bbg: 

sorry i had to do it!
Nothing personal!

----------


## chm2023

> Ok, CHM, thanks for your input. You got me thinking...
> 
> ...do third party vision plans add value commensurate with their remuneration? 
> 
> Hardly, but I have a glass-of-lemonade thought here I'd like to float:
> Vision plans add value because they've pre-sold eyecare/wear to the member and they are likely to pre-sell it year after year. All we have to do is harvest said eyecare/wear. 
> 
> Utilization, baby. And it doesn't make me feel as "dirty" as it used to. I have adjusted my thinking to considering these vision plans as "service contracts", like you'd get for your lawn, or your auto. There is a defined cost, and a defined benefit, which the member would be silly not to take advantage of. Maybe they do not truly need annual IOP checks, but why not, if it's covered?
> 
> ...


Realize this is a generalization, but think about the genesis of managed care plans. They were designed to _keep medical costs down._ They have failed miserably, overall health care costs are thru the roof, yet providers are getting less and less reimbursement, and employers' costs are sky-rocketing. So where do you think the money is going???? Managed care should be abolished IMO, it's made a bunch of bean counters making money by diverting cash from providers and employers into their pockets, and where is the benefit?

----------


## drk

> Realize this is a generalization, but think about the genesis of managed care plans. They were designed to _keep medical costs down._ They have failed miserably, overall health care costs are thru the roof, yet providers are getting less and less reimbursement, and employers' costs are sky-rocketing. So where do you think the money is going???? Managed care should be abolished IMO, it's made a bunch of bean counters making money by diverting cash from providers and employers into their pockets, and where is the benefit?


BINGO. 

I'm not sure if insurance, in general, was developed to keep costs down. I think it was to share risk. It was traditional indemnity: patients paid the physician their U & C charges, and Blue Cross reimbursed the policyholder 80% of the charges.

Somehow, and this is where it gets out-of-whack, insurers, in a cost-cutting/profit-increasing move, decided to create select provider panels that, for the proverbial discount, would see loads of patients flowing into their practices, so as to "make it up on volume" (which never works, IMO). Hence, the discounting begins, and it's a short hop to inflating U & C fees in order to max out on the insurance reimbursement.

Couple that with Medicare's original system (before the RBRVS) that a provider's reported U & C charges would be profiled and reimbursement would be based on that. That produced immediate upward pricing of fees.

Somewhere along the way, the increasingly minority self-pay patient was left in the dust, being the sacrificial lamb that payed the (artificially high) U & C charges to keep things legal. (Although now, as I understand it, the sham is recognized even at the level of the director of HHS, who now does not object to "cash-pay discounts", which is implicitly a HUGE change in the whole system!)

What you say is true about managed care. It was designed, essentially to put controls in many, many places to keep costs down. Maybe it's worked, maybe it hasn't, and we'll never really know. It is axiomatic, though, that those who control the health care purse strings control everything, really, be it the privacy of records, the economic livelihoods of the providers, and eventually, mark it down, the lifestyles (food choices, exercise habits, mandated care, etc.) of the members.

"Health care reform", if you believe we need such a thing for "our health care crisis" if you believe in such a thing, will either go (of course) towards centralized control or free-market control. My feeling is the market could work, again, if the interruption between the supply and demand (the insurers!) was racheted down greatly.

----------


## chm2023

Here's my idea:  pass legislation (most probably illegal, oh well) that limits the amount employers can pass along to employees in terms of premiums.  In other words, have the increases in premiums adversely affect the bottom line performance of corporate America.  Do you know how quick these guys would figure out a way to keep costs down, and how quickly they would figure out a way to get the third party folks out of the mix?I think we have had this discussion before (know we have!) but my problem with "letting the market handle it"  is that quality health care should be affordable/available to all and a free market won't do that, no incentive to offer "product" to people at the lower end of the financial spectrum or people at high risk due to pre-existing conditions etc.

----------


## Stopper

MAnaged Care is a misnomer- it should be called managed cost.

Drk, I think you are correct, we are no longer dealing with vision or medical insurance. It is just prepaid health care. I've been saying that for years.

----------


## drk

I think the opposite.  If we could pass the health care costs more to the consumer, then they would scream more and effect change.  The employer is just going to take it out of the employees hide elsewhere, or drop the coverage altogether.

As a model, look how successful the low-rent 1-800-SAFE-AUTO's have been for providing minimal coverage to those unable to afford it.  I think the market does respond.

More legislative burden for American business is no good for anyone!  It hurts the small businesses too much.  Fortune 500 companies may be able to shoulder more burden, but numerically, they are in the vast minority.  I read that if you lined up each small business as a bar graph one foot square (or something like that) from San Francisco to NYC, and each foot was $10,000 in sales (or something like that), you would not have a structure over 10 feet until you reached Columbus, Ohio (or something like that), and you wouldn't have skyscrapers until you reached NYC city limits (or something like that).  All that to say that small and medium-sized business are the vast majority of businesses that we paint with a broad brush when we think of legislating demands on the few big businesses, like GM (oops, bad example).  Sorry so political!:cheers:

----------


## drk

> MAnaged Care is a misnomer- it should be called managed cost.
> 
> Drk, I think you are correct, we are no longer dealing with vision or medical insurance. It is just prepaid health care. I've been saying that for years.


Then you're years ahead of me!

----------


## 35oldguy

Just another name for socialized medicine!






> MAnaged Care is a misnomer- it should be called managed cost.
> 
> Drk, I think you are correct, we are no longer dealing with vision or medical insurance. It is just prepaid health care. I've been saying that for years.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet!
> 
> Maybe you can try to work for them!
> It might hurt them even more!:bbg: 
> 
> sorry i had to do it!
> Nothing personal!


That's a thought! I could start dispensing like I was from Brooklyn! ;)

----------


## LENNY

Good shot!

I liked it!!!

----------


## LENNY

Are we realy known for this!?

----------


## Spexvet

> Are we realy known for this!?


Not that I know of - I was joking (that's what ;) means). BTW, someone gave me negative reputation for joking with you, after you got me good. I guess it's like hockey refereeing - I got nailed for the retaliation!:finger:

And whoever it was didn't have the courtesy to identify him/herself!

----------


## Stopper

> Just another name for socialized medicine!


God help us if that happens.

----------


## LENNY

Not me!

BTW how do you check your reputation?
I bet you mine is PERFECT!!!:D

----------


## Spexvet

> Not me!
> 
> BTW how do you check your reputation?
> I bet you mine is PERFECT!!!:D


Click on "user CP" at the top of every page.

----------


## Foveator

I have the perfect way to hurt this company.

I'll buy their stock! My track record is so dismal that companies don't just lose market share and their stock price drops, they go into bankruptcy, are delisted and vanish from the earth.... usually within months of the time I buy. 

I must admit that I admire the DelVecchios. They have singlehandedly changed the face of optical worldwide, publicized our industry about 1000-fold and made Lenscrafters almost a generic term (which, like "Kenmore" may not be such a good thing). To drive business to them, they have entered and dominated markets unthinkable a decade ago. Certainly "out of the box" entrepreneurs who now own the box!

....if I'd only bought their stock when they went public, none of this would have ever happened!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *....if I'd only bought their stock when they went public, none of this would have ever happened!*


But you did not............................and if you would have you would have watched it go up, like with any other stock you own, and would have waited to make the killing when selling.

----------


## Jubilee

OK..so I re-read this thread now that I am in the independent arena...

Some of the things that got to me...

Mention was made several times in the beginning about the $10 for filing claims online.. NO ONE mentioned that to qualify at years end you have had to spend $100 with luxoticca for each Eyemed claim for the past year. If you filed 200 claims, that is $20,000 in Lux product..

Two, on comparing manufacturers, I actually get better pricing from Safilo than I do from Lux on comparable lines.. such as Claiborne compared to Anne Klein, and the Armani lines compared to Versace and Versus..

We have been debating about working with Eyemed since about 15% of our patient base will be switched to it at the beginning of the year. Some things that concern us is this the manipulation that is being played out with these incentives.. and the way the chains Lux owns are plastered all over the Eyemed website, the materials sent to the members, etc.. We doubt that we would get much new business from the deal..but would like to be able to continue to serve the same people we have been seeing for the past 15years.

 Tough decision...

Cassandra

----------


## rep

Please

----------


## rep

> OK..so I re-read this thread now that I am in the independent arena...
> 
> Some of the things that got to me...
> 
> Mention was made several times in the beginning about the $10 for filing claims online.. NO ONE mentioned that to qualify at years end you have had to spend $100 with luxoticca for each Eyemed claim for the past year. If you filed 200 claims, that is $20,000 in Lux product..
> 
> Two, on comparing manufacturers, I actually get better pricing from Safilo than I do from Lux on comparable lines.. such as Claiborne compared to Anne Klein, and the Armani lines compared to Versace and Versus..
> 
> We have been debating about working with Eyemed since about 15% of our patient base will be switched to it at the beginning of the year. Some things that concern us is this the manipulation that is being played out with these incentives.. and the way the chains Lux owns are plastered all over the Eyemed website, the materials sent to the members, etc.. We doubt that we would get much new business from the deal..but would like to be able to continue to serve the same people we have been seeing for the past 15years.
> ...


I don't know where you are getting your information but I am e-mailing you the correct information on the integeration of Cole contracts and the Extra 10 programs. 

*You do not have to purchase any frames to join Eye Med.* 

However if you want to get *ADDITION* reimbursement of $10 per qualified claim you can by purchasing Luxottica product. That is purely OPTIONAL and not a requirement.

Regarding pricing in comparison to Safilo. Luxottica offers 10% discount on designer and sunglass products and 20% on core products. In addition they offer 2% for prompt pay discount (Safilo does not offer prompt pay) Luxottica also offers an additional 5% in free Frames IF you purchase as little as 10 frams per month. That's a total of of 17% for designers and sunglasses and 27% on core line products. I have never seen Safilo give discounts across the board to everyone in this range. 

If you add the additional $10 per claim that is an additional 7.5% discount (on a $75 frame. Total discount on designers and sunglasses = 10% discount + 2 percent prompt pay + 5% in free frames + $10 cash = 24.5% off the price of the frame. (core products would be 34.5%) 

Are you getting 24.5% from Safilo on designer product? (34.5% on core)

No you can't get this if you only order the occasional Carlos or Ray Ban but if you do the same amount of business with Lux you currently do with Safilo . You come out way ahead of the game. 

Luxottica Rep

----------


## QDO1

Sounds like you US independants need a organaisation like SightCare - which was set up in the UK primarily as a buying group, but now provides support, products and training across the board for UK independants

have a look at:

http://www.sightcare.co.uk/

It is a sweet philosophy, and makes good business sense

----------


## Jubilee

> However if you want to get *ADDITION* reimbursement of $10 per qualified claim you can by purchasing Luxottica product. That is purely OPTIONAL and not a requirement.
> 
> Luxottica Rep


I never said that you had to buy the frames in order to participate.. what I said was that in order to get the extra $10 for filing online, you had to buy the frames. No one in the converation in May/June ever mentioned this. They were claiming it was an incentive to get people to file online..




> Who said anything about trickle down economics. Eye Med will give you $10 just for filing a claim online. Thats $10 hard cash for every claim. What other frame vendor is doing that for you. Geez I guess its true, you can give somebody a gold bar and they'll still find something wrong with it. You can continue to moan and complain all you want but if you want to do something about your bottom line the tools are there to help.





> But
> 
> IF you buy frames you can get and extra $10 for every Eyemed patient that buys any frame Lux or not. 100 claims = $1,000


But you have to spend $10,000 in Lux product..and with the discounts.. that is even more board space/frames.




> Hi Chris,
> 
> As far as freebies go, you are right. There are no freebies. This is nothing more than trying to entice you to come over to our way of thinking. And why not, nobody else is giving you $10 for anything. It's the same concept that VSP used to get you to file claims online. Do it online and get a couple extra bucks reimbursement, do it manually and lose that incentive.


Please tell me you can see where this is misleading.. 

To get the right sense of scale in your head.. I work for an OD who isn't out to get rich. He just wants to make a decent living while having supporting and spending time with his family.

Not counting the Davis and Medicaid towers, we have about 200-250 frames we carry in stock. We average about 20 jobs a week (in this office). We are heavy into Insurance, and only one third get frames every year. So I would say we sell at most 8-10 frames a week. That is with having a doctor there only 2 days a week. He is at a second office two other days a week. We do work basically banker hours, though Mon and Tues we work late by appointment. We are switching from ordering via rep visits to replacing what sells from the board.

If we take Eyemed.. and file an estimated 150 claims, that is $15,000 in Lux product.. If we go with the current brands we carry, Anne Klein, Versus, Versace, Vougue and Rayban ophthalmic, we are talking about a commintment of 270 frames to get that incentive.  So roughly 40% of our mix would have to be Lux.. and stay Lux.. Compared to our current 20% That is a HUGE chunk in a small office. I would have to basically promote the LUX products to get the amount of turnover needed to generate the desired outcome..

I know we don't have to sell Lux or carry Lux to participate in Eyemed.. But I can see how some people would easily not think it completely through and realize that to get the extra $1500, your practice has to spend that and an additional $13,500. Plus with the free frames, and discounting.. it is easy for a smaller office to all of a sudden become part of the Luxottica Machine..Might as well be a franchise..

Cassandra

PS: I do agree that this is better than the previous requirement to purchase the same amount of frames... It might work for some bigger practices, and heck we may get into it ourselves depending on a few factors.. but it is scary to see how easily the private practicioner can become so dependent on Lux.. I just know we can't afford to reap all the benefits of this "Exciting benefit".

----------


## Mikef

You only get $10 for claim is the patient buys a frame. (ANY FRAME)

You could see 200 but only 50 count!

Your rep should know how many you have to date and how much you need or don't need to but to make it!

YOU DON"T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING THOUGH AND YOU DON"T HAVE TO TAKE EYEMED

IF you were on Eyemed 2 years ago you would have had to buy the frames and get nothing. Now you have a choice and IF YOU CHOOSE to buy the frames you can get money back.

As far as Safilo goes: Unless they are giving you 30 or 40% off I think are prices a less across the board! I know Safilo core product is about $10 more than Luxottica core.

----------


## Chris Ryser

MikeF must be out of breath............................

Lux is now the give away corporation.................should bring in a lot of customers

----------


## Mikef

> MikeF must be out of breath............................
> 
> Lux is now the give away corporation.................should bring in a lot of customers


And you are never out of breath!

----------


## rep

> I never said that you had to buy the frames in order to participate.. what I said was that in order to get the extra $10 for filing online, you had to buy the frames. No one in the converation in May/June ever mentioned this. They were claiming it was an incentive to get people to file online..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to spend $10,000 in Lux product..and with the discounts.. that is even more board space/frames.
> 
> 
> ...


Your calculations a way way too high because you still don't understand the program. Only claims where you sell a frame ( any frame) is qualified for the extra 10. So far the numbers have been averaging from a low of 20% to a high of 50% in offices YTD 

Taking your own numbers ,even at the high rate of 50% of your claims you would not have to change your mix of product at all because it would stay at 20% That is not a hugh chunk in a small office and is not unreasonable at all. Is it??????? 

In fact you havent thought it completely through. You would be getting an additional $750 and not change anything you are currently doing in your office, except take Eye Med. 

You should however consider increasing your inventory with Lux so you can get the Eye Med extra 10 and the PFG Free Frames or Cash. If your numbers are accurate you could qualify for PFG by purchasing only 27 more Lux frames over a one year period or about 2 per month. What that means is that if you purchase 27 more frames in your office over a years time,  they will give you 9 more free at then end of the year.

Small offices need every bit of available income to survive. By not accepting Eye Med patiets and participating in PFG, based on your own numbers, you are missing $750 in Extra 10 cash and 9 Free $75 frames with a value of $600. Not to mention the $7500 in Exam Fees (150 x $50). 

Do you really think this is an unreasonable and misleading program now that you know the facts?

Rep ( Luxottica)

----------


## Angels Rock

Hi Cassandra,

You have taken a few of my quotes out of context without including the entire thread which was posted earlier.  I explained in an earlier post the evolution of Eye Med and the frame requirements.  It had gone from needing 200 frames to having to purchase $100 worth of product for every patient you saw over 26.  That way if you were not seeing any patients there was no requirement.  It changed again except now there are no frame requirements BUT if you want to earn $10 per filed claim with a frame sale the same $100 in product for every patient over 26 applies.  Sorry if I confused you, it was not my intent.  

As far as Armani/Emporio and Claiborne prices being less than Versace/Versus and Ann Klein I think you should check your prices again.  I am looking at the latest frames price book and there is a considerable difference.  I won't post the prices here but check out frame fax for yourself.  Drop me a line if you dispute this.

----------


## Jubilee

It may be cheaper if I buy more of your product or whatever.. All I can tell you is that based upon visits and purchases this past month with both lines currently Safilo is the least expensive. Of course we aren't Eyemed providers, so no discount for that, and my rep has never explained how we could get an extra 9 frames if we buy 7 more. My take on our last visit was that my office is small potatoes for one line, and the other lines the reps haven't even bother to call or follow up. I also don't have any frames backorded through Safilo period, and the never ending "it will be two more weeks" really gets annoying from Lux.

I understand that Eyemed doesn't require frames. This is the upteenth time I have posted this statement. What I have said, is that for a smaller office, if we take Eyemed, we can run into trouble with our mix becoming predominantly LUX product. That is if we tried to take advantage of the extra ten. Which I know isn't required.. but some people, will not think through the full proccess of wanting to capitolize on this.

With all the discounting etc.. We are looking at 2-3 frames being purchased per claim. If I have 10 claims for a month that had a frame purchase. To get the extra $10, I would have to purchase roughly 25 frames to qualify. But, I only sold 10 frames. So now I have 15 extra. If this happens every month, then in a year, I will have an extra 180 frames in LUx product over what I normally sell a month.  IN order to compensate for this, I will have to push lux, as it is now rougly 3/4 of my product mix. Of course, if it sells, then I will be tempted to buy more.. if not, I am stuck with product that I can not return..and we all know how you reps don't win from an exchange either. Based on this scenario, all of the budget I have for frames will be used on LUX and more. (I don't get a grand a month to spend on frames.) And please note we are talking about not gaining any business, just keeping the ones who are set to switch to Eyemed come Jan.

IF you or Rep, or MikeF.. who ever wants to send my email something better than what is posted on the Eyemed site explaining "all the benefits" Eyemed has to offer.. then fine. I would be more than happy to share that with the Doctor, and read all of the lovely details. Please note that we have not decided if we are going to say yea or nay to this plan.. just some concerns we are having.

Your support for your company is admirable. Just please realize that not everyone feels your passion.

Cassandra

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Your support for your company is admirable. Just please realize that not everyone feels your passion.* 
> Cassandra


Never forget that any promotion or freebies is not really what the other side says.

There no freebiees in the business world..............when they say they give you............you should always know that somehow you have already pre-paid in advance for whatever that is free.

----------


## QDO1

Im not sure this forum is the place for a thread: "How to hurt Luxottica".  If the Thread was: "How to hurt whatever comany it is you work for" you would all feel different about it

----------


## drk

Well, I've come full circle on this thread.

Just heard that one of my city's top 3 employers (a financial mega-giant) has made the decision to buy Eyemed for the employees this year.  I'm sure this company got a bargain (at least this year ;) ), considering how Luxottica probably undersold VSP by 20% to get the contract.

Now, the Eyemed sales force can go other local employers and show their "trophy", for maximum sales effect.

Sure worked for me, too.  I face losing a large chunk of control of my local marketshare, if I don't work with the Luxmafia.

SOOOOO...I'm signing up.  My strategy has been to stay tough until it hurts, then cave like a spineless jellyfish.  That time has come.

I will still try "to just say no" to Luxottica product, however.  (I wonder how long I will have that option, eh Guido?)

P.S. In unrelated events, my favorite indy lab was sold for big-bucks to Essilor.  Owner's a millionaire, now (liquid millionaire).

Independence is getting costly.  If one wants to be truly independent, _truly,_one will have to be willing to stay small, offer deluxe service, and charge high prices for this "different" service, and hope there is a market to appreciate it.  You will have to say no to third party.

----------


## Spexvet

I just got tagged with negative reputation for a post in this thread from May, by some coward who wouldn't identify him/herself. That's the sort of people who are pro-Luxottica.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Im not sure this forum is the place for a thread: "How to hurt Luxottica". If the Thread was: "How to hurt whatever comany it is you work for" you would all feel different about it*


This thread was started long before you started to participate and the optiboard.

As you have your chains in the UK they have them in the USA

*However the maojor chains have been bought by LUX who is now directly competing with independent retailers................while coming up with lots of goodies to convince them to continue using their products. Lux controls over 30% of the US retail market.*

If you go into the archives of this forum you will find the periodic Lux bashing thread popping up periodically. Some body brings it up and then it continues until it dues off.

----------


## Mikef

> This thread was started long before you started to participate and the optiboard.
> 
> As you have your chains in the UK they have them in the USA
> 
> *However the maojor chains have been bought by LUX who is now directly competing with independent retailers................while coming up with lots of goodies to convince them to continue using their products. Lux controls over 30% of the US retail market.*
> 
> If you go into the archives of this forum you will find the periodic Lux bashing thread popping up periodically. Some body brings it up and then it continues until it dues off.


His point was (I think) that you would not appreciate it if someone messed with you income.

It would be like if someone started a thread like : Why is OMS the 4th most visited opitcal site in optical yet seems to do no business. Does this mean other compaines are much better? But I would not do that. Since I work for a vendor I TRY not to bash other vendors. I think being positive is a much better way to live!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *His point was (I think) that you would not appreciate it if someone messed with you income.*


I think you do not understand the point I made. It boils down to saying that Lux gets bashed once in qhuile on the optiboard. Here is what he said:




> *Im not sure this forum is the place for a thread: "How to hurt Luxottica". If the Thread was: "How to hurt whatever comany it is you work for" you would all feel different about it*


Of course MikeF comes out of bed early morning and is getting ready to face customers and doing his exercise of defending his points on poor old Chris Ryser.

PS. I guess you dont appreciate that a small company has 2 websites among the first 10 best ranked ones, while his conglomerate employers site limps behind.
:D :bbg:

----------


## EyeManFla

We have had a situation here where three of the top five employers in my area switched to Spectera, not Eyemed! 
And the only Spectera provider here is Super Wal-Mart.

----------


## Mikef

> I think you do not understand the point I made. It boils down to saying that Lux gets bashed once in qhuile on the optiboard. Here is what he said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course MikeF comes out of bed early morning and is getting ready to face customers and doing his exercise of defending his points on poor old Chris Ryser.
> 
> PS. I guess you dont appreciate that a small company has 2 websites among the first 10 best ranked ones, while his conglomerate employers site limps behind.
> :D :bbg:


Two questions for you Chris!

First why have you listed Costa Del Mar and not Oakley, Maui Jim, Ray-Ban, Revo sites or even Marchon? 

Would you rather own web page that had 11,000 visitors a day and did little business or own a web page that had smaller traffic and did much more business?

----------


## DocInChina

First let me say that I admire how Lux penetrated the optical market. Second, I am sure that the people working for Lux are proud to be part of it and do not want their income affected by any other person's comments or business. 

That being said the economic reality is that Lux is a threat to independents. There is no other way to look at a 30% market share (and growing). There is no possible rationalization you can give to say that Lux is there to help independents no matter how you slice it. Likely there is nothing that can be done at this point by independents to prevent the expansion of the goliaths in the optical market unless they change their buying habits. 

I understand why someone would bristle at having their company spoken about negatively. However, no where on this board have I seen someone say Lux products are terrible or their service is awful. What has been said is that Lux is a threat. I do find it offensive that a swipe has been taken by a large company rep at a small company with regards to the business they do. 

Doc

----------


## Mikef

> I understand why someone would bristle at having their company spoken about negatively. However, no where on this board have I seen someone say Lux products are terrible or their service is awful. What has been said is that Lux is a threat. I do find it offensive that a swipe has been taken by a large company rep at a small company with regards to the business they do. 
> 
> Doc


So what you are saying it is ok to bash big companies but not small ones.

I try not to bash any vender or get into others venders business as much as possible.(It's kind of a conflict of interest) I was trying to prove a point. I don't plan to bash again.

There are about 6 regular Luxottica bashers that bash everytime these threads start.


PS.  And by the way I was not bashing Chris I was just using him as an example.  I have no Idea what kind of business he does.  He could be the Bill Gates of Canada for all I know!

----------


## DocInChina

> So what you are saying it is ok to bash big companies but not small ones.


If the big company is looking to control the retail market, wholesale market and insurance plans then I say yes it is OK to bash it. Lux owns 70 retail shops in Hong Kong and this past summer they bought ~150 store chain in mainland China. If you were able to look objectively at Lux's global plan and not as an employee of their company you too would consider Lux a threat to independent minded companies and people.





> PS. And by the way I was not bashing Chris I was just using him as an example.


It certainly looked like Chris bashing but I will assume I misinterpreted. This can happen online frequently.




> There are about 6 regular Luxottica bashers that bash everytime these threads start.


When I was single (a long time ago) and doing the bar scene with bar hopping buddy, he used to say "...any PR is good PR. You only have to worry when they stop talking about you. " :bbg:



Doc

----------


## Mikef

> If the big company is looking to control the retail market, wholesale market and insurance plans then I say yes it is OK to bash it. Lux owns 70 retail shops in Hong Kong and this past summer they bought ~150 store chain in mainland China. If you were able to look objectively at Lux's global plan and not as an employee of their company you too would consider Lux a threat to independent minded companies and people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc


I would agree with you IF Luxottica was opening new stores and not just buying ones that are already there.

I have Said this before : In eastern MA. in 1994 we had 31 Lenscrafters. Then Lenscrafters bought about 15 Eyeworlds. Today we have 29 Lenscrafters. Every few months the smaller locations close and that left only the highest volume account.

If Luxottica did not buy them would it better for independents. Nobody knows.

If highmark or Safilo bought them would Independents be better off?

If Lencrafters starts opening stores in small towns and lower volumes areas then I might change my tune. But it has been 10 years.

If Luxottica bought every chain in the world that had over 15 stores would that hurt independents.  

I just have'nt seen how it has hurt.

----------


## DocInChina

> I would agree with you IF Luxottica was opening new stores and not just buying ones that are already there.
> 
> I have Said this before : In eastern MA. in 1994 we had 31 Lenscrafters. Then Lenscrafters bought about 15 Eyeworlds. Today we have 29 Lenscrafters. Every few months the smaller locations close and that left only the highest volume account.
> 
> If Luxottica did not buy them would it better for independents. Nobody knows.
> 
> If highmark or Safilo bought them would Independents be better off?
> 
> If Lencrafters starts opening stores in small towns and lower volumes areas then I might change my tune. But it has been 10 years.
> ...


If Lux buys existing locations it does hurt the independents. A certain percentage of gross dollars are allocated towards advertising. The larger a chain grows, the more dollars they have for national/regional advertising. Period. Lux did open new stores in Manhattan where there were no previous locations. I am sure there are other people on here that can give info about their regions and report if this happened with Lenscrafters where they are based. 

Again, you are in a pretty good position regardless of what is said in this forum. Until the independents stop buying Lux product and supporting Lux programs then all this talk is an effort in futility. 

Doc

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Two questions for you Chris!*
> *First why have you listed Costa Del Mar and not Oakley, Maui Jim, Ray-Ban, Revo sites or even Marchon?* 
> 
> *Would you rather own web page that had 11,000 visitors a day and did little business or own a web page that had smaller traffic and did much more business?*


Two answers for Mikef.......................

*If you would verify before making incorrect statements I could take your statements and post's with a larger grain of salt.* 

Obviuously you have never checked my listing containing 421 Optical Websites from top to bottom or you would have kept your comments for yourself. (http://optochemicals.com/web_ratings.htm) Everybody I could find is on it including many supplied by optiboard members for which I am thankful.

*To the second question................*

Advertising success in magazines, newpapers, TV as well of websites is guided by the law of average. 

The more poeple look at it, the more popular a website.

The more popular a site is, the more people that want to find you can find you easily because of good indexing.

*There are websites that are selling sites with shopping carts and secure areas with for credit card payments.*

*Then there are informative websites, that explain products, the way they work and what they do.* 

*My website is my on-line catalogue. Now that you have not been able to fully check out one only page you for sure have not checked out my full site.* 

I dont think that you can be a qualified judge on website quality as you judgments seem to be on the weak side.

Obviously if a website has little traffic by law of average it also produces little sales as only a very small percentage of visitors actually are buyers. Webmaster all around the world are fighting to improve their sites in traffic, visitors and page views, which is the ultimate goal.

I could probably double the rankings of your LUXOTTICA site in a 3 month period by doing what they are missing out.

----------


## Chris Ryser

As an addition to prevuious post I would like to add...........that my offer to improve your company website would not be as a donation..............

----------


## Mikef

Chris

Why does the top 10 not have Oakley , Ray-Ban, J&J and many other better rated sites!   


Second I don't think any company is going to pay for common site lures.  Like endless text and tons of links.  

My 12 year old nephew had a site and did just that,  He got about 1000 hits a day and about 50 e-mails.  He also got awards for his page and it was just a bunch of links to games and radio stations
His parents made him take the site down because he was getting nasty e-mails from people who could tell it was a little kids site!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Chris 
> *Why does the top 10 not have Oakley , Ray-Ban, J&J and many other better rated sites!*


Mike..............thank you for your smart and belitteling comments of comparing to your 12 year nephew.

*I have set up an optical listing of websites which now has some 420 sites listed. I have done the work without your help................my own time and sweat. It is always easy to critizise others.*

Obviously this page seemingly the only one and regularly updated page sees a lot of visitors.........from the optical domaine...........others would not be interested in such a page. 

If you would have followed the progress of the site you have seen an Oakley being in the no 1 rank including the others you mention. However these sites are not purely optical and are selling sporting goods. shoes, handbags and all other sort of things. Therefore I set up a special category for sunglass manufacturers were they are all listed and they are on top in that category.. 

*You might not agree with my system of doing it.................just too bad..........*

I have watched the SAFILO site creep from about the 25th position into the top ten overtaking the LUXottica  site including my own. But I am not showing any negative frustration as your postings on this subject seem to be doing.

----------


## Mikef

> * It is always easy to critizise others.*
> 
> .


And your the best at that.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> We have had a situation here where three of the top five employers in my area switched to Spectera, not Eyemed! 
> And the only Spectera provider here is Super Wal-Mart.


Some of our patients have been asking about Spectera as well. After talking with someone who works for a major national company and had VSP, it seems that VSP has raised its premiums so we may be seeing a natural move away from VSP into other insurance providers. Unfortunately, Spectera (and Davis) make me cringe.

I think someone mentioned Safilo's web traffic - that might be because Safilo has an online catalogue and online ordering, so does Marchon.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I think someone mentioned Safilo's web traffic - that might be because Safilo has an online catalogue and online ordering, so does Marchon.*


That is probably correct...............having the website as a catalogue saves time for everybody, the supplier as well as the customer. I can also be updated at any time, and is transmitted instantly onto customers desk.

----------


## drk

My big fear is the inevitable price war that's going to go on between VSP and Eyemed, with my rear being caught in the middle.  I just can't wait!  

"Specterrible" LOL!

----------


## Johns

drk,

I know it isn't but...

Shouldn't a price war between these 2 be to see which company reimburses the provider the most ?  

Yeah right!!

----------

