# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Online Eyewear Story Must Read Consumers Beware

## HarryChiling

This is a case that outlines all the devious tactics that have been employed by online vendors of eyewear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/bu...nted=1&_r=2&hp

I will bump the thread everyday throughout the holiday season to help prevent another victim.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Harry, Harry, Harry...blowing things WAY out of proportion, AGAIN. The story about about ONE bad apple, gaming the Google system, which, in followup stories, you will see that Google has already taken steps to get that guy off their search engine.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Are you saying we should ignore all the bad apples?

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Harry, Harry, Harry...blowing things WAY out of proportion, AGAIN. The story about about ONE bad apple, gaming the Google system, which, in followup stories, you will see that Google has already taken steps to get that guy off their search engine.


Can you not agree that the story is atrocious?

----------


## MikeAurelius

Oh, I'm not saying that the guy isn't bad, I was appalled when I read the story a couple of days ago, but to cast ALL online operations in the same light is way beyond the pale IMO. Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

I think you're putting word into Harry's mouth. His post says nothing at all about it being ALL onliners.

----------


## AngeHamm

It *is* atrocious. But it's not really about the fact that it's online eyewear. This guy would be every bit as much of a douchebag if he was selling watches, shoes, or handbags.

----------


## finefocus

> Oh, I'm not saying that the guy isn't bad, I was appalled when I read the story a couple of days ago, but to cast ALL online operations in the same light is way beyond the pale IMO. Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.


If I act that way to a customer, they can find me, they can reach me. If they march up and down in front of my door with a sign telling their story, my customers will see it.

Not every online business is like this p****, but online commerce (and its access to secretive business practices) does add a new exclamation point to _caveat emptor_.

----------


## MikeAurelius

"and its access to secretive business practices"

What does that mean?

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I think you're putting word into Harry's mouth. His post says nothing at all about it being ALL onliners.


Harry says this: "all the devious tactics that have been employed by online vendors of eyewear". He doesn't say "some" or "most". Doesn't qualify it at all, which, in critical reading, indicates "all".

----------


## Wes

> Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.


I don't see where Harry said that.

----------


## AngeHamm

Actually, it reads "all the tactics," not "all the online vendors of eyewear."

That said, this is really a story about the dangerous of ALL online commerce. The fact that this guy is an eyewear vendor is entirely secondary.

----------


## Wes

Mike I don't even see why you're upset or why you identify yourself with mass online marketers. From what I've seen of your postings and website, you sell specialty products ONLINE to an informed consumer. To me, that's nowhere near the same as frames direct and others like them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

----------


## NCspecs

> That said, this is really a story about the dangerous of ALL online commerce. The fact that this guy is an eyewear vendor is entirely secondary.


Simply put, I agree.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Mike I don't even see why you're upset or why you identify yourself with mass online marketers. From what I've seen of your postings and website, you sell specialty products ONLINE to an informed consumer. To me, that's nowhere near the same as frames direct and others like them. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You are not wrong, I (personally) don't like these kind of fear tactics being used against consumers. Using one bad apple as an example to put fear into the consumer of the entire industry is just plain wrong in my personal opinion. Things like this can backfire horribly and everyone then pays the price.

Every industry that sells on-line has people like the russian, who care only about website rankings...but there is another side to that story too, if you read all the way to the end, you see where he's already starting to feel some negative pressure: he's been dropped (and probably blacklisted as well) by several of the credit card processors, Google (this is in another story posted yesterday) has already changed its engine dynamics to eliminate people like him and specifically him and his business. Note his comments and general attitude about the stacks of returned goods in his house. How is he paying his processing lab? He's been blacklisted on e-Bay and other places. He's facing legal charges on several fronts, and when its all said and done, he's probably going to go to jail if he doesn't flee the country first.

Using this story is fine as a 'heads up' about the dangers of buying on-line, but to use it to condemn the entire on-line optical industry is pointing the gun in the wrong direction. From what I've read here and elsewhere, the online optical industry by-and-large is honest and upfront about their products. They seem to handle returns legally and properly and promptly (at least I've not read about any problems in general).

And to a certain degree, I am sensitive about these kinds of posts because I do sell online as you noted, informed consumer or not. Posts such as this one are easily taken out of context by those who have some kind of agenda and used to tarnish anyone who doesn't think or believe the same way as them.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry says this: "all the devious tactics that have been employed by online vendors of eyewear". He doesn't say "some" or "most". Doesn't qualify it at all, which, in critical reading, indicates "all".


I think critical reading skills are very important so when I read "your local optical shop provides PDs for FREE or NC" or "its part of the prescription according to Eyeglass II" I feel as though the B and M suffers the same black eye your post seems to complain about.

In Laymans terms, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

----------


## Wes

> From what I've read here and elsewhere, the online optical industry by-and-large is honest and upfront about their products. They seem to handle returns legally and properly and promptly (at least I've not read about any problems in general).


I do disagree with this. Suggesting that pds are owed to consumers and that opticians must provide them free of charge, to suggest that opticians should adjust and repair onliner's glasses free of charge, to suggest that if pds are unknown to use 63, and to suggest that the onliners' foolproof formula for figuring segs is better than an opticians measurements is just plain wrong. There are the reasons we rail against the online glasses outlet. If you do not do this, differentiate yourself. If this isn't you, make it known. Instead, you react to the distaste we have for this type of business as if you're one of them. Defending unethical online businesses just because you happen to sell specialty lenses online paints you as no different. Show you're different if you are.

----------


## MichaelP

I read this a few days ago, and while it's an absolutely horrible story, I agree with others here that the fact one of his sites (notice the article says he runs many different websites) happened to sell brand name eyewear is besides the point. He could have done the same thing with _any_ product that has a big "long tail" (see below). And as an online retailer seeking to gain the trust and acceptance of both the optical industry and consumers, I was doubly incensed about his actions.

That said, I'd argue that online actually helps beat businesses like this more than helps them though. This guy is truly an outlier. For an e-commerce site, its customer satisfaction and online reviews are extremely important. Anyone is one short google search away from reading the comments of any disgruntled customer who decides to post them. Heck, it's possible (not only possible, but easy) for competitors to create fake negative reviews! Anyone whose gone through this happening to them on Yelp knows what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, everyone's read the stories of terrible experiences and product from Lenscrafters (I'm not trying to say they're nearly as bad as the guy in the story - just using them as an example of a business that gets lots of negative reviews). While a spate of negative reviews can absolutely tank an e-commerce site, that's not the same for brick and mortar stores with big brand advertising spend. When someone visits our site, it takes them all of 30 seconds to look up our BBB rating. Can't do that when you're walking through the mall.

[Side note: this might be more information about search engines than people here are interested, but the reason this guy was able to pull off what he did is because he was selling specific brands and models. There's a concept called the "long tail" in search, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail What it means though, is it's very hard to rank for a term a lot of people search for, say "eyeglasses", but it's really easy to rank for a term that may be searched only once every 3 months, like "prada G2038 eyeglass frame large". If you rank for enough of those "long tail" terms, in aggregate it adds up. By selling specific brand names and models, people searching for those only would stumble upon his site, not read any reviews because they just wanted the specific model, and get scammed. This is also why he wouldn't carry any inventory and order them off of eBay - by doing this he could have a large virtual inventory that would pick up the long tail. I can say with 100% certainty that his site never ranked for any of the high traffic terms. Not only that, but his strategy of negative reviews helping him rank is a ****-poor search marketing strategy, not to mention completely unethical.]

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I do disagree with this. Suggesting that pds are owed to consumers and that opticians must provide them free of charge, to suggest that opticians should adjust and repair onliner's glasses free of charge, to suggest that if pds are unknown to use 63, and to suggest that the onliners' foolproof formula for figuring segs is better than an opticians measurements is just plain wrong. There are the reasons we rail against the online glasses outlet. If you do not do this, differentiate yourself. If this isn't you, make it known. Instead, you react to the distaste we have for this type of business as if you're one of them. Defending unethical online businesses just because you happen to sell specialty lenses online paints you as no different. Show you're different if you are.


I do not believe I have EVER stated that PD's are "owed" to consumers or that the optician must provide them free of charge. To the contrary, I believe that the optician should either charge for the service rendered OR state clearly that they do not provide them. Personally speaking, I believe PD's should be part of the written prescription, but we've had that discussion before.

I've NEVER used a fudged or made-up PD. I do get orders in that are missing PD's and the patient is notified that a PD measurement is required before processing can begin, and that he/she should go back to the prescribing ECP and get it (and explain to the ECP the purpose for the eyewear). I've always stated that I PREFER working with an ECP, however, I have run across far too many ECP's that absolutely refuse to deal with glass lenses regardless of the fact that the needed filtration/protection can only be provided by glass lenses. I tell the patient that they should expect to pay for services rendered, and to do so happily.

I AM different, I DO do things differently, but at the same time, I also have a duty to speak up when I see a broad paint brush being used. The things you write about above ARE unethical IMO, and I don't/won't partake of them.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Oh, I'm not saying that the guy isn't bad, I was appalled when I read the story a couple of days ago, but to cast ALL online operations in the same light is way beyond the pale IMO. Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.


I don't believe that _all_ online retailers behave this way any normal person with some sort of a brain knows that. This guy was exceptional. I am not too sure if this is what Harry meant.

----------


## finefocus

> "and its access to secretive business practices"
> 
> What does that mean?


It means that the seller can be veiled and anonymous. How do you know with whom you're doing business? How do you get redress if necessary? How do you know you're not getting a counterfeit product? How do you .....(lots more)? Onliners can hide a lot of stuff.

----------


## Wes

> I do not believe I have EVER stated that PD's are "owed" to consumers or that the optician must provide them free of charge. To the contrary, I believe that the optician should either charge for the service rendered OR state clearly that they do not provide them. Personally speaking, I believe PD's should be part of the written prescription, but we've had that discussion before.
> 
> I've NEVER used a fudged or made-up PD. I do get orders in that are missing PD's and the patient is notified that a PD measurement is required before processing can begin, and that he/she should go back to the prescribing ECP and get it (and explain to the ECP the purpose for the eyewear). I've always stated that I PREFER working with an ECP, however, I have run across far too many ECP's that absolutely refuse to deal with glass lenses regardless of the fact that the needed filtration/protection can only be provided by glass lenses. I tell the patient that they should expect to pay for services rendered, and to do so happily.
> 
> I AM different, I DO do things differently, but at the same time, I also have a duty to speak up when I see a broad paint brush being used. The things you write about above ARE unethical IMO, and I don't/won't partake of them.


Read between the lines, Mike. I didn't say YOU do that, but that many online retailers do, contrary to your posting saying that most of them are ethical. It seems you're afraid to be seen as guilty by association, and rather than disassociate yourself, you defend the entire group of onliners. Stereotypically, I find them unethical. However, the pitfall of stereotyping is that not everyone in the group fits. See? Your business doesn't really fit with that group. I'm not sure why you keep putting yourself in with it, but it's the reason you keep getting so much flak. I don't have a problem with your business model as it is. I recognize you as an expert in glass manufacturing. I don't pay much attention when you start talking optics and opticianry. It is what it is. Chill just a little bit here, will ya?

PS: I sell glass on ocassion, as I've mentioned before.  I find that the people who want it know EXACTLY what they want and why.

----------


## MichaelP

> It means that the seller can be veiled and anonymous. How do you know with whom you're doing business? How do you get redress if necessary? How do you know you're not getting a counterfeit product? How do you .....(lots more)? Onliners can hide a lot of stuff.


So can any business owner. Tell me - go into your local bagel shop. Where do they get their ingredients? Who do they bank with? Who provides their merchant account? If you want a refund and they refuse to give it to you, what do you do? Contact your credit card company, same as with online. Who are the actual owners of the business? Any silent partners, or is the manager not actually the owner? Who owns the building they're located in? How about their equipment?

Another question: what's Google's phone number? You won't find it, unless you want to call their ad sales division. Same goes for even a customer support email. Are they any less reputable because you can't walk into their place of business?

With regards to online optical websites, I think the only reason most are not 100% putting themselves out there is because the law isn't settled and there has been no industry effort in that regard. If licensed states want to completely ban online sales of eyewear, or tightly regulate it like NC is proposing, then they should start making moves in that direction. Or maybe the FTC should look at it the same as contact lenses and provide a national regulation (the position I advocate)? Or at the very least, have the ABO or someone publish some voluntary guidelines for online retailers to follow. So far it seems the industry, for the most part, has decided to act like online retailers don't exist at all.

@Wes:  you are right, most online retailers say those things, and they shouldn't. Just wanted to say, I completely agree with you.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Read between the lines, Mike. I didn't say YOU do that, but that many online retailers do, contrary to your posting saying that most of them are ethical. It seems you're afraid to be seen as guilty by association, and rather than disassociate yourself, you defend the entire group of onliners. Stereotypically, I find them unethical. However, the pitfall of stereotyping is that not everyone in the group fits. See? Your business doesn't really fit with that group. I'm not sure why you keep putting yourself in with it, but it's the reason you keep getting so much flak. I don't have a problem with your business model as it is. I recognize you as an expert in glass manufacturing. I don't pay much attention when you start talking optics and opticianry. It is what it is. Chill just a little bit here, will ya?
> 
> PS: I sell glass on ocassion, as I've mentioned before. I find that the people who want it know EXACTLY what they want and why.


I'd love to chill, if the constant attacks by one certain person would stop. Guilt by association, oh, HELL yes! How can I disassociate myself from "them" when one or two people on this board continually bring it up and keep thowing it in my face? Do you see the problem here? In another thread I was accused of being (of all things) a CONSUMER!!!

I don't defend them (the onliners) per se, just try to put across certain points that occasionally get overlooked. Catch flak for it? Oh yeah! But reason tends to take a holiday when this issue comes up, doesn't it? I can certainly understand why, but I'd like to see EVERYONE take a chill pill instead of getting riled up each time this issue comes up. The onliners have their place and they are certainly not going to go away, not matter how loudly certain people scream about them.

It is what it is, and my belief is that each of us (personally and corporately) have to decide how "we" are going to handle it/them. I guess it comes down to deciding if you are going to get ulcers over it, or move on and find something else to do with your time.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Or at the very least, have the ABO or someone publish some voluntary guidelines for online retailers to follow.


I'd dearly LOVE to see this happen. +1

----------


## For-Life

This guy is a pure scumbag and not only needs jail time, but a bit of a beat down.

However, I found the article fascinating.  Especially when they interviewed him.  When I was in business school, we always talked about repeat business and long term vision.  Even now when I teach, the whole concept of relationship building is a must.

But the fact that he realized that the marketplace is so big that he probably does not need to build relationships is one thing.  Another fact is how he identified that negative publicity could be used to his advantage is just amazing.

----------


## finefocus

> So can any business owner. Tell me - go into your local bagel shop. Where do they get their ingredients? Who do they bank with? Who provides their merchant account? If you want a refund and they refuse to give it to you, what do you do? Contact your credit card company, same as with online. Who are the actual owners of the business? Any silent partners, or is the manager not actually the owner? Who owns the building they're located in? How about their equipment?
> 
> Another question: what's Google's phone number? You won't find it, unless you want to call their ad sales division. Same goes for even a customer support email. Are they any less reputable because you can't walk into their place of business?
> 
> With regards to online optical websites, I think the only reason most are not 100% putting themselves out there is because the law isn't settled and there has been no industry effort in that regard. If licensed states want to completely ban online sales of eyewear, or tightly regulate it like NC is proposing, then they should start making moves in that direction. Or maybe the FTC should look at it the same as contact lenses and provide a national regulation (the position I advocate)? Or at the very least, have the ABO or someone publish some voluntary guidelines for online retailers to follow. So far it seems the industry, for the most part, has decided to act like online retailers don't exist at all.
> 
> @Wes: you are right, most online retailers say those things, and they shouldn't. Just wanted to say, I completely agree with you.


My customers can find me, talk to me, question me, look deeply into my eyes, know how long I've been in business, meet other customers, see my inventory, feel the goods. My customers know where I'll be tomorrow, and know that it's me they are dealing with. You ask if Google is less reputable, but that's different from someone actually selling goods (prescription goods at that). 

Want to know about that bagel shop? Go visit it, and take the bad bagels along to return, right there, in front of the clientele. Try that online, where a bad review HELPS the offender. 

Regulate onliners like the contact lens business? What a fine irony. Voluntary guidelines? I am at a loss for a response to that one.

My original statement was "_caveat emptor_". I see no reason to argue with that.

----------


## MichaelP

This idea that the internet and online interactions are somehow "not real" is out of touch. Reminds me of what people were saying in the early 90's about the internet. And sure, I can take those bad bagels back and show them to the people who happen to be in the store at that time. Know what else I can do? Write a review on Yelp that is seen by thousands of potential customers when they use Google to get directions or a phone number for the place. Part of your criticism seems to be small business versus corporations too, but that's an old debate. Most online businesses in any industry are small businesses anyway (we certainly are). Nothing has been better for the budding entrepreneur than the advent of the internet.

Regardless, I talk to customers just like you, we've been around for years, they know where to find us (albeit a domain name instead of a street address), and even one step further they can research us and compare us and our prices to our competitors with ease and within minutes (something not available to your customers). They can know if anyone has ever had a bad experience with a simple search on Google and can read our full return policy and warranties, etc. at their leisure. Our growth has been fueled primarily by word of mouth, as I'm sure your business is too.

This is a pointless debate though. There are literally dozens of business books that discuss how the internet has empowered consumers to communicate with one another and has the ability to strengthen the relationship between business and consumer. If you think that internet transactions and internet businesses are somehow less real than your brick and mortar store, I don't really know how to answer that.

As for bad reviews helping this guy, this was an extreme outlier and an exploit of Google's algorithm, and nothing more. Trust me, search engine marketing is a huge part of our business and this is not a strategy that people follow (even the guys who promote online gambling and viagra don't use it). I posted earlier in the thread some additional details about exactly why it worked. He's no different than the dozens of mortgage brokers who scammed people during the real estate boom, or the snake oil salesmen from a century ago. Bad people will exist everywhere.

I would rather discuss what I said about regulation. Why do you dismiss it so completely? This is what I was saying in my post - it's like the whole industry is sticking its fingers in its ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!"

----------


## OHPNTZ

Right about "now" we are told that online retail is here to stay, and that we should embrace it...don't worry about losing sales...you can still charge for adjustments / pd/ etc...

Someone gets angry.  Then someone is told to "watch what you wish for"...6 to 7 posts later the thread is closed.  2 to 3 weeks later we start all over again...

----------


## MichaelP

> Right about "now" we are told that online retail is here to stay, and that we should embrace it...don't worry about losing sales...you can still charge for adjustments / pd/ etc...
> 
> Someone gets angry.  Then someone is told to "watch what you wish for"...6 to 7 posts later the thread is closed.  2 to 3 weeks later we start all over again...


LOL, sounds about right.

----------


## optilady1

> Right about "now" we are told that online retail is here to stay, and that we should embrace it...don't worry about losing sales...you can still charge for adjustments / pd/ etc...
> 
> Someone gets angry. Then someone is told to "watch what you wish for"...6 to 7 posts later the thread is closed. 2 to 3 weeks later we start all over again...


 
+1

----------


## finefocus

> This idea that the internet and online interactions are somehow "not real" is out of touch. Reminds me of what people were saying in the early 90's about the internet. And sure, I can take those bad bagels back and show them to the people who happen to be in the store at that time. Know what else I can do? Write a review on Yelp that is seen by thousands of potential customers when they use Google to get directions or a phone number for the place. Part of your criticism seems to be small business versus corporations too, but that's an old debate. Most online businesses in any industry are small businesses anyway (we certainly are). Nothing has been better for the budding entrepreneur than the advent of the internet.
> 
> Regardless, I talk to customers just like you, we've been around for years, they know where to find us (albeit a domain name instead of a street address), and even one step further they can research us and compare us and our prices to our competitors with ease and within minutes (something not available to your customers). They can know if anyone has ever had a bad experience with a simple search on Google and can read our full return policy and warranties, etc. at their leisure. Our growth has been fueled primarily by word of mouth, as I'm sure your business is too.
> 
> This is a pointless debate though. There are literally dozens of business books that discuss how the internet has empowered consumers to communicate with one another and has the ability to strengthen the relationship between business and consumer. If you think that internet transactions and internet businesses are somehow less real than your brick and mortar store, I don't really know how to answer that.
> 
> As for bad reviews helping this guy, this was an extreme outlier and an exploit of Google's algorithm, and nothing more. Trust me, search engine marketing is a huge part of our business and this is not a strategy that people follow (even the guys who promote online gambling and viagra don't use it). I posted earlier in the thread some additional details about exactly why it worked. He's no different than the dozens of mortgage brokers who scammed people during the real estate boom, or the snake oil salesmen from a century ago. Bad people will exist everywhere.
> 
> I would rather discuss what I said about regulation. Why do you dismiss it so completely? This is what I was saying in my post - it's like the whole industry is sticking its fingers in its ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!"


Well, they certainly are not less real.  My point was not that all ebiz is bad, just that bad bizpeople (like in the original story in this thread) can use weapons not available to traditional businesses. I find Yelp an unreliable source of buying criteria, and I have no idea who posts there. After many years of retail, I can say with authority that reality is a difficult concept for some customers, generally the loudest ones. 

About regulation: The online contact lens industry commonly flouts law, with no consequences. Voluntary guidelines would mean little to the ones who need them the most. We in    the traditional optical business have plenty of regulation, onliners don't. Getting meaningful regulation (and enforcement) is impossible presently; we can't agree that fewer nukes would be a good thing. No, we have to rely on the morals and ethics of the sellers. Some (presumably including yourself) are human beings. Some, like the original subject, are beasts. Welcome to life, where you don't always know who's who.

----------


## MichaelP

@finefocus: I agree with everything you wrote, and well said. I still think some voluntary guidelines would be good, or at least a first step. You're right in that it won't stop those who are already choosing to sell bad product (I think there are only very few of these though). You better believe though as an online retailer trying to find a place in the industry and gain the trust of consumers we would not only follow those guidelines but hammer the competition who chooses not to in our advertising and elsewhere.

----------


## Barry Santini

> And as an online retailer seeking to gain the trust and acceptance of both the optical industry and consumers, I was doubly incensed about his actions.
> 
> That said, I'd argue that online actually helps beat businesses like this more than helps them though. This guy is truly an outlier. For an e-commerce site, its customer satisfaction and online reviews are extremely important. Anyone is one short google search away from reading the comments of any disgruntled customer who decides to post them. Heck, it's possible (not only possible, but easy) for competitors to create fake negative reviews! Anyone whose gone through this happening to them on Yelp knows what I'm talking about.
> 
> On the other hand, everyone's read the stories of terrible experiences and product from Lenscrafters (I'm not trying to say they're nearly as bad as the guy in the story - just using them as an example of a business that gets lots of negative reviews). While a spate of negative reviews can absolutely tank an e-commerce site, that's not the same for brick and mortar stores with big brand advertising spend. When someone visits our site, it takes them all of 30 seconds to look up our BBB rating. Can't do that when you're walking through the mall.


Micheal, you know I luv to engage you on the online subject. And I definitely learned alot from your posts, as well as others.

Where I disgree with you is in the idea that you imply that eventually "..(the public) will find out and know the truth.." (I'm paraphrasing here). As you have pointed out above, even the so called horror stories from large B&M locations don't always "take" in the public's retained awareness. Heck, even the so called 'exposes" by magazines like Consumer's Digest (just ask me about THAT one!) have a short shelf life in the consumer's memory.

For me, I am totally against ANY AND ALL regulation of optical fulfillment online vendors. I say "let the buyer beware", and leave it at that. In fact, if we can just get a handful of stories like these reported in the press, they'd be sufficient, IMHO, despite their small sampling, to detour many people from "trying online". At the least, they'll pre-dispose consumers to having a negative impression of eyewear purchased on the internet. I have no problem with that, because considering how much of the business deck is stacked _against_ B&M optical in the online war, it's nice to have offsetting events like these stories to raise the spector of doubt about "getting that free lunch".

To really ram home my point, I'd luv to see the trend continued for online CL vendors, where they fulfill any and all consumer order requests, without regard for even the weak regs currently in place. Believe me, all you need is the right official's or politician's daughter getting a corneal ulcer from non-compliant vending of CLs, and loses some vision in the process, to effect some overdue oversight of this mismash.

And boy-oh-boy, THEN you'd see some action on serious re-regulation. I can only hope the same happens with eyewear (obviiously with it's less risk of harm). 

I firmly belive that the only way you'd see some truely thoughtful sanity brought to this eye correction/online debate is to engineer a crisis. 
Luckily, we don't have to. 
The public will do it themselves.

Barry

----------


## Speed

We all remember this story.  This was a brick and mortar story.  Crooks go to jail.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPKlrZ_1KJA

----------


## LENNY

I've heard that he is an ex NYPD cop!

----------


## Speed

Maybe he can go back to that after loosing his opticians license.

----------


## rdcoach5

I live in a licensed state, Ohio,and I firmly believe that online selling of glasses should be illegal unless the dispensers who ultimately adjust and check the glasses are fairly compensated. Since that compensation today is non-existent our very livelihood is threatened. Too many of us do adjustments for free, as if it has no worth. I have no problem with Mike Aurelius selling glasses online as long as he is going to do the adjustments and follow up care for his customers. We all know that is not going to happen. I also propose a ban on listing websites of online sellers for the same reason. Too many consumers are using Optiboard to find out how to order glasses online.

----------


## MikeAurelius

(too bad this is my 666th post...)

[QUOTE|I have no problem with Mike Aurelius selling glasses online as long as he is going to do the adjustments and follow up care for his customers. We all know that is not going to happen.[/QUOTE]

Really? WE ALL know? Got news for you... (psst: it's impossible to prove a negative)

It happens all the time.

I've also been one of those encouraging ECP's to charge for this service if the spectacles are purchased elsewhere.

----------


## finefocus

> (too bad this is my 666th post...)
> 
> [QUOTE|I have no problem with Mike Aurelius selling glasses online as long as he is going to do the adjustments and follow up care for his customers. We all know that is not going to happen.
> Got news for you... (psst: it's impossible to prove a negative


Of course it isn't impossible to prove a negative, although here we are interested in the absence of a service. You do provide a mechanism for your internet customers to visit your place of business and receive these services, and all costs are includes in the initial price, correct? Unless you own a fleet of jets, this probably isn't so.

----------


## cleyes

I agree with Barry Santini, We need a well connected disaster, after all we have the cl law courtesy of a ****** off politician's wife.

----------


## OHPNTZ

> Right about "now" we are told that online retail is here to stay, and that we should embrace it...don't worry about losing sales...you can still charge for adjustments / pd/ etc...
> 
> Someone gets angry.  Then someone is told to "watch what you wish for"...6 to 7 posts later the thread is closed.  2 to 3 weeks later we start all over again...




"I've also been one of those encouraging ECP's to charge for this service if the spectacles are purchased elsewhere."  

There's the statement I predicted...

----------


## MichaelP

> I firmly believe that online selling of glasses should be illegal unless the dispensers who ultimately adjust and check the glasses are fairly compensated.


So, wait a minute - you think it should be illegal because you're unwilling to change your pricing model? You not being compensated for services isn't on me. If one of my customers walks into your store and asks for a P.D., it has nothing to do with me that you don't charge for it. Same for adjustments. I don't sell the brand names you do, so my customers aren't the ones coming in trying frames on off your board and writing down model numbers - that's FramesDirect's business model.

(this notwithstanding what I said earlier about online sellers who tell their customers that these services should be free are wrong to do so.)

I think discussing whether or not online sales can happen in a way that provides a certain minimum level of care is one thing, but to believe that the law exists to protect your pricing model is something all together different.

Also, reminds me of this article that I believe was posted here a while ago:

http://www.ecpmag.com/1webmagazine/2...e-services.asp

(that 14% figure quoted in the article is wrong though - from my knowledge, internet sales represent 1-2% of all sales currently. 14% would mean $2.24 billion in U.S. alone - there is absolutely no way the online market is even close to that big.)

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Of course it isn't impossible to prove a negative, although here we are interested in the absence of a service. You do provide a mechanism for your internet customers to visit your place of business and receive these services, and all costs are includes in the initial price, correct? Unless you own a fleet of jets, this probably isn't so.


While I don't have a fleet of aircraft, I *DO* travel to art glass shows and visit with many of my customers, and provide adjustments and follow up on eyewear. I also have customers visit my facility on a daily basis.

----------


## scriptfiller

We only give PD's to our pat's who have purchased eyewear from us.  If someone comes off the street and want's a PD, we don't give/charge for it.  Our response is that the PD is the responsibility of the dispenser, we choose not to become a party to the transaction.

I don't have a problem with e-commerce as it pertains to specs.  I do have a problem with these people who choose to go that route for wanting services for free.  We have had a number of our pat's. test the waters only to come back for quality and service.

----------


## rdcoach5

I just visited Mike Aurelius' web site. I understand that Mike only does specialty glass lenses for X-rays and glassworkers etc.I apologize to Mike for asking a ban on him because he is offering a service that no other lab can. Of course we would add our dispensing fee to any glasses we are asked to adjust, unless.... they are already our patient and have purchased dress eyewear from us.
Mike, you can switch back to your other avatar. You're not the devil, like some other online venders.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I'd love to chill, if the constant attacks by one certain person would stop. Guilt by association, oh, HELL yes! How can I disassociate myself from "them" when one or two people on this board continually bring it up and keep thowing it in my face? Do you see the problem here? In another thread I was accused of being (of all things) a CONSUMER!!!


Mike, 
Why would you post in this thread and then act like I ma attacking you.  By posting in this thread you bring it upon yourself.  Also your company is being deceitfully portrayed here on this forum because you do sell non-specialty eyewear through another company that you claim is a sister company then when confronted with that yoru explanation is that you have very little to do with it and it's set up for a friend.  Why then does thsi companies monies deposit into your Paypal account sales@auralens.com and why is the domain registered to your company Auralens?  The tactics you are using are reminicent of other corporations within this industry, and they operate IMO outside of ethical bounds.

From what I gather from your various sites and postings your like a cameleon, you say whatever suits the moment.

Here's an example that I find amusing:




> Did you know that you don't need to buy a new frame every time you get a new prescription? It is just one more way that the optican makes a profit from you.


Then not even a paragraph underneath that:




> Note: Lenses must be replaced in pairs. We cannot replace only one lens!


So an opticians company policy is a way of making money off the consumer but your company policy of replacing pairs only is not for making money?  Did you know that we can replace only one lens, It is just one more way that Aura Lens makes a profit from you.

My gripe is the way in which business is conducted online, for the most part onliners are being left alone as MichaelP indicated but the marketshare isn't growing fast enough so deceit creeps into the equation, many of the sites have key phrases to try and portray the B and M competition as being decietful, I have quoted them in previous posts so I will not go over them again, Mike you participate in this tactic and then you come here and act like your stuff don't stink.  It is a steady campaign to erode the trust in the consumers towards ECP's.




> I just visited Mike Aurelius' web site. I understand that Mike only does specialty glass lenses for X-rays and glassworkers etc.I apologize to Mike for asking a ban on him because he is offering a service that no other lab can. Of course we would add our dispensing fee to any glasses we are asked to adjust, unless.... they are already our patient and have purchased dress eyewear from us.
> Mike, you can switch back to your other avatar. You're not the devil, like some other online venders.


He sells dress eyewear online too:

http://www.glassesfromglass.com/m0_pricing.cfm

Mike likes to say that this company does not belong to him, he claims it is his sister company and has nothing to do with their regular company but the domain registry says differently and the funds all go to sales@auralens.com through Paypal.





> Right about "now" we are told that online retail is here to stay, and that we should embrace it...don't worry about losing sales...you can still charge for adjustments / pd/ etc...
> 
> Someone gets angry. Then someone is told to "watch what you wish for"...6 to 7 posts later the thread is closed. 2 to 3 weeks later we start all over again...


Wow, how right you are and have you seen all the articles lately?  I saw one on polarized that caught a lot of people attentions, also articles in trade rags about online here to stay.  The underlying message in everyone of them seems to be just give up and go with the flow.  I have seen that campaign ramped up and amped up in the last couple of months.  It's a formula that has always worked in our profession, just convince us that it's inevitable and the fight is over.  I agree there should be some regulation, if the onliners want to sell readers online then go for it, but anythign prescription should be off limits.  That's my opinion and it's not really up for debate.

----------


## rdcoach5

Well, I stand corrected, again!

----------


## MikeAurelius

Well, Harry, you just proved the point I was making above.

I've explained the relationship between the two businesses before, I'm not going to do it again. But I tell you what, if you want to become an investor, I'd be happy to 'open the books'.

----------


## drk

Get this straight, everyone.

The reason online glasses are bad has nothing to do with online retailing, per se. Hey, buy a book. Buy a sweater. Buy a dog-collar. 'Tis the season.

It's because, and it should be clearer and clearer to you dummkofs, that vision...care...is...not...retailing.

I'll say it again, more slowly, in case I'm typing too fast for you:

*Vision......care......is......not......retailing.*

Oh, you may disagree. But you'd be wrong. You need a prescription; that is, you need a Dr's order. (For the tragically mush-headed, a prescription is not "on the box"; those are called "powers", or "base curves". A "prescription" is not what you populate the fields with on the internet pirates websites.) Do you need a Dr.'s order to get a new light fixture for your bathroom? 

Why do we think a Dr.'s order is needed, anyway? Just to give a nice suggestion as to what those optometrists feel would be a good starting point when you order your own glasses online? So helpful of us to give our opinions.

Why do you need a Dr.'s order to order antihypertensives? So you can go online and comparison shop, armed with your physician's opinion of what he'd recommend you take?

Why do we need prescriptions for optical devices? Well, I think it would have a little something to do with the fact that harm can occur if done improperly. Wrong medicine...not so happy. Wrong contacts...not so happy. Wrong glasses...not so happy. 



Hey, I've got another one for you! Would you go to a Dr. who never went to college? Never graduated? Never passed a board exam? Doesn't maintain a current license in your state? Doesn't carry malpractice insurance? Isn't credentialed by your health plans? Sure you would, if you could get services for cheap! You know you would.

You wouldn't? You mean, you think a Dr. should be trained, certified, regulated, all that crap? 

What about your pharmacist? Can just anyone "count some dumb pills"?

Oh, but your optician can be a cyber-joke or no-optician-needed-do-it-yourself, because, heck, there's no way bad glasses can harm you...you're too smart to let that happen. Plus you got a really, really good deal, right?

Let's end this farce. No such thing as a "prescription"! No such thing as a "professional". No such thing as harm, or liability. No such thing as a "Dr."  Let Essilor (you know, those that have spent millions buying a company so they have technology down to the hundreth of a diopter so you do-yourselfers can have great accuracy in what you guess your lens powers should be) and your "droid" do the "prescribing"! No such thing as a state board. No such thing as "standard of care". To heck with modern healthcare--there's nothing more modern than the internets!  Power to the people.  Give me online or give me death!


*Warning: Hey, opticians and optometrists out there. You see what's happening, what with deregulation of vision care, and with the do-it-yourselfer-movement on the internet! I think you'd better not fight this losing battle. You'll lose MONEY. Think of all the MONEY you will lose. Did I mention MONEY? 

If you want to keep making MONEY, I'd recommend teaming up with Essilor or some other benificient entity. They'll help you keep making MONEY, because they purchased the "premiere" online glasses website, and now they'll be more than happy to work with you to convert all your patients to online shopping! Yes, you'll make less MONEY, because Essilor will be getting some of the MONEY as well, but you're in a tough, desperate position. Think of all the MONEY you're going to lose! Think of all the MONEY you stand to make! 

Just think...MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!

----------


## rdcoach5

THUS THE IMPORTANCE OF A NATIONAL LICENSING OF OPTICIANS. Yes, you can buy glasses from my shop and I will include a scratch resistant warranty and an AR warranty, if applicable, for 2 years and an extended warranty to be used for anything including you just never liked theses glasses and you had them 6 months. OR, I will take your PD and seg height and you can buy them online after you pay my fitting fee. Forget about any warranties. This might be the way it's going. Single vision fit and dispense $50.. high Rx's $75.. and progressives $100. Sound right?

----------


## drk

Yes, that's about what it costs to have overhead and a professional.

How about we just "sell" our glasses for $39.99 and we separate out the professional fee?  

Oh the gnashing of teeth that would occur then!  

True story about what happened to me today, which prompted me to post on here before Steve closes this thread (I resigned from Optiboard, but as you can see, I'm not trustworthy):  Patient calls.  Wants p.d. and Rx from receptionist--going online.  She says (as she's been instructed) Rx--yes.  P.d.--no.  We fax Rx, including a line for "use" which says "full time wear".  Patient is very low hyperopic mature presbyope who has a pair of NVF glasses we made, and wants "to spend her HSA money buying a couple extra pair of glasses online, but doesn't want to spend hundreds of dollars".  OK, whatever.

So lady calls back: "This prescription is for full-time.  I KNOW I can't see to drive in my glasses (NVF, mind you), so this Rx is not right!"  Rather than further exasperate my receptionist, I pick up.

"How can I help you, Sweets?"  
"I'm buying online, yadda yadda, and this Rx says "full time" and you won't give me my p.d.s, and I know that I can't drive in my glasses that you made, etc."
"We gave you the correct Rx"
"No, because, (same old same old)."
"We gave you the correct Rx that ANY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL WOULD BE ABLE TO FILL".  Your problem is that you are not an optometrist or an optician, but a do-it-yourselfer, and you want me to participate by providing you measurements and educating you on how to interpret prescriptions.  I'm sorry, if you want professional care, you are going to have to come in to our office for it.  If you want to do it yourself, then do it yourself."

Needless to say she's not getting recalled for future professional care.  She just doesn't get it.

Do _YOU_ get it?

----------


## NCspecs

Just a thought, 


This and many other threads about online retailers are open to the public to read. I wonder what it says about us that there is so much sniping within the ranks. I think the general consensus is that regulation within the eyecare industry is going to help people not get taken advantage of by unscrupulous retailers intent on capital gain alone. As much as I (and many other Optiboarders) don't enjoy goverment regulation, in some instances, this included, it is meant to protect the consumers, albeit maybe only from themselves. 

People enjoy the freedom to spend their money in any way they like but it is up to us as ECP to push for the regulation and licensing of all ECPs. We need to be the change we wish to see. Let's also lead by example and keep it classy Optiboard. ;)

----------


## OHPNTZ

Dr K,

Dont you know online retailing is here to stay?  It is advocated that you embrace it, measure that PD and move on...

Reduce your overhead.  Bag those "phat" frames on the wall...while simultaneously reducing the size of your office.  We are talking like 200 square feet, tops.  All you have to do is place a computer outside the exam room...or laptops if you offer  "high end" selection.  Fire your optician.  Train your new PD specialist.  Maybe a part time online frame consultant / website searcher.  Also hire a part time fax verifier for those pesky CL orders.  Consider a mobile unit with internet access or 4G capabilities for those who cannot access the web.

Your optometric ordering station will be the hottest thing going!

----------


## Barry Santini

> if the onliners want to sell readers online then go for it, but anythign prescription should be off limits. That's my opinion and it's not really up for debate.


Harry,

I luv your stuff, but I'm sugesting these sentiments expressed about "readers" are to be reflected upon...respectfully.

If up to +3.00 w/ no PD is ok, then I say just about any power between plus and minus 3 should be ok with no PD.

B

----------


## drk

Put on your thinking cap, Barry.

It's not the just the prism, it's the usage.

If you have the wrong OTC presbyopic correction, you get blurry vision and a headache. That's one thing.

If you are wearing -2.00 when you should be wearing -3.00 to drive, that's another. 

Is that lost on you?

How about we reverse your "logic"? Instead of saying _"Well, OTC readers are OK up to +3.00 (_and they're not "OK to +3.00, they're stocked by the dollar store to +3.00 because no one bought the +4.00 inventory. If K-Mart stocked to +5.00, would 5D be your new standard?_), then OTC distance lenses should be OK up to 3D"_, we say_ "Well, if we need an Rx for any power ophthalmic lens, why should we not make OTC readers regulated_?" That's the better perspective.

Why aren't readers regulated? Grandfathered, that's all. They've been around too long, that's all. They're not "good", just "exempt". 

No logic in your argument.

----------


## NeGlassesGirl27

What if their RX is different in each eye and they need readers? IE: R is +2.00 L is +1.25. You can't buy OTC readers with that kind of an RX. I sell a TON of glasses to people who will just need them for readers but they have a different rx in each eye. Depending on what they are willing or WANT to spend on them..I can show them a frame from our value line that the frames are inexpensive. 

I completely understand someone is wanting to save money. Believe me..I am planning a wedding so I know how it goes. In fact, we are doing all artificial flowers to save us tons of money but we certainly aren't getting them online! I firmly believe that if you buy something like glasses online and you THINK you're getting this fabulous deal of $20.00 for 19 pairs of glasses..you deserve what you get. Sorry but that's the way I think because guess what..they'll be knocking on our doorstep as soon as they can't see. That's like buying a car online..you have NO idea how it drives, if it's a POS..nothing! It's the same way with glasses. You have no idea how the frames fit, you don't know anything about the RX and if you type in the incorrect RX or PD (whatever it may be), guess who you're going to be yelling at? Certainly not the place you bought them from!! Oh heck no..:hammer:

I am not sure when patients will understand...you only have one set of eyes so why mess with them?  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## Wes

DRK, its even more a usage issue than you suggest. Here in the south, I see many, MANY people wearing otc readers as their distance vision glasses. People with big ol melonheads and 76 pds wearing plus 2.50s with a pd of 60mm. They can't see worth a crap and they won't pay for an exam or glasses, so they put the general public in danger. I have maintained that "otc readers" shouldn't be Over The Counter.

----------


## optilady1

I don't think that Harry was suggesting it's okay for some doofus to be wearing otc's for driving or working in an air traffic control tower.

----------


## Wes

> I don't think that Harry was suggesting it's okay for some doofus to be wearing otc's for driving or working in an air traffic control tower.


I know Harry didn't suggest that. 
My point to add to DrKs statement is that I see it happen. A lot. (Probably not in air traffic control)

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry,
> 
> I luv your stuff, but I'm sugesting these sentiments expressed about "readers" are to be reflected upon...respectfully.
> 
> If up to +3.00 w/ no PD is ok, then I say just about any power between plus and minus 3 should be ok with no PD.
> 
> B


I don't think anything prescription should be OTC but readers have been in existence forever and are sold everywhere so I'm not suggesting regulating what's already unregulated.

BTW I saw a transitions readers display in a CVS the other day.  It wasn't specifically branded transitions but the advertising was exactly the same, I snapped a photo of it on my cell phone.  I have seen bifocal readers.  I am waiting for the idiot to come up with progressive readers.  And also the idiot that buys them.

----------


## finefocus

> I don't think anything prescription should be OTC but readers have been in existence forever and are sold everywhere so I'm not suggesting regulating what's already unregulated.
> 
> BTW I saw a transitions readers display in a CVS the other day. It wasn't specifically branded transitions but the advertising was exactly the same, I snapped a photo of it on my cell phone. I have seen bifocal readers. I am waiting for the idiot to come up with progressive readers. And also the idiot that buys them.


Already here! I saw them in a catalogue the other day; it might have been Hammacher-Schlemmer???
More like a Variable Near than a true PAL, had (I think I remember accurately) a 1 diopter reduction from reading Rx.
I just looked---made by Eschenbach, half-eye style---

----------


## LENNY

IDG News Service -   An online retailer who boasted that complaints about his business helped  boost its standing in Google search results was arrested Monday.
 Vitaly  Borker, 34, was arrested at his home in Brooklyn, New York, and charged  with fraud, cyberstalking and harassment, the U.S. Department of  Justice said. He faces up to 20 years in prison.
 According to the complaint against him and a profile  that appeared in The New York Times last month, Borker made abusive  customer service his signature style. Prosecutors say he shipped  counterfeit or defective products and threatened customers with violence  if they complained. 
 "When those customers tried to return or  exchange the merchandise, Borker subjected them to a campaign of  aggressive, obscene and intimidating conduct," the DOJ said.
 The  U.S. Federal Trade Commission has logged more than 200 complaints  against Borker's designer eyeware business, Decormyeyes.com, the DoJ  said.
 In one case, Borker allegedly botched an order, overbilled  the customer and then, saying he knew where she lived, threatened her  with sexual violence. The calls came again and again, continuing "well  into the night," according to an affidavit signed by U.S. Postal  Inspector Douglas Veatch.
 Borker told a second customer that he  was "instructing his assistant to 'crush' the glasses and then 'take the  pieces of what is left of his glasses and use the label he sent to ship  the powder back to him," Veatch wrote. 
 It was all part of a  scheme to boost his online presence by getting people to discuss and  link to his online store. Even if the links came from people complaining  about his business it still drove traffic to the website.
 Borker went by several online aliases, prosecutors say, including Tony Russo and Stanley Bolds.
 Responding in June 2008 to dozens of online complaints about Decormyeyes.com, Borker allegedly wrote:  "the more replies you people post the more business and the more hits  and sales I get. My goal is NEGATIVE advertisement. ... I never had the  amount of traffic I have now since my 1st complaint. I am in heaven.  Thanks so very much for your continued effort. I really appreciate it." 
 The  system took advantage of Google's tendency to give higher search-result  placement to websites that are mentioned and linked to more frequently  -- even if the context is negative.
 After The New York Times  broke the story of Borker's business practices -- complete with  surprisingly candid comments from Borker himself -- Google changed its algorithm to prevent this type of negative advertisement from working.
 Neither Borker nor his lawyer Bruce Kaye returned messages seeking comment.

----------


## HarryChiling

The sole purpose of this thread is to warn the consumers that come here.  I have seen more than a few instances of online vendors that have used reputation management to scrub their negative reputations from the first two pages of google.  This site ranks very high on the search engines so this could be used as a place to comment on negative experiences of the online model just as well as the positive nature of the model.

----------


## cleyes

> DRK, its even more a usage issue than you suggest. Here in the south, I see many, MANY people wearing otc readers as their distance vision glasses. People with big ol melonheads and 76 pds wearing plus 2.50s with a pd of 60mm. They can't see worth a crap and they won't pay for an exam or glasses, so they put the general public in danger. I have maintained that "otc readers" shouldn't be Over The Counter.


This is a common  practice here in NY also.  We lost the ban on OTC here by the manufacturers pleading "restraint of trade" to the FTC if memory serves.

----------


## HarryChiling

bump

----------


## AngeHamm

> Just a thought, 
> 
> 
> This and many other threads about online retailers are open to the public to read. I wonder what it says about us that there is so much sniping within the ranks. I think the general consensus is that regulation within the eyecare industry is going to help people not get taken advantage of by unscrupulous retailers intent on capital gain alone. As much as I (and many other Optiboarders) don't enjoy goverment regulation, in some instances, this included, it is meant to protect the consumers, albeit maybe only from themselves. 
> 
> People enjoy the freedom to spend their money in any way they like but it is up to us as ECP to push for the regulation and licensing of all ECPs. We need to be the change we wish to see. Let's also lead by example and keep it classy Optiboard. ;)


+100

----------


## HarryChiling

Bump

----------


## LENNY

Did not make a bail yet!!!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I have no problem with xxxxxx yyyyyyy zzzzzz selling glasses online as long as he is going to do the adjustments and follow up care for his customers. We all know that is not going to happen.* 
> 
> *I also propose a ban on listing websites of online sellers for the same reason. Too many consumers are using Optiboard to find out how to order glasses online.*


You can not fight intertnet happenings by banning them in one corner because they just will pop up in the opposite corner in a more efficient way.

Keep those websites  and start a listing of sites that collect complaints and irregularities ans link those together, that could make quite an impressing collection over a 12 month period.

Dont shut them out, but find ways to work at them within.

*There are 30 million people in the USA that are jobless and have to go through life by spending a bare minimum, can you blame them to find cheaper avenues ?* 
*We are all feeling the pinch from import to wholesale and and as well to retail, we are all doing a lot less normal regular business than we used before.*

*There are hundreds that have closed their businesses in our field and more are coming in the near future.*

*We have to find a way to co-exist and maybe even florish besides the unpersonal way of the on-line seller, without using canons  and atom bombs.*

----------


## Barry Santini

Very good advice, Chris

----------


## uncut

So.....the best the minds of optiboard can only come up with is capitulation??

What a namby-pamby piece of advice!

----------


## MichaelP

...or it's a recognition that some eyewear can actually be delivered online. Yes, there are some prescriptions that can't be filled properly online (we started to have a discussion of what those would be in another thread), and there are some services that can't be replicated online (adjusting, quick repairs, a whole board of frames to try on, face to face contact, etc.), and wholesale labs in other countries importing directly into this country should be subject to the same ANSI standards as domestic labs. All that said, you can't deny that perfectly good pairs of glasses can be delivered by an online retailer for many prescriptions.

Is this new competition? Yes. Is it a significant threat to the existing pricing model being used in brick and mortar stores? Probably. Should the answer be to hide behind regulation? No. I've been saying on here online sales should be regulated - I'm 100% for it - but in good faith, not just as a means of protecting existing interests.

Also Barry, I never responded to your comment about being against any online regulation, hoping a crisis wakes the public up to a so-far undiscovered threat. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take as an owner of a brick and mortar business - I completely understand where you're coming from. I just wanted to respond to your comment in that post that the deck is heavily stacked against brick and mortar businesses.

From my perspective, at least in the short term, it's hard to convince people to buy online. First, they start in the doc's chair - that's a huge advantage for dispensaries with O.D.'s. Second, they can try frames on. Most people I talk to in my personal life about buying online won't do it - even when I'm standing there telling them how much cheaper it is and that the quality is great etc., 100% money back guarantee, and a real face-to-face interaction - and the reason every time is they can't try the frames on. So, that's a huge advantage brick and mortar places have. Third, for a lay person reading a prescription isn't easy, and even with all of the guides and help we can put on our site, it's still a challenge for a lot of people. Eye size, bridge, temple to find the right size, or "DS" written in the Cyl column, or Add when they just want single vision...there are lots of places for them to get tripped up. My own father wouldn't order online, even with me walking him through things on the phone, because he thought it was too hard. And he's a pretty smart, computer savvy, albeit impatient, guy.

So, at least for now, I think the deck is stacked in your favor. The only thing we have going for us is price, but I (and you too, I think) believe a skilled optician/business owner can get around that, by either changing the pricing model to break out the services fees or just by educating their customers as to what they're paying for and what the differences between online and them are. Plus, price is a difficult thing to compete on. I just saw a competitor was having a complete pair for $4.95 sale this week. We can't compete with that, no way. By making price our only big selling point, it kills our margins and makes it hard to beat our other (online) competition. I think Warby Parker has the right idea, but I'm not sure how well that's going to work for them.

----------


## Barry Santini

Thoughtfull response as always, Michael. 

My EOTD ("Epiphany Of The Day", - usually in my AM shower) was that *I* will now infer that prescription eyewear - purchased online - is akin to over-the-counter reading glasses. For the most part, they're mass-manufactured, devoit of the normal service, expertise and support that B&M ECP vended eyewear has been bundled with, and the price paid reflects these production efficiencies and subtractions.

The public, for their part,assumes that OTC stuff is cheap-crap, whether it's a reader or a sun. So there's no new ground or educating needed to make my point.

Mike, I know that ZIP eyewear is a different model, and that the above doesn't apply to your approach.

For me, this whole online thingy has made me realize that we're witnessing the complete democratization of the purchase process in our lifetimes.  It's no longer about B&M, authorized dealers, online sites or amorphous entities like Amazon.com Everyone can or will be able to buy anything they want, at any time, in any way they see fit.  So for me, it's now about 2011 being the year of me removing my cocoon of dinosaurism, and making Facebook, Twitter, Yelp and the rest of the new paradigm of social media work for me and my business. I've started "checking in" on FB and Yelp, and reviewing other businesses that I like.  I'm also showing them, _while I'm in their store_, how this can be leveraged to be so much more influential than local word of mouth ever could be.

Sounds like a plan. Any one else  on board?

B

----------


## NCspecs

> Thoughtfull response as always, Michael. 
> 
> My EOTD ("Epiphany Of The Day", - usually in my AM shower) was that *I* will now infer that prescription eyewear - purchased online - is akin to over-the-counter reading glasses. For the most part, they're mass-manufactured, devoit of the normal service, expertise and support that B&M ECP vended eyewear has been bundled with, and the price paid reflects these production efficiencies and subtractions.
> 
> The public, for their part,assumes that OTC stuff is cheap-crap, whether it's a reader or a sun. So there's no new ground or educating needed to make my point.
> 
> Mike, I know that ZIP eyewear is a different model, and that the above doesn't apply to your approach.
> 
> For me, this whole online thingy has made me realize that we're witnessing the complete democratization of the purchase process in our lifetimes. It's no longer about B&M, authorized dealers, online sites or amorphous entities like Amazon.com Everyone can or will be able to buy anything they want, at any time, in any way they see fit. So for me, it's now about 2011 being the year of me removing my cocoon of dinosaurism, and making Facebook, Twitter, Yelp and the rest of the new paradigm of social media work for me and my business. I've started "checking in" on FB and Yelp, and reviewing other businesses that I like. I'm also showing them, _while I'm in their store_, how this can be leveraged to be so much more influential than local word of mouth ever could be.
> ...


Reasonable and pragmatic. It's not giving in; it's repositioning.

----------


## HarryChiling

bump

----------


## HarryChiling

bump

----------


## rdcoach5

> Thoughtfull response as always, Michael. 
> 
> My EOTD ("Epiphany Of The Day", - usually in my AM shower) was that *I* will now infer that prescription eyewear - purchased online - is akin to over-the-counter reading glasses. For the most part, they're mass-manufactured, devoit of the normal service, expertise and support that B&M ECP vended eyewear has been bundled with, and the price paid reflects these production efficiencies and subtractions.
> 
> The public, for their part,assumes that OTC stuff is cheap-crap, whether it's a reader or a sun. So there's no new ground or educating needed to make my point.
> 
> Mike, I know that ZIP eyewear is a different model, and that the above doesn't apply to your approach.
> 
> For me, this whole online thingy has made me realize that we're witnessing the complete democratization of the purchase process in our lifetimes.  It's no longer about B&M, authorized dealers, online sites or amorphous entities like Amazon.com Everyone can or will be able to buy anything they want, at any time, in any way they see fit.  So for me, it's now about 2011 being the year of me removing my cocoon of dinosaurism, and making Facebook, Twitter, Yelp and the rest of the new paradigm of social media work for me and my business. I've started "checking in" on FB and Yelp, and reviewing other businesses that I like.  I'm also showing them, _while I'm in their store_, how this can be leveraged to be so much more influential than local word of mouth ever could be.
> ...


 
Barry, I used to think you were intelligent. You also, Chris. I'm joining Fezz and Johns. see Ya.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Barry, I used to think you were intelligent. You also, Chris. I'm joining Fezz and Johns. see Ya.*


 
Sure throw in the towel ...................................

A forum is a place to discuss, if everybody would be of the same opinion there would be no need to discuss anything.................however walking out through the back exit is not a show of heroism in my book.

I have been laughed at many times on OptiBoard when somebody wanted a prognostic on the optical business 10--20 years down the road and said that automatizing would reduce the B&M store to a kiosk. Now it is not automatizing, (which is coming after) but economic, all helped by the downturn, and initiated by the giant corporations and their greed by moving their operations onto other parts overseas.

We should consider ourselves blessed to have an instrument like OptiBoard at our fingertips to facilitate instant discussion and it should also be used to talk about serious matters affecting the professional future of all of us.

In a democratic place the majority sets the rules and not an individual that is believed to be intelligent. There has been a huge step forward on OptiBoard by going into discussions with On Line Optical compared to a couple of years ago, and will most probably continue in one shape or another.

----------


## HarryChiling

Chris,

Your website has a link exchange that links to many of these online websites.  I know the hope is that your site will be listed towards the top of the search engines and that's their hope as well, but you seem to be part of the problem.  You jump on here and talk about how the sky is falling and what opticals can do but behind the scenes you are actually supporting their sites.

As to Barry, I like the social networking sites and I think they can do wonders for the marketing of a B and M shops.  If your not on FB, Twitter, or any of the other number of sites popping up you will soon lose touch with your patients.  I think every office should have an online presence and even e-commerce on a B and M site is a great idea but fitting and dispensing online is the problem, it requires a face to face interaction and without it their is an obvious hole in the experience and the product.  The online model is comprised of we're cheap, they are cheating you, and we have a vast inventory.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors, no formulas exists that can provide the accuracy of proper fitting, sure they may have a good cheat but it's just that.

I think onliners are here to stay, they are using deceptive marketing to try and make the consumer believe that a need for their services exists, they are trying to convince the consumer that their doctors and opticians are somehow cheating them.  These tactics should be exposed at every twist and turn, this is my opinion to combat the negative PR they are spreading about our profession.

----------


## Barry Santini

> Chris,
> 
> Your website has a link exchange that links to many of these online websites. I know the hope is that your site will be listed towards the top of the search engines and that's their hope as well, but you seem to be part of the problem. You jump on here and talk about how the sky is falling and what opticals can do but behind the scenes you are actually supporting their sites.
> 
> As to Barry, I like the social networking sites and I think they can do wonders for the marketing of a B and M shops. If your not on FB, Twitter, or any of the other number of sites popping up you will soon lose touch with your patients. I think every office should have an online presence and even e-commerce on a B and M site is a great idea but fitting and dispensing online is the problem, it requires a face to face interaction and without it their is an obvious hole in the experience and the product. The online model is comprised of we're cheap, they are cheating you, and we have a vast inventory. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, no formulas exists that can provide the accuracy of proper fitting, sure they may have a good cheat but it's just that.
> 
> I think onliners are here to stay, they are using deceptive marketing to try and make the consumer believe that a need for their services exists, they are trying to convince the consumer that their doctors and opticians are somehow cheating them. These tactics should be exposed at every twist and turn, this is my opinion to combat the negative PR they are spreading about our profession.


 
++++++++!

----------


## Barry Santini

> Barry, I used to think you were intelligent.


Me too.

B

----------


## NeGlassesGirl27

I actually had a patient call yesterday and ask, "I've been reading online about how online optical retailers are so much better because people like you are trying to cheat your patients out of money..." I was extremely taken back since obviously, I do not get phone calls like this everyday. I basically told the patient that I invited her into the practice to see the difference and naturally her response was, "I don't want to waste my time so I will buy online." As if her 5 minute phone call to me wasn't a waste of time in itself...it got neither her or I anywhere. :angry:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Chris,
> 
> *Your website has a link exchange that links to many of these on line websites. I know the hope is that your site will be listed to wards the top of the search engines and that's their hope as well, but you seem to be part of the problem. You jump on here and talk about how the sky is falling and what optical can do but behind the scenes you are actually supporting their sites.*


 
Harry......................Reciprocal linking on websites has always been a boost to search engines to list sites with lots of good reciprocals on the top. My site has accumulated over 6,000 reciprocal links and has been on top of the search engines for the last 14 years. You are just distorting the facts for one reason or another.

This thread seems to have degraded to mud slinging and will probably dye a natural one or get closed for a bumpy ride.

----------


## NCspecs

> This thread seems to have degraded to mud slinging and will probably die a natural one or get closed for a bumpy ride.


That's is a troubling trend I've noticed. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree and still be cordial. Seems to be a lost skill in the art of conversation and debate. Like I mentioned before, this is a public thread that is open to consumers. We do nothing for our credibility if we are sniping at each other. Barry is right, some people would rather save a buck and cut corners nevermind the quality. I'm sure we could all name a pt that ought to win a Darwin Award due to their poor choices. Hard to do anything about it all unless there is regulation and more stringent guidelines regarding who is allowed sell, fit, and dispense spectacles and contacts.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry......................Reciprocal linking on websites has always been a boost to search engines to list sites with lots of good reciprocals on the top. My site has accumulated over 6,000 reciprocal links and has been on top of the search engines for the last 14 years. You are just distorting the facts for one reason or another.
> 
> This thread seems to have degraded to mud slinging and will probably dye a natural one or get closed for a bumpy ride.


I have called you nothing, there is no name calling going on, just a discussion. Read below if you want the reasons and proof of why I called you part of the problem.




> Wholesale Clothing
> http://www.apparelcandy.com
> Buy wholesale clothing, sunglasses, jewelry, accessories, tops, dresses and women's clothes for up to 80% OFF wholesale price at ApparelCandy.com! 
> 
> Wholesale Clothing
> http://www.wholesaleclothesonline.com
> Wholesale clothing, women’s wholesale clothes, handbags, accessories, shoes, cosmetics and more at lowest bargain prices daily to 80% off. 
> http://www.goforjewel.com/ Discount Gemstone Jewelry
>  Choose designer & discount gemstone jewelry from our silver gemstone jewelry collection including discount silver gemstone rings,discount gemstone silver earrings with 100% satisfaction. 
> ...


Chris,

Just a few of the links from your website, and yes they do go against Googles policies, so what makes you better than this guy who found a flaw in googles algorithm and exploited it at the cost of consumers and this industry? Are ECP's not consumers of your goods? Luckily your products are good and I assume you stand behind them, but your tactic is no better then this crooks. 

Google Policy: http://www.google.com/support/webmas...n&answer=66356

Your site is not participating in reciprical linking it is participating in a link scheme, I know that you know the difference if you have been reading up on SEO as you claim.

SEO can be done without exploitations and destruction of the web, when you get to the top of a search engine and don't belong there you destroy the web and the experience it offers, JMO.

----------


## drk

Barry, I have a different idea.

People who want to get glasses online are do-it-yourselfers, and the glasses websites are illegal.

That's simple enough, and see how it works:

1. _"You want to do it yourself? OK, have at it."_ (Of course, by definition, don't expect me to participate--if you want my help, I'm here for you.).

2._ "You want me to participate in illegal trade? I'm sorry, I can't do that."_

----------


## Barry Santini

Drk,

Thanks for continuing the dialogue.  I can actually "feel" myself regaining my intelligenence.

Or maybe not.

B

----------


## idispense

OK , Harry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he knows more than me , Barry is smarter than the average Jellystone Park bear, Chris is ok for a retired Canadian , but  the ABO executives are smarter than the bunch of us all together cause they got yer money .

----------


## HarryChiling

Thanks idispense, I called the ABO today and got a no comment on the subject.  I did manage to get a response, "Their is a new executive director and policies have been put in place to prevent this from happening in the future."  I foudn the no comment line as amusing since their secrecy is what ultimately lead to such a large scandal.  At some point someone will come along and advocate more transparency.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I'm also showing them, _while I'm in their store_, how this can be leveraged to be so much more influential than local word of mouth ever could be.


At least until those stores close up shop to run only a virtual sales floor online with minimal overhead. Nobody really cares if you "checked into" Amazon.com while browsing new DVD releases.




> Reasonable and pragmatic. It's not giving in; it's repositioning.


Can the independent eyecare professional really reposition themselves to compete successfully online? If Barry opened up an online optical store tomorrow, what are the chances that he could ultimately compete with bigger online companies, who already benefit from high-volume buying power, an established web presence, a well developed distribution network, low-cost manufacturing, and minimal regard for product quality? If his site even makes it into the top 5 Google hits?

I'm all for buying a movie or a book or a song online. But a significant purchase decision that would benefit tremendously from consultation with a professional, personalized measurements, or trying samples on for the best fit or look is something else entirely. Especially a purchase decision involving something as important as vision.

Once consumers come to believe that buying eyewear is no different from buying a song on i.Tunes or a book on Amazon.com, opticianry -- and even much of optiometry -- will have lost much of its professional credibility.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Chris Ryser

> I have called you nothing, there is no name calling going on, just a discussion. Read below if you want the reasons and proof of why I called you part of the problem. 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Just a few of the links from your website, and yes they do go against Googles policies, so what makes you better than this guy who found a flaw in googles algorithm and exploited it at the cost of consumers and this industry? Are ECP's not consumers of your goods? Luckily your products are good and I assume you stand behind them, *but your tactic is no better then this crooks.*


If that does not smell like name calling....................................

My website has nothing to do with on line retail business. It promotes add ons done, offered and sold  by retailers. I am gaining or loosing business together with the actual optical retailer and not the on line companies.

Why don't you look into "Frames Direct" and their owners, you might find more interesting items to criticize.

----------


## HarryChiling

> At least until those stores close up shop to run only a virtual sales floor online with minimal overhead. Nobody really cares if you "checked into" Amazon.com while browsing new DVD releases.
> 
> 
> Can the independent eyecare professional really reposition themselves to compete successfully online? If Barry opened up an online optical store tomorrow, what are the chances that he could ultimately compete with bigger online companies, who already benefit from high-volume buying power, an established web presence, a well developed distribution network, low-cost manufacturing, and minimal regard for product quality? If his site even makes it into the top 5 Google hits?
> 
> I'm all for buying a movie or a book or a song online. But a significant purchase decision that would benefit tremendously from consultation with a professional, personalized measurements, or trying samples on for the best fit or look is something else entirely. Especially a purchase decision involving something as important as vision.
> 
> Once consumers come to believe that buying eyewear is no different from buying a song on i.Tunes or a book on Amazon.com, opticianry -- and even much of optiometry -- will have lost much of its professional credibility.
> 
> ...


+1




> If that does not smell like name calling....................................
> 
> My website has nothing to do with on line retail business. It promotes add ons done, offered and sold by retailers. I am gaining or loosing business together with the actual optical retailer and not the on line companies.
> 
> Why don't you look into "Frames Direct" and their owners, you might find more interesting items to criticize.


Chris,

Now you are strethcing it, according to google your tactic for link exchange is against their policies.  You also brag about how you rank higher than most companies with your unorthodox SEO tactics.  You know that you are exploiting a flaw in the seacrh engines, it just goes to show that those flaws will not always be available.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *+1* 
> 
> *Chris,*
> 
> *Now you are strethcing it, according to google your tactic for link exchange is against their policies. You also brag about how you rank higher than most companies with your unorthodox SEO tactics. You know that you are exploiting a flaw in the seacrh engines, it just goes to show that those flaws will not always be available.*


 
Harry, ..........I do not brag, just showing facts. I have several "Internet Bibles I do follow and that have formed my on line religion" one of my favorites is right here:
http://websitehelpers.com/seo/  and the rest of the cook book has no open face.

I do not use flaw's just follow the advice religiously, and whenever I get tired doing it and then see the position sliding a few weeks down the road, I pick up again until I am back where I was before.

----------


## uncut

> Barry, I have a different idea.
> 
> People who want to get glasses online are do-it-yourselfers, and the glasses websites are illegal.
> 
> That's simple enough, and see how it works:
> 
> 1. _"You want to do it yourself? OK, have at it."_ (Of course, by definition, don't expect me to participate--if you want my help, I'm here for you.).
> 
> 2._ "You want me to participate in illegal trade? I'm sorry, I can't do that."_


Great Post, succinct, and right on.....drk!

----------


## drk

Now I've been encouraged, here come da verbosity!

As to the "do-it-yourself" concept: 
If you think about it, THAT'S what's going on, here. It's *not* that you've preferred to buy a book on Amazon vs. walking into Borders. We're not talking about an alternative way to purchase a product like a coffee mug.

We're talking about being a "do-it-yourself optician". *You provide your own* measurements, lens powers (with your Rx being only a suggested starting point), frame fitting information, lens types, lens materials, enhancements, etc. The opticians' traditional services are forgone; the internet sites don't offer these services; the consumer is expected to be a do-it-yourselfer.

(Quick true story: I was replacing the downspout in my bathtub instead of using a plumber. I couldn't get it at Home Cheapot, so I had to go to a contractor's plumbing supply store. And I assure you that I am a very, very rough do-it-yourselfer-plumber. I went to the internet for advice when I ran into a problem. Almost the same thing, and I bring it up to illustrate the similarities.) 

As to the illegal trade:
In Ohio, there are dispensing laws. I suppose they apply only to dispensing done in Ohio. I'm not sure if there are any Ohio-based online glasses peddlers, but if so I guarantee they are breaking the law.

I don't expect the Ohio Optical Dispenser's Board to team up with the ATF and batter down the door of some unscrupulous computer business dude. But problems with enforcement notwithstanding, it's against the Ohio Revised Code.

I'm sure that each jurisdiction will vary, but the laws, I'm sure, will at least say that a prescription is needed. How does Johnny Fourteen-year-old entering data comply? How many of these sites obtain a valid Rx? Yeah, thought so.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that it's illegal trade. We can't be involved from a liability standpoint alone.

I'd like to see legislation introduced that no licensed physician or optician is allowed to have an online website unless every point of the dispensing law is adequately met.

I think that requirement alone will eventually take the wind out of the sails of the My Online Optical program. Once ODs see that they have MORE and not LESS work with (those very few) patients that opt to go that route, they will drop it.

Once My Online Optical withers, Essilor's net effect by spreading the no-perspective panic and stoking the gravytrain greed will have been to have gotten optometrists to endorse online glasses instead of opposing them, but neither group is smart enough to have strategize that far in advance.

----------


## NCspecs

> At least until those stores close up shop to run only a virtual sales floor online with minimal overhead. Nobody really cares if you "checked into" Amazon.com while browsing new DVD releases.
> Can the independent eye care professional really reposition themselves to compete successfully online? If Barry opened up an online optical store tomorrow, what are the chances that he could ultimately compete with bigger online companies, who already benefit from high-volume buying power, an established web presence, a well developed distribution network, low-cost manufacturing, and minimal regard for product quality? If his site even makes it into the top 5 Google hits? I'm all for buying a movie or a book or a song online. But a significant purchase decision that would benefit tremendously from consultation with a professional, personalized measurements, or trying samples on for the best fit or look is something else entirely. Especially a purchase decision involving something as important as vision.
> Once consumers come to believe that buying eyewear is no different from buying a song on i.Tunes or a book on Amazon.com, opticianry -- and even much of optiometry -- will have lost much of its professional credibility.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


I think that you are taking me out of context. I think is is reasonable and pragmatic to expect that some people think they are too smart for any of that B&M jazz, they forgo the formal fit and dispense and save themselves a great deal of money because they truly believe that the cost justify their choices. I will always contend that there are people out there who make foolish choices and buying a medical device online is one of them. As much as I would love to grab these pt's by the ankles and scream, "Nooooooo! Don't do it!" I know that my opinion doesn't make a wit of difference in their minds. I think that is the line Barry meant to take. He wants to be internet friendly to a certain extent but guide the pt back towards the brick and mortar establishment. Am I correct in this assumption or did I read his post in a different way than intended?

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I could go on, but suffice it to say that it's illegal trade.


Ummm, no. Each state has the powers to regulate trade in their own state. They have no powers to regulate trade in other states, nor may they interfere in interstate commerce. These are all powers delegated to the Federal Government.

While I was perusing the North/South (?) Carolina Opticianry board proclamation the other day, a couple of things caught my eye about what they put into their requirements for on-line operations. They are wanting on-lines to register as a business in their state, they demand access to patient files, and a few other things. The first is interesting as it again, is attempting to regulate trade in another state. Access to patient files also seems to me to violate HIPAA, as they are a third party looking only at regulatory issues, not the patient or the optician/dispenser. I believe the patient would have to agree to allow their files to be viewed by them.

I know this post will rile some of you up, I apologize for that, however, in a strict constitutional interpretation here, the individual states CANNOT control what happens in other states. What needs to happen is regulation handed down by the Federal government. Some of you are espousing more regulation, where the general trend seems to be towards less regulation (ie: smaller government, the Tea Party/Republican Party mantra of late). I'm taking neither a pro or con position on this, just pointing out the obvious to those who may have missed it. :p

----------


## HarryChiling

> While I was perusing the North/South (?) Carolina Opticianry board proclamation the other day, a couple of things caught my eye about what they put into their requirements for on-line operations. They are wanting on-lines to register as a business in their state, they demand access to patient files, and a few other things. The first is interesting as it again, is attempting to regulate trade in another state. Access to patient files also seems to me to violate HIPAA, as they are a third party looking only at regulatory issues, not the patient or the optician/dispenser. I believe the patient would have to agree to allow their files to be viewed by them.


The dispensing or delivery of eyewear is being done in their state so I can see how they want to somehow regulate that. The reason these states have licensing laws is because they see dispensing eyewear as having risk of harm. If they are requesting records to evaluate if risk is being done then they would be acting on behalf of the patient in ensuring that eyewear delivered in their states meets the requirements of a dispensing optician. The HIPAA does allow for access to PHI to provide care, it could be argued that the board is trying to ensure they are receiving the quality of care required by the state for it's patients. I don't really see a right or wrong here yet since their is no precedence but it looks like the Carolinas are trying to set a precedence. You and MikeP have said their should be some sort of agreement as to what constitutes a legal online sale the Carolina laws look to me as a step towards determining what is acceptable and what is not. The fact that they are asking online vendors to register and allow access to files is a way of legitimizing the whole concept to a degree. My guess is that any change to the status quo is not going to fair well for online vendors since the current system of we regulate ourselves seems to be more lucrative.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> I know this post will rile some of you up, I apologize for that, however, in a strict constitutional interpretation here, the individual states CANNOT control what happens in other states


No, but as Harry suggested, a state has every legal right to regulate products that are shipped into that state from another state. This is very common in several industries. But, if patients in a state that restricts the dispensing of eyewear to licensed professionals only want to drive to some other state to receive their cheap online eyewear, they are more than legally welcome to do so. Maybe they'll still even net a little savings after paying for the gas.

The same goes for prescription medications. Although every US state already has strict regulations in place, it is illegal to bring medications into the US from another country with a valid prescription from a licensed professional.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MikeAurelius

" a state has every legal right to regulate products that are shipped into that state from another state."

Again, no. That's interstate commerce, and is controlled by the Federal Government. Yes, certain, well defined products, such as tobacco and alcohol are controlled, but that is done by the Feds.

State X cannot tell a business in State Y they are not allowed to ship product to their resident citizens.

----------


## drk

Forgive us if we don't defer to your Constitutional law credentials, Aurelius.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Again, no. That's interstate commerce, and is controlled by the Federal Government. Yes, certain, well defined products, such as tobacco and alcohol are controlled, but that is done by the Feds.


Of course there are federal regulations in place as well. But states routinely pass their own legislature independent of federal regulations, as long as these regulations do not conflict with federal regulation. This applies to just about anything, not just interstate commerce.

In fact, your alcohol example is a perfect of how you are incorrect. The federal government passed legislation to prohibit alcohol in every state. It was eventually repealed, although alcohol sales and transportation are still regulated in each individual state. There are several states, for instance, that do not allow you to ship alcohol into the state from another state, while many other states do allow this.

That said, it is unlikely that many of the state statutes pertaining to the dispensing of eyewear specifically address interstate eyewear delivery, since these laws were originally conceived long before this particular delivery model for eyewear even became a consideration. I'm sure that much of this regulation will need to be clarified or reinterpreted by the appropriate state boards in the future, if not rewritten.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MichaelP

The difficulty is applying existing law to the new form of delivery. The definitions of various terms like "dispensing" were not written with internet sales in mind. Here's an example, Florida's definition of dispensing:

(9)  "Optical dispensing" means interpreting but not altering a prescription of a licensed physician or optometrist and designing, adapting, fitting, or replacing the prescribed optical aids, pursuant to such prescription, to or for the intended wearer, duplicating lenses, accurately as to power without a prescription, and duplicating nonprescription eyewear and parts of eyewear. "Optical dispensing" does not include selecting frames, transferring an optical aid to the wearer after an optician has completed fitting it, or providing instruction in the general care and use of an optical aid, including placement, removal, hygiene, or cleaning.

Here's a hypothetical transaction: Florida citizen Bob is on his computer in Tampa. He orders some glasses from a company based in Texas (an unlicensed state) over the internet. An optician in Texas reviews his prescription, maybe even consults with him on the phone about lens materials. Further, manufacturing opticians in the lab further interpret the prescription, and a final adjustment is made before the glasses are shipped to Florida based on a photo Bob provided that showed he had a wide bridge and low ears. Bob receives his glasses and puts them on. Reading the definition above, were those glasses "dispensed" in Texas, or Florida? What if the facts are changed so that instead of an unregulated state, it's a regulated state like New York, and the optician who reviews the order before it goes to the lab is licensed by New York State? Which state's definition of "dispensing" should apply?

Another example: I'm Mr. Do-It-Yourself, still living in Florida, and a lab in China has given me an interface to order direct from them with all the same options as the VisionWeb interface. No one is going to review my prescription, it's going straight to the lab and is being shipped to me direct from Hong Kong. Forget for a second the difficulty of enforcing laws against a foreign company. The question is, was there "optical dispensing" under Florida law? If there was illegal dispensing, who did it? The Chinese company or Mr. Do-It-Yourself who "interpreted" and "designed" his glasses?

Mike, unfortunately, as far as states not being able to regulate interstate commerce, I don't think you're right, as much as I'd like you to be. States can regulate sales of products in their state by out-of-state businesses, unless the federal government "preempts" the area (that is, under the Supremacy Clause they pass a law that trumps state laws, as they did with the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act). States have to be careful in how they regulate it, in that they can't favor intrastate business over interstate business, but they can probably regulate it by, say, requiring all sellers (in and out of state) to register with the Board, conduct prescription verification, etc. like North Carolina is going to do. Where it gets tricky is at what point do those regulations favor intrastate business interests to the point they are promoting those businesses over out of state businesses, which is where a dormant commerce clause issue exists. Would requiring in-person dispensing by a state-licensed optician cross that line? I'm not sure.

(Mike, since you seem interested in this, the recent wine industry case Granholm v. Heald is worth a read, although it implicates the 21st amendment which obviously doesn't apply here.)

I think the North Carolina Board is on the right track. I think a national approach would be better though. Consider, a national regulatory framework would bring the other half of the states that currently aren't regulated at all under its purview. For those in favor of regulation this would be good, right? And national licensing would provide for greater mobility if an optician needed to move and switch jobs. But, a national regulatory scheme wouldn't protect existing businesses against internet sellers like the existing state based laws might...

Anyway, that's not what's interesting to me. More interesting and important to me is the question of whether online dispensing of eyewear can be ok? Isn't that the better question: can it be done in a way that is acceptable and prevents any potential harm to the patient? Because, and it's important not to lose sight of this, that's the point of these laws in the first place, to protect the patient - not existing businesses. I think that gets lost when the legal side of this gets brought up.

So my question to drk, Harry, and others here who are saying it's currently illegal, at least in their regulated state(s): should it be? And let's leave out the more extreme cases where there isn't a question: difficult rx's or offshore internet companies that make very poor quality product and off-prescription lenses. And let's assume that P.D. was given during the exam and not self-measured. Do you think that people _shouldn't_ be able to buy their eyewear online, even if they're just a -2.00 sph? If so, why?

(to be clear, I'm not trying to just support my side here. I think that this is the more important discussion and am sincerely interested in opinions & debate).

Edit: Just saw Darryl's post above regarding the legal issues, and he's dead accurate, but was able to say it in less words than me. :)

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Forgive us if we don't defer to your Constitutional law credentials, Aurelius.


If I knew your last name, I'd still call you by your first.

----------


## drk

It's dr, Mike. :)

----------


## drk

> Anyway, that's not what's interesting to me. More interesting and important to me is the question of whether online dispensing of eyewear can be ok? Isn't that the better question: can it be done in a way that is acceptable and prevents any potential harm to the patient? Because, and it's important not to lose sight of this, that's the point of these laws in the first place, to protect the patient - not existing businesses. I think that gets lost when the legal side of this gets brought up.
> 
> So my question to drk, Harry, and others here who are saying it's currently illegal, at least in their regulated state(s): should it be? And let's leave out the more extreme cases where there isn't a question: difficult rx's or offshore internet companies that make very poor quality product and off-prescription lenses. And let's assume that P.D. was given during the exam and not self-measured. Do you think that people _shouldn't_ be able to buy their eyewear online, even if they're just a -2.00 sph? If so, why?


No matter what painstaking effort taken by board-certified, highly trained professionals, you're always going to have a cheap @$$ school bus driver manually entering in their "prescriptions". Online glasses sellers are not face-to-face, don't have to read and retain a real prescription from a real professional, and cannot make sure that everything was done properly, like adjusting pantoscopic tilt or vertex distance on progressives or high power lenses, or ensuring that there is no vertical imbalance due to hyperorbits or non-level lenses, etc. etc.

No, it's NOT feasible, because any responsible regulation would have to exclude so many people/professions that it would be ridiculous. We'd have to, instead of having professionals regulate vision care, have more frequent school screenings, driver's license screenings, CDL and FAA examinations, etc. because, and I'll say it again:




DEREGULATING VISION CARE SPITS IN THE EYE OF:
Bureau of Motor Vehicle vision standardsFederal Aviation vision standardsCommercial drivers licensesSchool screeningsState boards regulating optometryState boards regulating opticianryState boards regulating medicinewhich are all set up to work with real professionals for the protection of all.


Oh, you guys shouldn't be regulated, right? Just everyone else. All those vision standards developed for public safety are to be ignored, because they can buy online glasses from you or anyone, without a prescription and without professional oversight. All those school vision screenings may as well be discarded, because Johnny can pass the school screening on Monday with the glasses I made him, but would flunk it on Tuesday with unregulated online glasses that are screwed up. 

Hey, I could certify that FAA pilot on Monday, and give him a new and improved Rx, and he can be flying you with the wrong glasses on Tuesday. Who's to know?

Your kid can get onto a school bus with bargain Bob who has poorly tinted sunglasses that induce the Pulfrich phenomenon.

Your wife can be driving down a dark two-lane highway in the rain and that semi driver coming at her can be overplussed by a half diopter reducing his reaction time enough to head-on collide.

Who are you kidding? Would you advocate this for any other medical profession? Do it yourself dentistry? Do it yourself hypertension treatment?

What possible rationale can anyone have for this?

----------


## LandLord

Pulfrich phenomenon?  Save me the trouble of googling that if you don't mind.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Pulfrich phenomenon? Save me the trouble of googling that if you don't mind.


It is a stereoscopic phenomenon experienced when the intensity of light perceived by one eye differs significantly from the intensity perceived by the other, which might occur, for instance, if one lens has much more tint than the other.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## LandLord

Drk, I agree with your argument but I disagree with who it argues with.  The purchaser is obviously willing to give up all that expertise, professionalism and protection to save money. 

Have you seen the movie Extraordinary Measures?

Businessman Brendan Fraser says to drug researcher Harrison Ford "Without investment capital your scientific theories won't help a single human being in reality."

And if you can't convince the masses that buying glasses online is a bad idea, all the arguments and even laws won't prevent their visual problems.  We see this in British Columbia.

I'm just saying, we need to convince patients to want our services.  We can't convince online sellers to stop selling.  And BC showed us we can't convince government to protect the public either.

----------


## Wes

> It is a stereoscopic phenomenon experienced when the intensity of light perceived by one eye differs significantly from the intensity perceived by the other, which might occur, for instance, if one lens has much more tint than the other.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


It can also result (to a lesser degree maybe) from having a pair of polarized suns, with one lens off axis.  That was a case I saw a few months ago.  The other "optician" that works in the dispensary I part time in dispensed a pair of polarized suns to a lady with one lens' polarization off by about 50 degrees.  No one could figure out why she was complaining and they said she was just crazy.  Go figure.  Took about 2 seconds for me to verify what I thought the problem was from her description. Sadly, licensing doesn't guarantee quality.  But think, if this can get past the average license, what's coming out of chinese discount labs?

----------


## MichaelP

drk, I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't advocating for deregulation. In fact, I advocate for more (national regulation). And I think you know that I support prescription verification. So, what I was asking, do you think that some prescription eyewear can be delivered via the internet in an acceptable way? And if the answer is, no, none at all, then why?

----------


## Wes

> drk, I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't advocating for deregulation. In fact, I advocate for more (national regulation). And I think you know that I support prescription verification. So, what I was asking, do you think that some prescription eyewear can be delivered via the internet in an acceptable way? And if the answer is, no, none at all, then why?





> No matter what painstaking effort taken by board-certified, highly trained professionals, *you're always going to have a cheap @$$ school bus driver manually entering in their "prescriptions".* *Online glasses sellers are not face-to-face,* don't have to read and retain a real prescription from a real professional, and *cannot make sure that everything was done properly, like adjusting pantoscopic tilt or vertex distance on progressives or high power lenses, or ensuring that there is no vertical imbalance due to hyperorbits or non-level lenses, etc. etc.
> 
> *No, it's NOT feasible, because any responsible regulation would have to exclude so many people/professions that it would be ridiculous. We'd have to, instead of having professionals regulate vision care, have more frequent school screenings, driver's license screenings, CDL and FAA examinations, etc. because, and I'll say it again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DEREGULATING VISION CARE SPITS IN THE EYE OF:
> Bureau of Motor Vehicle vision standardsFederal Aviation vision standardsCommercial drivers licenses***School screeningsState boards regulating optometryState boards regulating opticianryState boards regulating medicine*which are all set up to work with real professionals for the protection of all.
> ...


MichaelP, I think DrK's answer to your question has already been posted.

----------


## MichaelP

Except that, every single one of those examples can and does also happen without internet sales (as you just described with the off axis polar). This seems to be the main point from drk's post:

"they can buy online glasses from you or anyone, without a prescription and without professional oversight."

But what about licensed opticians who sell online, and with regulation that requires prescription verification? Is the answer still that it's not possible to deliver acceptable prescription eyewear online for any prescription?

(I'm not trying to be confrontational here. When posting on a forum, it's sometimes difficult to determine tone. I'm really just trying to talk about it with people like you and drk and Harry who are far more knowledgeable than me.)

----------


## Wes

No false modesty, MichaelP, you're obviously a smart and articulate man.  We just happen to disagree.  
Sure, it CAN happen, but is it less likely with a regulated healthcare pro whose license is on the line to make sure the eyewear is correct?  Of course.  Would ANY of the situations DrK mentioned get past most ECPs?  Oh h311 no!  Its the professional eyes and hands on the eyewear and patient that makes the difference, and you can NOT duplicate that online.
It's obvious that you know this.  It's obvious that it's detrimental to your business model to admit it.

----------


## LandLord

MichaelP

Can glasses be delivered via the internet in an acceptable way? Yes, to the dispenser. NOT to the wearer.

Why?

Because eyewear consists of more than just numbers. It must be ADAPTED to the patient, physically and visually.

You're welcome.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Slightly askew, but sort of on-topic, is the issue of Drivers Licenses...here in wonderful Central MN, we have possibly the nations largest concentration of Somali immigrants (a whole 'nuther topic, but I digress)...these folks take and pass the drivers license test, but can't read a word of English. Even with the best eyewear in the world, if you can't read and understand the words on a road sign, how the heck do you get to drive?

I wear corrective lenses, it is stated on my license, but every time I go in for a renewal, the lady behind the desk asks me if I want to try to qualify without glasses!

Sorry, but I see this particular argument as a non-issue, especially in places like Florida where you have octogenarians still driving who can hardly see one car length in front of them much less being able to see over the top of the steering wheel.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> But what about licensed opticians who sell online, and with regulation that requires prescription verification? Is the answer still that it's not possible to deliver acceptable prescription eyewear online for any prescription?


I think you're missing the point of consumers purchasing eyewear online.

While a small number may be interested in the convenience factor, most are trying to save money. So the "Shopping Cart" total will be the most important point of comparison between websites. Consequently, if your online operation has extensive quality controls in place, relies on high-grade materials, and employs trained staff to manufacture, verify, and prepare the eyewear for delivery, there is no way your business model could ever remain competitive against a company who cuts as many costs and, therefore, corners as possible in order to undersell you.

Further, why would any successful online operation employ licensed opticians? How does the experience of a dispenser factor into an online purchase made by a consumer possibly thousands and without immediate access to the optician? In such a delivery model, qualified eyecare professionals are just unnecessary business expenses.


Landlord mentioned that the consumer is willing to give up "expertise, professionalism, and protection." But I don't think that this is strictly true. In my opinion, most eyewear consumers are unaware of the level of expertise and professionalism required to ensure safe, high quality, and properly performing eyewear. More specifically, they tend to take these factors for granted. So, more often, they are unwittingly making this sacrifice when purchasing eyewear online.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MikeAurelius

> most are trying to save money


EXACTLY. When faced with medical bills, insurance, mortgages, food and general living expenses, people are going to opt for any way to save some money. Is it the best for them? I don't think anyone knows the answer for sure, but the consumer doesn't care. "They" see eyewear as a huge expense and look for ways to trim their costs. What they should be doing is asking "you" for less expensive options, but they don't. 

The answer is there, but you have to find it yourself.

----------


## MichaelP

It wasn't false modesty, but I appreciate the kind words. It's clear to me at least that many of the posters here including yourself know more about optics and patient care than I do though. It's the whole reason I participate on this board. I first started posting on here because I wanted to give the argument for the "other side", but really I've learned a lot, and if anyone can have a good, intelligent discussion about these issues it's you guys. The optical industry is oftentimes very reactive or non-responsive to emerging trends, and I don't think that's good for anybody.

I think you're right in that you cannot duplicate a professional's hands-on expertise in dispensing and fitting a pair of glasses. I have no problem "admitting" that, because I'm not one of those online guys out there telling people that their optician is ripping them off. I do think it's unfortunate that the professional's services have so far been priced into the pair of glasses, because then the patients don't see it. I also think there is far more sub-standard dispensing going on at brick and mortar stores than is usually admitted in these discussions too. But, we're having a discussion of what should be, not what is.

Back to my question though, is that hands-on expertise necessary in all circumstances? Is that -2.00 sph patient really getting _necessary_ care? At what point is the professional's touch not just nice but necessary? Or, put another way, if you could draft regulations anyway you chose, do you believe that it's not possible to draft them in such a way that some patients are able to buy online and get sufficient glasses?

----------


## LandLord

> Or, put another way, if you could draft regulations anyway you chose, do you believe that it's not possible to draft them in such a way that some patients are able to buy online and get sufficient glasses?


No, it's not possible. It would have to be worded like this:

"Glasses may be purchased online by anyone except the following:
Those who experience complications."

The problem is, you don't know who will experience complications until they arise. Do you really think all -2.00 sph patients will be uncomplicated? You're either on crack or you're not an optician.

----------


## MichaelP

> I think you're missing the point of consumers purchasing eyewear online.
> 
> While a small number may be interested in the convenience factor, most are trying to save money. So the "Shopping Cart" total will be the most important point of comparison between websites. Consequently, if your online operation has extensive quality controls in place, relies on high-grade materials, and employs trained staff to manufacture, verify, and prepare the eyewear for delivery, there is no way your business model could ever remain competitive against a company who cuts as many costs and, therefore, corners as possible in order to undersell you.


While online buyers are primarily looking to save money, they don't always go to the bargain basement. Otherwise they'd all just order from Zenni. They're willing to pay a little more for better customer service, better guarantees and warranties, and easier to use websites among other things. While online has been characterized as a race to the bottom so far, it won't remain that way. Just like brick and mortar patients don't all flock to Walmart, so too do online buyers not just run to the cheapest website.




> Further, why would any successful online operation employ licensed opticians? How does the experience of a dispenser factor into an online purchase made by a consumer possibly thousands and without immediate access to the optician? In such a delivery model, qualified eyecare professionals are just unnecessary business expenses.


It might surprise you to know this, but most online optical stores are owned by licensed (or, if not licensed, long time practicing) opticians.




> Landlord mentioned that the consumer is willing to give up "expertise, professionalism, and protection." But I don't think that this is strictly true. In my opinion, most eyewear consumers are unaware of the level of expertise and professionalism required to ensure safe, high quality, and properly performing eyewear. More specifically, they tend to take these factors for granted. So, more often, they are unwittingly making this sacrifice when purchasing eyewear online.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


I think that's probably true, and all the more reason for regulation.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> They're willing to pay a little more for better customer service, better guarantees and warranties, and easier to use websites among other things


But none of that has anything to do with the quality of the eyecare or eyewear. Joe Consumer is at least smart enough not to make a major purchase from a website that looks like it was built by a teenager using Microsoft FrontPage. In fact, using only those criteria, a site like Amazon.com would probably be the best place to buy eyeglasses online.




> It might surprise you to know this, but most online optical stores are owned by licensed (or, if not licensed, long time practicing) opticians.


Oh, I'm sure that online optical businesses in the US at least will lure experienced eyecare professionals before laypersons, since eyecare professionals are already intimately familiar with the industry and overall eyewear delivery model. Nevertheless, this has very little to do with the eyecare service or quality of the finished eyewear, unless these licensed owners are personally reviewing, fabricating, and inspecting every order that comes in, which is obviously not practical, especially for larger operations. And it's not like the eyecare industry is completely devoid of unscrupulous individuals.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MichaelP

> Nevertheless, this has very little to do with the eyecare service or quality of the finished eyewear, unless these licensed owners are personally reviewing, fabricating, and inspecting every order that comes in, which is obviously not practical, especially for larger operations.


Except that's exactly the business model of GlassesDirect, the largest online retailer in the UK. Every order is reviewed by a licensed optician, and you can call their 800 number and talk with one too. I think (but could be wrong) that FramesDirect also employs opticians to review each order. I have no doubt that this isn't happening at the very cheap, high volume discount sites like Zenni, etc. but again, that's where regulation could come in - "each order needs to be reviewed by a licensed optician." Pretty easy fix. And even without regulation, just like traditional businesses, online sites rely heavily on word of mouth to grow their customer base, and if they're delivering shoddy product because they're cutting all kinds of corners, they won't last long.

What we're really talking about here are really just basic business model competition scenarios. Just like Walmart isn't going to completely swallow the brick and mortar side, I don't think that online retailers will be completely beaten by those who decide to deliver cut-rate product.

Edit: Also, just one more comment about size, even if they're larger and doing large volume, that review and verification can still happen. It happens at labs processing 1000's of jobs per day during final inspection, every day.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Except that's exactly the business model of GlassesDirect, the largest online retailer in the UK


Are we talking about some other country or the US? Because the UK and several other European countries generally have tighter regulations for fitting and dispensing eyewear, which might very well apply to online entities.

If you are not _forced_ to employ licensed professionals to review every order, most online optical companies will not, simply because it is cheaper and, therefore, more competitive not to employ them. And, even if they do now, you can expect this to decrease with increasing price competition online.




> FramesDirect also employs opticians to review each order.


I think it is far too early to tell how a company like FramesDirect will fare in the online arena in the long run. Secondly, do you actually know for certain that experienced, qualified opticians review each order? Or is there just some "experts" available in their customer service department to handle phone inquiries?




> Also, just one more comment about size, even if they're larger and doing large volume, that review and verification can still happen. It happens at labs processing 1000's of jobs per day during final inspection, every day


Yes, but certainly not by the owner of the laboratory. And the qualified technicians who _are_ inspecting each job represent one of the very costs that contribute to the local eyecare professional's cost of goods. Trained technicians cost money, and this overhead is factored into the cost of lenses to the eyecare professional and, ultimately, to the consumer.

And all of this ignores the obvious obstacle of frame adjustments, either prior to multifocal measurement, when the finished eyewear is delivered, or after the daily abuses of life. In a world where many if not most of the local optical shops have closed up due to online competitive pressure, is the patient or "online optician" expected to adjust or realign the eywear in order to ensure physical comfort and optical performance?

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## drk

God bless DM for taking a position.

CZV.  Nuff said.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> God bless DM for taking a position. CZV. Nuff said


LOL. Well, it's _my_ position anyway, not necessarily the position of the company. Nevertheless, several members of our management have also agreed that an online optical sales model is not the ideal vehicle for delivering premium products and professional service.

Of course, any time a big player in the optical industry sets a new precedent, we must occasionally respond to market trends and competitive pressures. Lab acquisition strategies represent another good example of lens manufacturers responding to such pressures.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Barry Santini

I think that if the public seeks and finds the low priced, eyewear correction they want, and are satisfied, I see no problem.
As I've said before, I think the attraction of the online outlet for price aspects is only appealing because the public is unaware of Costco alternative, as well as similar B&M vendors. They offer good prices, decent quality products, service, convenience, warranties and, at least in NY, licensed opticians that I'm proud to count amongst my friends and peers. A rational comparison with any priced-hooked online eyewear vendor would be, IMHO, no contest.

As far as branded product is concerned, any company truly concerned with their brand position and quality monitors and attends to unauthorized distribution of their products. In general, the best this gets by the US eyewear companies is lip service.

In the end, we've already allowed the genie out of the bottle. By recommending, allowing, and selling OTC readers, we've given our professional sanction to the idea that there's no real "harm" in using these approximations of an ideal medical device., i.e., "where are the bodies?"

And I can't see any logical distinction as to why there would be definable harm if similar minus (or modest sphero=-cylindrical) powers were allowed as well. Today's Rx eyewear landscape is longer about good and bad, right and wrong, or legal vs. illegal. It's about the new baseline (and perhaps this was really the same old baseline as well) having been set as *adequate*. Today's new, democratization for purchasing anything will drive all to a commodization endpoint.

In the end, I think if you are not bringing to the table a full and complete, "decatholon-winning" caliber set of skills, mastering all aspects involved in the eyewear purchasing, fabrication, fulfillment and aftersales experiences, danger definitaly lies ahead.

As far as the new crop of purchasing surrogates that ZIP and others may represent, I think that as people become more comfortable and familiar with online eyewear purchasing, their business current plan may have a somewhat limited shelf-life.

I've already taken a good hard look at online, and for now, it doesn't fit my current business mission statement.

FWIW

Barry

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I think that if the public seeks and finds the low priced, eyewear correction they want, and are satisfied, I see no problem.
> As I've said before, I think the attraction of the online outlet for price aspects is only appealing because the public is unaware of Costco alternative, as well as similar B&M vendors. They offer good prices, decent quality products, service, convenience, warranties and, at least in NY, licensed opticians that I'm proud to count amongst my friends and peers. A rational comparison with any priced-hooked online eyewear vendor would be, IMHO, no contest.
> 
> As far as branded product is concerned, any company truly concerned with their brand position and quality monitors and attends to unauthorized distribution of their products. In general, the best this gets by the US eyewear companies is lip service.
> 
> In the end, we've already allowed the genie out of the bottle. By recommending, allowing, and selling OTC readers, we've given our professional sanction to the idea that there's no real "harm" in using these approximations of an ideal medical device., i.e., "where are the bodies?"
> 
> And I can't see any logical distinction as to why there would be definable harm if similar minus (or modest sphero=-cylindrical) powers were allowed as well. Today's Rx eyewear landscape is longer about good and bad, right and wrong, or legal vs. illegal. It's about the new baseline (and perhaps this was really the same old baseline as well) having been set as *adequate*. Today's new, democratization for purchasing anything will drive all to a commodization endpoint.
> 
> ...


Excellent summation, Barry! +100!!

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> And all of this ignores the obvious obstacle of frame adjustments, either prior to multifocal measurement


Yes, it's a hands on operation- measuring, adjusting, measuring again, and so on. It's similar to fitting a prosthesis or artificial limb. It simply can't be done from just a refraction, direct to the consumer, without compromising the function of the device. To do otherwise is black magic, sorcery or plain, simple fraud.

It's possible that informed consumers and a free market will sort this out (although that hasn't worked so well in the unregulated states, the consumer going from one "store" after another hoping that someone can make them a properly fit pair of eyeglasses), or the state legislatures will have to adjust the statutes. Until then, there will be gullible consumers preyed upon by the disreputable, the unethical, and the unscrupulous. So it goes.

----------


## Barry Santini

Lucid as always, Robert!

----------


## drk

> In the end, we've already allowed the genie out of the bottle. By recommending, allowing, and selling OTC readers, we've given our professional sanction to the idea that there's no real "harm" in using these approximations of an ideal medical device., i.e., "where are the bodies?"


I don't sell OTC readers, and there are many reasons why.





> And I can't see any logical distinction as to why there would be definable harm if similar minus (or modest sphero=-cylindrical) powers were allowed as well.


Barry, it's not algebra class.  It's vision correction class.  It's how the glasses are used, and by whom, not whether minus and plus are mathematically interchangeable.

How would you feel if a parent purchased some (approximately) +3.00D OTC readers for their little hyperope?

Likewise, how would you feel if (again) a pilot were to wear OTC -2.00?  Sound safe to you?

Your analogy just doesn't work.





> Today's Rx eyewear landscape is longer about good and bad, right and wrong, or legal vs. illegal. It's about the new baseline (and perhaps this was really the same old baseline as well) having been set as *adequate*.


The "old" baseline is the current baseline, which is far above "adequate".  I resist erosion of our health care standards...




> Today's new, democratization for purchasing anything will drive all to a commodization endpoint.


...for this barf.  Barf to the pseudo-sophistication of that sentence and concept.  It's about Napster-dorks pirating vision care.  It's like pornography web site proliferation.  

Some progress.





> In the end, I think if you are not bringing to the table a full and complete, "decatholon-winning" caliber set of skills, mastering all aspects involved in the eyewear purchasing, fabrication, fulfillment and aftersales experiences, danger definitaly lies ahead.


Weak medicine.  We need legislation, and I'm thinking we may get it.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Where is it going to come from, doc? With newly elected Republican majorities in the House and Senate, there is going to be a push for smaller government which means less regulation. Republican congresses have historically loosened regulation instead of tightening it. The FDA is under attack for overextending their mandated "reach". 

There haven't been any horror stories to polarize public sentiment, and I think that's where the legislative push has to come from. Republican congresses in the past have been very reluctant to step in and place "competition" controls on businesses, opting rather for businesses to look out for themselves, and stepping in only when there has been "clear and present danger" to the public interest.

With all due respect to you, your arguments have been very personal and ad hominen when anyone disagrees with you, and that's not the way to 'win friends and influence people' (to borrow a hackneyed phrase). I'd love to have a calm discussion about all the issues with you, but you are always in attack mode and that makes it impossible to have that discussion. I know that this is a personal and passionate subject for you, but it shouldn't override good manners, should it?

Can you agree to set aside your passion and have a reasonable conversation without going for the jugular vein?

----------


## drk

Your characterization of my posts as "this" or "that" is like calling someone a "homophobe".  

Nice try to build up a straw man argument.

I'll discuss this any way I see fit.

----------


## MikeAurelius

*shrug* Well, I tried.

----------


## uncut

> *shrug* Well, I tried.


Maybe change your Avatar to Elmer Fudd, or Yosemite Sam!    I think you are more like Yosemite, though!

@ OP, I'm kind of glad they are shutting this dude down....

----------


## Laurie

Mike, and others who think that online Rx eyewear is great,

You state that there are no public outcrys yet...  let me understand your position,  "until the problems that will ensue become public and big outcry, we will just go on with business as usual"?  C'Mon, you cannot believe that the visual outcome is the same as face to face.  People have to put a frame on their nose to see if it fits...digital imaging does not show fit.  

Opticians need to preadjust the frame prior to measuring for the best optical outcome.  You must know that 'configuration', (the position, distance, angle, tilt) of the lenses in front of the eye's optical system matters!  And, the final dispense, face to face, is amongst the most important part of the experience.  This is when we catch potential problems and fix them, using our optical expertise and adjusting skills.

There are countless examples of latent-hyperopes in accommodative spasm, hypertension/diabetics who don't catch the fluctuation of vision because they are 'do-it-yourselfer's'.  The Latent Hyperopic/pseudomyopic child who turns into an amblyope because they never received an exam, their parents just kept ordering those -0.75's not having a clue of what is really going on inside the child's optical system.

Many, Many More!

If I were a consumer reading this thread, I would begin to see that it is the online optical retailers who are out just for their buck, and the eyecare professionals really do care about their visual health and comfort.  This has been clear throughout this discussion.  And, as an eyecare professional, I would not sell my expertise without being involved in the product...they should not be split, they go together.

Finally, you mentioned Florida law:  technically, it is the person who physically inspects, and then hands-over/dispenses the eyewear that must be licensed.  Last I checked, our fine postal carriers do not have optical licenses.  Is it illegal?  probably.  Is it a black/grey market?  DEFINITELY!

At least admit, that while the price may be dirt-cheap, the consumer is giving up ALOT.  The pinch of the cost to go to a real eyecare professional will go away alot faster than the lingering poor exerience, both comfort and visually, of wearing prescription eyewear that 'is not quite right'.

Happy Holidays to All,

: )

Laurie

----------


## cleyes

> Yes, it's a hands on operation- measuring, adjusting, measuring again, and so on. It's similar to fitting a prosthesis or artificial limb. It simply can't be done from just a refraction, direct to the consumer, without compromising the function of the device. To do otherwise is black magic, sorcery or plain, simple fraud.
> 
> It's possible that informed consumers and a free market will sort this out (although that hasn't worked so well in the unregulated states, the consumer going from one "store" after another hoping that someone can make them a properly fit pair of eyeglasses), or the state legislatures will have to adjust the statutes. Until then, there will be gullible consumers preyed upon by the disreputable, the unethical, and the unscrupulous. So it goes.



The existence of the crook in any walk of life relies on the existence of the gullible and uninformed. Educating our patients one at a time in our own practices, explaining what we do and why it's essential for the perfect eyewear for their needs..........that's how we fight this on a daily basis.
 It starts with proactive frame selection process, explaining a poor choice vs the perfect one, pointing out the correct fit etc. We have to be interested in the fashion aspect of the patient's choice, they want to look good as well as see well! Explain lens types and features for THIS patient's benefit.  Take unhurried measurements, explaining along the way.  STRESS the aftercare, many are unaware of the need for periodic adjustments & repairs and the fact that they are included in the purchase price.  Talk to your patients!  Communicate your professionalism, which is your raison d'etre.
 We as a profession have done a poor job of communicating  our worth to the average patient. Those who have had disastrous past experiences with sloppy, inaccurate eyewear are now educated, and our most loyal.  This is a slow and painful way to build a patient base.  We cannot afford to wait for these people to wander in. It is up to each of us to make the patient see the value of our service, time, and accuracy, otherwise the perception of a high mark-up commodity will prevail. We won't win them all, but enough of them to start to turn this juggernaut around would be nice, we lost them one at a time.
We know what we do for our patients.....it's time they knew also!

----------


## MikeAurelius

Laurie -- I don't disagree with anything you've written. Part of the problem I face is that I have a great many Rx customers whose ECP WILL NOT dispense glass lenses, regardless of the fact that glass is the only material available that will fit the patient's requirements (special filtration for glassblowers, x-ray, laser, etc.).

Classic example: Cardiologist in a western state called me on Thursday, said he'd been trying for weeks to get his new Rx in X-Ray glass. His ECP refused, his usual optician refused, all claiming insurance risks and not wanting to get involved in dispensing glass lenses. What is your solution? How do *I* handle this? I talked to the optician and she told me the business had a long standing policy that they do not dispense glass, period.

----------


## Barry Santini

Time to read an extract from a very sobering story in today's NY Times:

_At barely 10 a.m. holiday shopping was in full swing at a Best Buy on the Upper West Side. A harried father searched for a new Xbox for his children. A personal assistant picked up video game accessories for her boss’s twins. A young woman fiddled with a coffeemaker._
_Outside, parked along the curb, a Best Buy van displayed the slogan "to serve, install and repair." Inside, one of Best Buy’s frontline salesmen, known as blue shirts for their uniforms, shouted across the vast showroom: "Anybody have any questions?" And moments later, to a couple trying out some laptops, he asked: "You guys O.K.?"_ 
_At a time when the nation’s brick-and-mortar electronics retailers are increasingly feeling the squeeze from online sellers and discounters, the scene at the Best Buy exemplified what the company hoped would keep customers pushing through its glass doors: the service support, the personal touch of its staff and the products on display that allow shoppers to see, touch and try._
_Its strategy, however, has not worked as well as envisioned in a recovering economy._
_Best Buy, the world’s largest consumer electronics retailer in revenue, this week reported that third-quarter net income fell 4.4 percent, to $217 million, and sales fell 1.1 percent, to $11.9 billion. Sales at stores open for more than a year declined 5 percent._ 
_Shares of Best Buy fell 18 percent Tuesday, the day the results were announced. That was the biggest decline since August 2002. For the week, Best Buy shares lost 18 percent, hhgregg 14 percent and RadioShack 5 percent._
_With the shift toward online destinations, electronics retailers need to adapt to the changing landscape, analysts say. Online sales in the United States are forecast to account for 20 percent of consumer electronics sales of $250 billion this year._ 
_"It is tough to see what the company is going to do," R.J. Hottovy, director of consumer research at Morningstar, said of Best Buy. "I think that a lot of the worries lingering out there were exacerbated by the results."_ 

So, IMHO, iven how the majority of eyewear is selected, fitted, serviced and dispensed today, how is the above scenario different from what we state in threads like these?

Discussion, please.

B

----------


## uncut

> Time to read an extract from a very sobering story in today's NY Times:
> 
> _At barely 10 a.m. holiday shopping was in full swing at a Best Buy on the Upper West Side. A harried father searched for a new Xbox for his children. A personal assistant picked up video game accessories for her bosss twins. A young woman fiddled with a coffeemaker._
> _Outside, parked along the curb, a Best Buy van displayed the slogan "to serve, install and repair." Inside, one of Best Buys frontline salesmen, known as blue shirts for their uniforms, shouted across the vast showroom: "Anybody have any questions?" And moments later, to a couple trying out some laptops, he asked: "You guys O.K.?"_ 
> _At a time when the nations brick-and-mortar electronics retailers are increasingly feeling the squeeze from online sellers and discounters, the scene at the Best Buy exemplified what the company hoped would keep customers pushing through its glass doors: the service support, the personal touch of its staff and the products on display that allow shoppers to see, touch and try._
> _Its strategy, however, has not worked as well as envisioned in a recovering economy._
> _Best Buy, the worlds largest consumer electronics retailer in revenue, this week reported that third-quarter net income fell 4.4 percent, to $217 million, and sales fell 1.1 percent, to $11.9 billion. Sales at stores open for more than a year declined 5 percent._ 
> _Shares of Best Buy fell 18 percent Tuesday, the day the results were announced. That was the biggest decline since August 2002. For the week, Best Buy shares lost 18 percent, hhgregg 14 percent and RadioShack 5 percent._
> _With the shift toward online destinations, electronics retailers need to adapt to the changing landscape, analysts say. Online sales in the United States are forecast to account for 20 percent of consumer electronics sales of $250 billion this year._ 
> ...


A close parallel, Barry, with some optical firms behaving the same way in regards to staffing.........I will sum it up with this:

How much *expertise* can you expect from a corporate employee who has spent *less time* at their job, this week, than you have, *shopping,* at this store?

Consumer have been left to fend/repair/maintain products which disappoint, and when confronted with genuine service......they don't recognize it and often mistake it as "selling" because they are conditioned to that scenario, more often, than not. :Rolleyes:

----------


## cleyes

> Time to read an extract from a very sobering story in today's NY Times:
> 
> _At barely 10 a.m. holiday shopping was in full swing at a Best Buy on the Upper West Side. A harried father searched for a new Xbox for his children. A personal assistant picked up video game accessories for her boss’s twins. A young woman fiddled with a coffeemaker._
> _Outside, parked along the curb, a Best Buy van displayed the slogan "to serve, install and repair." Inside, one of Best Buy’s frontline salesmen, known as blue shirts for their uniforms, shouted across the vast showroom: "Anybody have any questions?" And moments later, to a couple trying out some laptops, he asked: "You guys O.K.?"_ 
> _At a time when the nation’s brick-and-mortar electronics retailers are increasingly feeling the squeeze from online sellers and discounters, the scene at the Best Buy exemplified what the company hoped would keep customers pushing through its glass doors: the service support, the personal touch of its staff and the products on display that allow shoppers to see, touch and try._
> _Its strategy, however, has not worked as well as envisioned in a recovering economy._
> _Best Buy, the world’s largest consumer electronics retailer in revenue, this week reported that third-quarter net income fell 4.4 percent, to $217 million, and sales fell 1.1 percent, to $11.9 billion. Sales at stores open for more than a year declined 5 percent._ 
> _Shares of Best Buy fell 18 percent Tuesday, the day the results were announced. That was the biggest decline since August 2002. For the week, Best Buy shares lost 18 percent, hhgregg 14 percent and RadioShack 5 percent._
> _With the shift toward online destinations, electronics retailers need to adapt to the changing landscape, analysts say. Online sales in the United States are forecast to account for 20 percent of consumer electronics sales of $250 billion this year._ 
> ...


Prescription eyewear is not a retail commodity, time to teach our patients the difference.  Retailers do not fabricate their commodities, they sell ready made products.  We are not retailers,  time to go back to our PROFESSIONAL roots, difficult as it is battling our downgraded big chain image.  I have been differentiating my services from the chains for fourty yrs, getting mighty tired! Must be working, still here, with old patients and new converts every day.  Adversity made me a better practitioner? 

BTW Last sentence of your post not showing until you hit Reply With Quote.

----------


## Laurie

Mike,

While I am pleased that you agree with everything in my post, what is really important is that the consumers reading this thread see that you, as an online retailer is actually admitting that what they will receive is less-than.

Sure, there are obscure examples that you mentioned, I would have helped the cardiologist find an eyecare professional that would order the specialty glass lenses, and order them from you, and you could then serve as a wholesale lab partner.  Your role should be wholesale lab partner, not direct-to-consumer retailer.

Heck, you could post a 'searching for ECP to fit/dispense specialty glass lenses' here on optiboard, and I am confident you would find an ECP in their area to step up. 

Again, what about the examples I and others have listed, children on the verge of amblyopia, people with fluctuating vision due to hypertension, sugar-levels, ect... Bifocals and Progressive Addition Lenses that are not at the right fitting height, children (or adults for that matter) with insufficiency of accommodation, struggling to do their school-work/college work because of their 'do-it-yourself' visual aid's shortcomings.

...and the list goes on.

Instead of trying to fight you and other online retailers, I will post here in hopes of educating the consumers.  I do not own an optical dispensary, I teach optics full time.  My stake is not financial, it is about what is the best optical solution for the consumer, and their well-being.

: )

Laurie

----------


## cleyes

> A close parallel, Barry, with some optical firms behaving the same way in regards to staffing.........I will sum it up with this:
> 
> How much *expertise* can you expect from a corporate employee who has spent *less time* at their job, this week, than you have, *shopping,* at this store?
> 
> Consumer have been left to fend/repair/maintain products which disappoint, and when confronted with genuine service......they don't recognize it and often mistake it as "selling" because they are conditioned to that scenario, more often, than not.


Unfortunately you are correct, I have not had too much battle with online , but I have spent my entire professional life like Don Quixote against the corporate "don't give a damn about quality" stores.  Schlock has been the business model for these outfits since the first one opened it's doors,  that's where many of us learned what NOT to do.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Laurie -- I don't disagree with anything you've written. Part of the problem I face is that I have a great many Rx customers whose ECP WILL NOT dispense glass lenses, regardless of the fact that glass is the only material available that will fit the patient's requirements (special filtration for glassblowers, x-ray, laser, etc.).
> 
> Classic example: Cardiologist in a western state called me on Thursday, said he'd been trying for weeks to get his new Rx in X-Ray glass. His ECP refused, his usual optician refused, all claiming insurance risks and not wanting to get involved in dispensing glass lenses. What is your solution? How do *I* handle this? I talked to the optician and she told me the business had a long standing policy that they do not dispense glass, period.



Mike, is it possible that  you could put your name out there for ECP's so they will know who to order glass from? 

I have a few patients that prefer glass and I now know where to order from. I will knocking on your door when in need. You should direct the do-it-your-selfers to an optician in there area to fit them. This could be potentially very lucrative for you, the patients is safe and happy and you have a professional fitting/dispensing chosing the right frame for glass etc. 

If you have a Patient in the Central Texas area, I would be happy to fit them with glass, send them my way and I will make sure they get what they need. See? Win-win!

----------


## hcjilson

> Finally, you mentioned Florida law:  technically, it is the person who physically inspects, and then hands-over/dispenses the eyewear that must be licensed.  Last I checked, our fine postal carriers do not have optical licenses.  Is it illegal?  probably.  Is it a black/grey market?  DEFINITELY!
> 
> Laurie


In most states the act of handing someone a pair of glasses is not considered dispensing them. The act of dispensing has been defined as "interpreting,modifiying, adapting, or fitting" a pair of glasses.The postman is not dispensing when he delivers the package containing the spectacles.

----------


## BMH

I know this is a bit off topic but, When are consumers going to realize that there hi def TV and there smart phones are not the same as eyewear? I understand BestBuys problem but, like already stated above, thier products are premade for the masses. One laptop or TV can serve many people in a house but one pair of glasses serves that one person for which they were made. I think even using electronics in this discussion further devalues properly made eyewear. I'm a bit shocked that Barry would make that comparision.

Also those super duper gadgets are worthless without good vision to enjoy them.

When I am discussing these matters with my patients, which I openly do so they know where I stand on the subject, I try to use an analogy of CUSTOM TAILORED suits and dresses. Sure you can get an off the rack product that MIGHT fit. But if you have something made just for you by a true proffesional it will always perform better.

@Mike Do you do all glass manufacturing? Like even the basic stuff or just special stuff? I still sell glass to people who want it. My problem with the labs I deal with is they farm out glass to other labs but don't want to tell me which lab. I hate the middle man farm out. I would much rather send it to you if you are going to be the one doing the work.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Laurie, Jana and BMH:

Thanks for your commentary! I've been trying to do just that, but not having "feet on the ground", I have no idea where to start. I will take your advise though and the next time this comes up, I will make a post and try to hook patient/provider up.

BMH: Yes, we are strictly a glass-only facility. Full service or uncuts, doesn't matter. All work done in-house. PM me and I'll get you pricing and details.

And especially Laurie:




> Mike,
> 
> While I am pleased that you agree with everything in my post, what is really important is that the consumers reading this thread see that you, as an online retailer is actually admitting that what they will receive is less-than.


I've never said anything different, ever. Even MichaelP admits that the on-line "experience" is not the optimal solution. I tell my ECP's when they ask, yes, I *do* sell retail, however, I much prefer dealing with you, the ECP, as I KNOW the Rx I provide them will be accurately dispensed. We started sell retail out of self-defense (in a manner of speaking) to service our customer base who asked us where they could find someone to dispense these specialty glass lenses. When we were unable to find providers as a matter of routine, it became more and more obvious that we were going to have to do it ourselves. Our main business is non-prescription filters, with Rx's being perhaps 15% of our production. I'd be happy to find ECP's who will step up to the plate, so to speak, and help my customers out.

As an aside, I will note that some of my customers have discussed this issue with their ECP's and their ECP is "comfortable" with the customer purchasing direct from us, and provides the customer with after-purchase adjustments and fittings.

----------


## Wes

These last few posts, starting with Laurie's, #137, have been some of the best dialogue I've seen on here in some time.  Civil discussion, guys; it looks good on us.

----------


## MichaelP

> When I am discussing these matters with my patients, which I openly do so they know where I stand on the subject, I try to use an analogy of CUSTOM TAILORED suits and dresses. Sure you can get an off the rack product that MIGHT fit. But if you have something made just for you by a true proffesional it will always perform better.


I like this analogy too and have also used it before. So, there are three different kinds of suits you can buy:
Off-the-rackTailoredBespoke
So, OTC readers would be off-the-rack: no measurements listed on them, average P.D.'s, cheapest, and the customer needs to figure it all out on their own, likely won't fit right. This is like a Target or Kohl's.

Tailored are where I see us, the online retailers: customer browses the store looking for something in their basic size, maybe with a material preference. They need to know a little bit about suits, including their chest size, collar size, arm length, etc. They pick a suit out, put it on and the tailor measures and does some adjusting, like taking in the hem or cuffs of coat length. It is pretty customized for the wearer, but not the best. Certainly good enough for most people, this is your Men's Warehouse or Macy's.

The best is bespoke, and where I think ECP's fall: the tailor here is going to talk to you about different materials and how they affect wear, maybe get into stitching patters, is going to measure you, then custom-make the suit from scratch, completely tailored to your body. These suits are perfect and fit the wearer exactly. These come from professional tailors, and, as you can imagine, are the most expensive.

When I brought up regulations and we discussed whether online pairs could ever be dispensed online, this is what I was getting at. Does everyone really need a bespoke suit? It seems, that when it comes to vision, many of you think so. I obviously don't think the same thing.

Laurie: I'm sorry if I'm wrong about this, but I think you might be confusing MikeAurelius with me (we are both "Mike" after all). He's the glass lab guy who sells the occasional pair online. I'm the evil online-only guy. I'd feel bad if people thought he was me. :) 

Also, Laurie said this:




> At least admit, that while the price may be dirt-cheap, the consumer is giving up ALOT.  The pinch of the cost to go to a real eyecare professional will go away alot faster than the lingering poor exerience, both comfort and visually, of wearing prescription eyewear that 'is not quite right'.


F_or consumers reading this_: I work for an online retailer of eyeglasses, and Laurie is right, you are giving things up when you buy online. We can't replicate the experience you would have with a professional optician. First and foremost, we can't handle all prescriptions. If yours is strong or otherwise complicated, we cannot help you. We also cannot adjust your glasses after you get them (now, I don't believe that you can't necessarily do this yourself or that every pair needs adjusting, but your glasses will never quite fit as well as if you have them adjusted by an optician). Also, self-measuring your P.D. is oftentimes inaccurate, and depending on your prescription, being off by even 2mm can be a big deal. You should try to get this from your eye doctor or an optician, and while some will do it for free as a courtesy, you should expect to and maybe even offer to pay for their time & expertise.

If you are a bifocal or progressive lens wearer, we estimate your seg heights. This estimate, while it usually will work, is not ideal, and we can never be as accurate as a professional optician who individually measures these. Same goes for your near P.D., which may be a little off when you order from us because we again use an estimate, and depending on your prescription, that can make the glasses unwearable (though, the estimates usually work for most people). Having your glasses adjusted is also more important for progressive wearers, and depending your prescription can noticeably affect vision.

Lastly, obviously, you cannot try on our frames, and you'll have to rely on a picture and measurements to determine if it will fit.

All that said, I believe we make high quality glasses that work very well for almost all of our customers (and the 3-5% that they don't work for get a full refund, even those that just didn't like how the frame looked on them). And generally we're a lot cheaper than going to an optician or buying from your eye doc. But, above is what you are giving up by buying from us: no face to face personal and professional touch, having possible problems if estimates don't work for your bifocal/progressive or if you inaccurately self-measured your P.D., you can't try the frames on, and they won't fit quite as well as if you had them adjusted by an optician.

(for the professionals reading this: feel free to add if you think I've missed something.)

----------


## Laurie

Hi (Other) Mike,   : )

Hmmmm....

Off the Rack:

Taylored:

Bespoke:

While I dig your vocabulary, your business model is not even off the rack.   It falls below that catagory, We are not off the rack.  Retail is off the rack.  We are FDA/Health regulated professionals, must gain continuing education credits, and on.  Suit analogy doesn't work in this particular discussion.

  There is no such thing as virtually imaging if a frame will actually fit the nose...proper fit requires 3-dimensional angles to consider, Frontal, Vertical and Splay.  A picture cannot supply that.

Next is fitting height for the safety in wear, especially driving, a bifocal or progressive addition lens:

There is no such formula or approximation that adheres to our real patients' needs, asymmetry, and all...  Where they subjectively move and angle their head in different positions of gaze...this has to be measured, and re-measured again, standing, sitting, ....  close enough does not cut it.

Again,

The immediate pinch of being sure that your visual health and experience and comfort of going to an eyecare professional is far smaller than the squeeze of long-term prescription glasses that are not quite right, for all of the reasons listed above, and about 50 more reasons to add for enthusiastic opticians to contribute.

...and the beat goes on.

Happy Holidays, be careful of the eggnog!

: )

Laurie

----------


## drk

> (for the professionals reading this: feel free to add if you think I've missed something.)


I'd like to see you add this: 

_"For the consumers: We uphold the requirements of your state's laws regulating dispensing of eyewear."_


A minor could place the order, and no one would know?

A person could fill in the lens powers as s/he wants?

A current copy of your prescription isn't required before you begin the job?

None of this happens? None of the regulatory controls?


A note from a eyecare professional: _If you don't wish to "consume" your health care, and instead would like to be treated as a "patient" by a "health care professional", see a doctor or an optician._

----------


## MikeAurelius

Just one point, Doc: anyone who wants to order online needs a credit card. As far as I'm aware, minors cannot get credit cards without parental approval. And those who use their parents card would most likely have a reckoning day when the bill arrives. I personally believe the 'minor placing an order' is a red herring.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> far as I'm aware, minors cannot get credit cards without parental approval. And those who use their parents card would most likely have a reckoning day when the bill arrives


You don't necessarily need approval to get a debit card for your checking account.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## MikeAurelius

> You don't necessarily need approval to get a debit card for your checking account.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Still a red herring IMO.

----------


## Darryl Meister

> Still a red herring IMO


Maybe. But a possibility, nevertheless.

What I think is much more likely is Jill Teenager finding a cheap, knock-off eyeglass frame she likes from some low-quality online optical company after hours of searching the Internet, convincing her parents that the eyeglasses she really wants are available online for much less than from the optometrist's office at which she had her eye exam, and having them pay for the eyeglasses in whatever form of currency they want, blinded by dollar signs and their daughter's eagerness to look like Paris Hilton or whomever.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Tailored are where I see us


Then your vision is clouded by your own product. What you do, using your analogy, is selling suits off a rack on the street corner, using mostly poor quality materials. 




> The best is bespoke, and where I think ECP's fall: the tailor here is going to talk to you about different materials and how they affect wear


You could do that too, by hiring skilled and experienced profesionals to consult directly with the consumer. But it will cost you big time, and your business model can't support our fees. It still wouldn't result in a properly funtioning eyeglass though.

----------


## HarryChiling

bump

----------


## cleyes

> Maybe. But a possibility, nevertheless.
> 
> What I think is much more likely is Jill Teenager finding a cheap, knock-off eyeglass frame she likes from some low-quality online optical company after hours of searching the Internet, convincing her parents that the eyeglasses she really wants are available online for much less than from the optometrist's office at which she had her eye exam, and having them pay for the eyeglasses in whatever form of currency they want, blinded by dollar signs and their daughter's eagerness to look like Paris Hilton or whomever.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


Absolutely correct!  Also now can get multiple pairs to be fashionably ahead of her friends.

----------


## HarryChiling

If you do a search for "online eyewear complaints" in google this thread is number 8 on the first page just below the fold and rising.  We need more thread like this about the various complaints point them out start a new thread and lets keep discussing the pitfalls of this model a negative PR campaign is a way to combat these eyewear bootleggers.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *If you do a search for "online eyewear complaints" in google this thread is number 8 on the first page just below the fold and rising. We need more thread like this about the various complaints point them out start a new thread and lets keep discussing the pitfalls of this model a negative PR campaign is a way to combat these eyewear bootleggers.*


 
There are so many ways to post a question so that will be a big job for somebody else.
Just a few samples below.............................


a negative look at on line glasses / About 11,600,000 results (0.31 seconds) 

a positive look at on line glasses / About 15,200,000 results (0.32 seconds) 

a dirty look at on line glasses sellers / About 277,000 results (0.34 seconds) 

a good look at on lines glasses sellers / About 196,000,000 results (0.20 seconds) 



a negative look at some real opticians offices / About 629,000 results (0.22 seconds) 

a positive look at some real opticians offices / About 937,000 results (0.43 seconds) 

a dirty look at some real opticians offices / About 15,400 results (0.33 seconds)

a good look at some real opticians offices / About 527,000 results (0.26 seconds) 



I am happy with the glasses purchased on line / About 5,450,000 results (0.23 seconds) 

I am happy with the glasses purchased from a licensed optician / About 167,000 results (0.22 seconds) 


I had a hard time getting the measurements for on line purchase of my glasses / About 392,000 results (0.08 seconds)

----------


## cleyes

> If you do a search for "online eyewear complaints" in google this thread is number 8 on the first page just below the fold and rising.  We need more thread like this about the various complaints point them out start a new thread and lets keep discussing the pitfalls of this model a negative PR campaign is a way to combat these eyewear bootleggers.


Top of the page as of now!

----------


## HarryChiling

bump

----------


## Wes

> You don't necessarily need approval to get a debit card for your checking account.
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


To prove Darryl's point, my 17 year old just got her first debit card. 
She knows not to buy glasses online...
Wes

----------


## drk

What we need is profession and industry leaders speaking out against unregulated dispensing.

The AOA, AMA, Prevent Blindness, OAA, etc.

Industry leaders such as Zeiss, Essilor (fat chance) and their zillion toady subsidiaries, Hoya.

Industry leaders in wholesale labs, such as Walman, Three Rivers, Luzerne.

The Association of Schools and Colleges in Optometry

And finally, vision care plans.

----------


## rdcoach5

[QUOTE=drk;374642]What we need is profession and industry leaders speaking out against unregulated dispensing.

The AOA, AMA, Prevent Blindness, OAA, etc.

Industry leaders such as Zeiss, Essilor (fat chance) and their zillion toady subsidiaries, Hoya.

Industry leaders in wholesale labs, such as Walman, Three Rivers, Luzerne.

The Association of Schools and Colleges in Optometry

And finally, vision care plans.

AGREED! Wholeheartedly. Bravo!

----------


## Wes

> AGREED! Wholeheartedly. Bravo!


Drk, give this guy a job already!

----------


## LENNY

Anything NEW about Vitaly?

----------


## fjpod

I think they sent him to Siberia...or the South Bronx.

----------


## HarryChiling

> What we need is profession and industry leaders speaking out against unregulated dispensing.
> 
> The AOA, AMA, Prevent Blindness, OAA, etc.
> 
> Industry leaders such as Zeiss, Essilor (fat chance) and their zillion toady subsidiaries, Hoya.
> 
> Industry leaders in wholesale labs, such as Walman, Three Rivers, Luzerne.
> 
> The Association of Schools and Colleges in Optometry
> ...


Drk,

The AOA has already spoken and it's not favorable.  You guys need to get your organization in check.  Zeiss isn't a supporter of online eyewear but I also don't think they'll be making any press releases to that effect.  Also some of the labs you mentioned have already put their money where their mouth is.  Contact me for more details if you'd like.

----------


## Chris Ryser

<LI class=g style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8px" sb_id="ms__id667">*Eye Glasses eyebuydirect.com Complaints - Bad Customer Experience*

23 Feb 2010 *...* US Mail: *5300 Ontario Mills Pkwy*, *Unit 400*, *Ontario*, *California 91764 United States* Registrant: EyeBuyDirect Inc. 7315 Wisconsin Ave. *...*
www.complaintsboard.com/.../eye-glasses-eyebuydirectcom-c314480.html - United States - Cached
<LI class=g id=mbb3 sb_id="ms__id682">*Eye Buy Direct / Eye Glass Complaints - Amount paid but product ...*

Company information: Eye Buy Direct *Ontario*, *California* *United States* *...*
www.complaintsboard.com/.../eye-buy-direct-eye-glass-c404664.html - United States - Cached

Show more results from complaintsboard.com


<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id703">*BBB Business Review of EyeBuyDirect.com - Optical Goods Retail ...*

14 Sep 2009 *...* Address: *5300 Ontario Mills Parkway*, *Unit 400*. *Ontario*, *CA 91764*. Tel: (866) 210-8128. Fax:  See more photos on TrustLink *...*
www.la.bbb.org/.../EyeBuyDirectcom-100086705 - United States - Cached - Similar
<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id720">*866-449-5567 - 8664495567 - who calls me from 866-449-5567? 1/5*

20 posts - 19 authors - Last post: 28 May 2008
*5300 Ontario Mills Pkwy Unit 400*. *Ontario*, *CA 91764* *...* I asked him what was that and he *states* it helps to motivate you to loose weight. *...* 

Show map of 11701 E 53rd Ave, Denver, CO 80239, USA

whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/8664495567 - Cached - Similar

*Get more discussion results*

<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id746">*The Green Millionaire | Rip-off Report: 610178*

4 Jun 2010 *...* *5300 Ontario Mills Parkway*, *Unit 400*. *Ontario California 91764*. *United States* of America Phone: Web Address: www.greenerwealth.com *...* 

Show map of 5300 Ontario Mills Pkwy, Ontario, CA 91764, USA

www.ripoffreport.com/.../the-green-millionaire-www-gree-78a64.htm - United States - Cached

<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id767">*Advanced Acai*

Advanced Acai Customer Care *5300 Ontario Mills Pkwy*, *Unit 400*, *Ontario*, *CA 91764*. If you have any questions please call Customer Service. 1 (866) 943–3083 *...*
advancedacai.unssynd.com/089d62127a587dfed0e8db74d8668750 - Cached - Similar
<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id783">*Customer Service | Contact Us | Mail, Phone, Fax, Email ...*

US Mail: *5300 Ontario Mills Pkwy*, *Unit 400*, *Ontario*, *California 91764 United States* Note: Please contact us before shipping any returns. *...*
www.eyebuydirect.com › Customer Service - Cached - Similar
<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id800">*Dermitage @ ****** Consumer*

8 Mar 2008 *...* *5300 Ontario Mills Pkwy Unit 400*. *Ontario*, CA *91764*. *.....* Better Business Bureau consumer advocates in *United States* and Canada. *...*
dermitage.******consumer.com/ - Cached - Similar
<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id816">*Beware : Just Think Media Products – Spam and Scams | webcops.net*

12 Jul 2009 *...* Filed in the *United States* District Court for the District of Montana *...* Canada. *5300 Ontario Mills Parkway Unit 400*. *Ontario*, *CA* *91764* *...*
www.webcops.net/just_think_media_spam_scams_8001.html - Cached - Similar
<LI class=g sb_id="ms__id834">*866-396-5711 / 8663965711 1/13*

Wu[Yi Source *5300 Ontario Mills Parkway unit 400*. *Ontario CA 91764* *.....* Gillmap Ltd 9 Broomhill Stanley, DH9 8AZ Durham *United* Kingdom *...*
800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-396-5711 - Cached - Similar

----------


## AngeHamm

> <li class=g style="margin-bottom: 8px" sb_id="ms__id667">*eye glasses eyebuydirect.com complaints - bad customer experience*
> 
> 23 feb 2010 *...* us mail: *5300 ontario mills pkwy*, *unit 400*, *ontario*, *california 91764 united states* registrant: Eyebuydirect inc. 7315 wisconsin ave. *...*
> www.complaintsboard.com/.../eye-glasses-eyebuydirectcom-c314480.html - united states - cached
> <li class=g id=mbb3 sb_id="ms__id682">*eye buy direct / eye glass complaints - amount paid but product ...*
> 
> company information: Eye buy direct *ontario*, *california* *united states* *...*
> www.complaintsboard.com/.../eye-buy-direct-eye-glass-c404664.html - united states - cached
> 
> ...


 
gyyaaaahhhh!!!!!

----------


## LENNY

A convicted counterfeit sunglasses dealer was nabbed again Thursday - this time for keeping a slew of sickening kiddie porn on his computer, officials said.

Investigators seized several computer hard drives from Vitaly Borker’s Brooklyn home that included images of minors engaged in sexual acts, authorities said.

Borker, 36, was charged with 60 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child and two counts of possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child, officials said.

The NYPD Computer Crimes Squad and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service nabbed Borker at his home Thursday, officials said. If convicted, he faces 1 1/3 to 4 years for each charge.

His attorney, Dominic Amorosa, said Borker intends to enter a not guilty plea at his arraignment but declined to comment further on the case.

Borker, former operator of DecorMyEyes.com, was convicted of making lewd and violent threats to customers who posted online complaints about his retail website.

He faces more than three years in prison in that case but has not yet been sentenced.

----------

