consumer Reports

[Robert Wagner]

:drop: Another artical with regards to "eyeglasses" that in my mind all of us should read.

You can read this paper at Comsumerreports.org (Nov.2006) and it is in the magazine as well.

For copyright reasons I can't copy and past the artical however I think it is worth reading

Enjoy?
Robert

[keithbenjamin]

You can read the article online here:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/personal-finance/eyeglasses-11-06/overview/1106_eye_ov.htm

-Keith

[k12311997]

boy if you blinked you missed the part where independant opticals toped all the catagories except price. Maybe consumer reports needs to remember value includes every aspect of purchase and service not just price.

[EyeFitWell]

1. I'm glad someone finally showed how much more expensive LC is.
2. The internet is a 'great' place to buy frames? I don't think I could purchase a frame with confidence that it will fit properly. This is the sort of thing you simply must try on, even if you plan to take the frame to an optician for lenses/adjustments.
3. I am not a fan of spring hinges in all cases. I mean, they're nice, but aren't they always the first/only thing to break? ESPECIALLY if the patient 'needs' the spring (meaning they put the frame on their head, etc.)
4. "Be careful of buying ultracheap frames, warns Frank Baynham, an executive vice president, stores of Luxottica Retail, which owns LensCrafters and Pearle Vision, among other chains. He says those frames are often low-quality models from China and Korea that break easily or pop out lenses" HAHAHAHAHA...I almost spit out my doughnut... Not that I don't agree, but he just summarized all the frames in his stores! They're all from china/korea (well, almost all).
5. Rimless frames do NOT make thick lenses thicker! (IMHO-unless we're talking about a plus, but it usually doesn't make much difference)
6. "According to experts, clear-plastic lenses generally provide adequate UV protection but don’t protect you against damage from visible light." Are they talking about CR-39?

Overall, this article angered me. The tone implies that Opticians are all out to squeeze your bank account dry. We're all out to get cha! Not once did they mention service, value, and helpful staff. It didn't mention that the Ralph Lauren frame they "settled" for at Costco was 1. discontinued, and 2. better quality than the LC Brooks Brothers. They didn't talk about warranties, either, which is a big reason why I think people should see private offices.

[Happylady]

I get the magazine. What price people are happy with is very interesting. At private medical offices the average price paid was $179.00 and was rated worse then average in cost satisfaction.

At Sam's club the average price was $176.00(wow $3.00 less) and was rated much better then average in cost satisfaction. This was even though service and frame selection was also rated poorer at Sam's.

I guess people THINK they are getting a great price there and rate it accordingly.

Notice they said Trivex was thinner then poly, that is a mistake. They also said it scratched easily. I haven't noticed this to be true, has anyone else?

[EyeFitWell]

I thought they said trivex was thinner than poly also, but they did not. They said, "If you need a strong prescription, choose thinner polycarbonate, high-index, or Trivex lenses."

[Happylady]

I thought they said trivex was thinner than poly also, but they did not. They said, "If you need a strong prescription, choose thinner polycarbonate, high-index, or Trivex lenses."

In the magizine they do say it is thinner then poly. On page 49 in the Closeup box they say this about Trivex;" Lightweight; thinner and optically superior to polycarbonate; natural UV protection; impact-resistant."

I looked over the link to the article in this thread and they don't say it is thinner then poly on-line, but it is there in the magazine. The magazine has more imformation about the ratings then the on-line article does.

[EyeFitWell]

Oh, I got ya. I only read it online. As you can see from my post above, I wasn't thrilled about anything they said...

[FVCCHRIS]

I got the impression from that article that there are little or no educated, qualified, caring health care proffessionals involved in the process anywhere! Just some people behind a counter trying to sell you "stuff" for as much as they can. Obviously, in my opinion, it was written by someone who does not view our profession as a proffession at all. Constant references to the advantages of internet offers but little mention of the pitfalls. Not much to remind the consumer that the end results of their purchase and the level of their satisfaction has anything to do with the level of expertise of the "counter person" they deal with as much as it has to do with how little they can actually spend for their glasses.

This is a perfect example of why we need to constantly stress the importance of maintaining top quality staff that know their "stuff". How else are we going to be able to explain to those patients why we set ourselves apart from "counter people" and why coming to us for their eyecare/eyewear is more than justified!! JMO. Chris..:mad:

[Florida Optician]

I too am dismayed and somewhat alarmed at this story-and I had previously held Consumer Reports in high regard! This was only half of a story and I believe that all of us should write Consumer Reports and let them know how we feel.As mentioned previously,the whole thing about buying frames off the internet should be enough to make any optical professional's blood boil!

[Barry Santini]

6. "According to experts, clear-plastic lenses generally provide adequate UV protection but don’t protect you against damage from visible light." Are they talking about CR-39?

Yes,,,and as I have stated in another thread on this CR story, they are RIGHT about the *inherent* UV filter of CR 39...

In fact, I liked most all the article...and recommend it to my clients, if they are interested.

Barry Santini, ABOM

[For-Life]

It appears that there was a quantitative research of 93,000 people (probably too many, but not really a problem). The main problem is that it did not qualitative research of opticians and optometrists. I am not just talking independent, but retired, current, young, old, chains, franchises and independents. Because of this I feel that certain things like quality AR's and such were ignored.

As for buying frames online, it will always remain a very small percentage.

[EyeFitWell]

Looking at the chart made me wonder, why are these chains responsible for something like 70% of sales in america when they consistantly scored much lower on service? If I had compiled that research and was supposed to write an article on it (even if I was not in the field), my conclusion would be, "go to your doctor's office. you might pay a few more bucks, but it is well worth it in the long run."
I do intend to write a letter, because the story was heavily slanted and inaccurate in many ways.
Buy frames online? Even though you can look at the frame on a picture of you doesn't do anything to tell you about the fit! Frames don't have sizes that you'd know your 'size'.