Will The Dynosaur Get Some Oxygen ?..................

[Chris Ryser]

Vision Expo West.........................

All optical exhibitions, and there are too many around world wide.............from all over Europe to all over Asia are dying a slow death. Their oxygen supply ....called visitors........is slowing down.

The only good shows left are MIDO in Milan and SILMO in Paris. Even Silmo is suffering a decline in visitors over the last few years and might not survive forever.

Yeas ago Vision Expo used to have thousands of visitor from overseas and most of them are now staying away or go to shows in their corner of the globe.

Many exhibitors including myself have decided not exhibit anymore because of the negative ratio of sales against cost during these events. By this comment I do not mean the mega corporations that have unlimited funds to spend, but the regular medium and small size businesses.

Exposition management does not blow the fanfares anymore with attendance figures anymore for the last couple of years.

It would be interesting to see some comments on the importance of these shows to the potential purchasing groups like retailers, large or small, dependant or independent, as well as some suppliers.

[chip anderson]

Simple reason: Optical business has become less profitable (per practioner) and not as many have the profits and time to visit such shows. Optical Business may be larger but there are a lot more players dividing the money now.
Plus when one goes one doesn't wined and dined and kissed up to like one used to.

[Chris Ryser]

Plus when one goes one doesn't wined and dined and kissed up to like one used to.

I am sure that the Lux retail people still get kissed and wined by some of their present or want to be suppliers. However this does not have to happen during exhibition time.

Chip, you do have a point, the whole retail picture has shifted and changed and so have incomes.

[Chris Ryser]

Although show management declined to provide either pre-registration or first-day attendance figures, “nearly all of our continuing education sessions were well attended at the close of the first day of our conference, and the traffic on the show floor was steady throughout according to Eyes Ways

[SkiBunny]

Interesting. I believe this is the current economic reality for almost *every* industry, except perhaps oil & gas and construction. I thought healthcare-related fields (like vision) would be quite robust, because of the demographics in the West and Japan. Certainly I read that we spend ever-increasing amounts on healthcare. So why this dichotomy between more consumption but less sales? I guess Chip answered that: increased competition.

You could do like some professional orgs: restrict/lower the number of new entrants into your professional body. Like the Dental Association is really just a union whose unwritten goal is to limit the supply of practicing dentists and retain high fees. Oh, no it's actually to best serve the public interest, yeah right (just try charging someone - even low income seniors - less than the Association's fee scale and see what happens to you).

[Bill West]

Over the last 45 years I have witnessed the optical business go from a fun way to make money to a "if you don't know what you're doing, you'll lose your a**" business.
I remember the days of 'HIGH FLYING SALES REPS", wine and dine,party time conventions.
Today I don't waste my time with sales reps, I buy only deals on frames most under $10 from sources that go back several years.
I sell premium lenses most of the time,most with AR.
Sell contacts but quit fitting them.
I get 50% or more down on all sales.
I let my ABO & NCLE lapse.
I work 3 1/2 days a week.
I make more $ today then ever.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
I BREATH EASY
LIFE IS GREAT
BUSINESS IS FANSTIC

[Chris Ryser]

I make more $ today then ever.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
I BREATH EASY
LIFE IS GREAT
BUSINESS IS FANSTIC

You have your own formula which seems to work for you. In your case you dont have to go any exhibition and choose some job lots which they dont have at the shows.

I remember the last OLA I exhibited a few years back, where there was at all times more exhibitors than visitors between the isles.

20 years ago when the Optifair (today's Vision Expo) was still at the Hilton and Sheraton Hotels in NewYork, the show was bustling with visitors from all over the world. Those are bygone days.

Interesting. I believe this is the current economic reality for almost *every* industry, except perhaps oil & gas and construction. I thought healthcare-related fields (like vision) would be quite robust, because of the demographics in the West and Japan.

China has started a slow down (http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata...50802-tue.html) and in Europe there has been a slow down for some time. Germany which is electing a new Chancellor this weekend has over 5 Million un-employed.

The conclusion is, that people are waiting to the last minute to purchase glasses and then very often are going to use the old frames with new lenses.
There are not only more players on the market, there are also more hesitant customers that aren't willing to spend the big bucks. That is also probably why the post by Bill West says that he is making more money than ever.

If opticians sell less, so do manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and other suppliers.

[SkiBunny]

Good read on China, thanks. Many "pundits" are blaming China (and India) for high oil & gas prices, yet the article states China consumption has/is falling significantly. And the TSX Energy subindex has risen another 15% since the article was published.

Putting aside economics, I was suggesting that demographics should help sales of eyeware. The aging population in the West & Japan needs more healthcare and vision care, whether employed or unemployed. We boomers will increasingly need PALs and bifocals & trifocals, and we habitually like to buy the best.

[Chris Ryser]

We boomers will increasingly need PALs and bifocals & trifocals, and we habitually like to buy the best.

Sales of glasses are very intertwined with the economy. People will not spend the big bucks for anything when they dont have to when the economy has a foul smell.

How do you know what is the best in the optical lenses? Because some optician has told you that the most expensive Zeiss lens is better than the most expensive Essilor lens? And when you went for a second opinion and for a third opinion, you would get the same basic answers. So what is now the best ??????????

I bet that in your opinion the best is one of the most expensive PALs (according to your many post's on the subject)..............because you have been brainwashed along the way by manufacturers advertisng and the opticians on the optiboard as well as your local opticians in Toronto. All these people make a lot more money selling you a progressive lens because your thinking process has been molded towards that decision. Because there is no visible line, women like these lenses as they do not advertise, that the person is of advanced middle age and nearing menopause.

Have you ever studied the fact that all progressive lenses are optically the most imperfect lensesn that show optics worse than any other lens developed over the last 100 years. They are full with areas of distortion which gets worse as you get older and need a higher addition.

For a change I have used my own PALS all of this week just to assure myself of what I am talking about. I have an addition of + 2.50 in a panto shaped metal frame with full depth.........which means I get the full progressive and also reading part.

Here comes the result: These lenses make the keybord of my computer look like 5 lines of moving snakes when I move my head from letter to numbers. As the reading parts is so small and limited I do have to move my head in arder to see clearly. When I look up, the door frame has a moving curve, and going up and down the stairs evrything to the side is in a turmoil.

Then I go back to my regular bifocals, which are straight top 35mm segments that give me a clear view of my whole desk and keyboard.................clear and crisp vision...........no moving snake lines..........when I lift my head and look at the screen, everything again is just as super clear without any lateral (sideway's) distortion.

Nobody in the optical trade can dispute these fact...............of course they will.............money talks.

All progressive are alike with maybe some minor differences..........whoever manufactuers them. The general principle as per above description is a fact nobody can change that. Just hold a PAL in front of a projection lens, the projector displaying some fine print a or a grid of fine lines and you will see the distortive parts magnified on the screen.

I made this posting just to clarify that this hype about progressive lenses, is nothing more than using peoples weakness for esthetic values, to sell super expensive lenses that have as many drawbacks as they have advantages.

Of all multifocal wearers in the USA there are still more at 53% that do NOT use PALS. This number is split in 2 categories...........1) people that like to see clear and crisp in all directions.............2) people that do not want to spend the high price of PALS.

[chip anderson]

For shame, blastemy, How dast thou say the most expensive most cosmetically acceptable does not provide the best vision! Chris: You keep this up and you may soon antagonise as many people as I. You knows that the most profitable item is always the best!

Keep up the good work. Shoot next you may say glass is better than plastic.

Chip

[Alvaro Cordova]

Vision Expo East still kicks butt. I didn't go this year, but will go when March rolls around in 2006. Last time I went and Pam Anderson was there (much shorter than I thought she would be). Seriously I couldn't even walk down some aisles there were so many people. There was a special section for local, extremely high end, designer frames on the lower floor. Very upscale stuff.

[SkiBunny]

Chris... boomers habitually like to buy what they perceive to be the best.
Good post. I believe it all rings true, thank you.
And yes, for me the lack of a line is "best" compared to a bifocal. Just like my prestigious car is "best" (even though it has a lousy repair record in consumers reports compared to another modest, reliable car.
It's all about image... we boomers are obsessed with that and accordingly we will open our wallets if it helps our image.

[SkiBunny]

Shoot next you may say glass is better than plastic.
Chip

Or that a cucumber is better than a man

Well aren't both in fact true? :bbg:

[SkiBunny]

Pam Anderson was there (much shorter than I thought she would be).

Well grossly oversized boobs will compress the spine over the years.
And I knew her career was in decline (amen!) but now she's acutally attending conventions where they hawk bifocals? LMAO!!

[Darryl Meister]

Chris, One of these days you're going to start a thread that isn't a surreptitious segue into one of your tirades against corporations, and lens manufacturers in particular, and I will rejoice. ;)

because you have been brainwashed along the way by ... opticians on the optiboard...

One could argue that you are doing this very thing now.

All these people make a lot more money selling you a progressive lens

First and foremost, the eyecare professionals also make more selling them, because they are a premium product that commands a higher price tag. They are obviously more expensive to design and make. However, both eyecare professionals and consumers have a choice. If they don't see the value in progressive lenses, they are free to recommend or purchase anything from Executive trifocals to over-the-counter readers.

If you are content to purchase (and sell) the cheapest product available, regardless of its performance, that's certainly your prerogative. But it is equally the prerogative of other optometrists and opticians to recommend products consistent with their own philosophy. You argue that "expensive" doesn't necessarily mean "superior" product, but I would argue that "cheap" frequently means "inferior" product.

Because there is no visible line, women like these lenses as they do not advertise, that the person is of advanced middle age and nearing menopause.

Do you think women are the only ones worried about their appearance? Do you think women stop worrying about their appearance once they turn 40? I think you have grossly underestimated the level of motivation in our society to look younger or better, whether this is in the form of a progressive lens, cosmetic surgery, tight blue jeans, or a membership to the gym.

Have you ever studied the fact that all progressive lenses are optically the most imperfect lensesn that show optics worse than any other lens developed over the last 100 years. They are full with areas of distortion which gets worse as you get older and need a higher addition.

I have studies the optics of progressive lenses, as well as multifocals in general, and I can tell you that this statement is very misleading. Setting the obvious cosmetic benefits of progressive lenses aside for the moment, you should consider that:

1) More science has gone into progressive lens design over the past 100 years than any other single lens design in the history of spectacle lenses.

2) Clinical studies have shown that wearers actually prefer progressive lenses to traditional lens designs 80% of the time, and that the non-adapt rate for traditional bifocals is often higher (at 11%) than it is for progressive lenses (generally only 5 to 10%).

3) Bifocals are not without their own optical compromises, including a jump in magnification and image location, blur and scotoma around the segment margin, and so on.

4) While the astigmatism of a progressive lens will admittedly increase with Add power, the intermediate utility of a bifocal will become non-existent with increasing Add power.

5) Arguably, well-designed progressive lenses replicate natural vision more effectively than traditional bifocals, at least for most Add powers, so to call their optics "imperfect" compared to bifocals relies on some less relevant measure of performance.

For a change I have used my own PALS all of this week just to assure myself of what I am talking about. I have an addition of + 2.50 in a panto shaped metal frame with full depth... Then I go back to my regular bifocals, which are straight top 35mm segments...

You habitually wear a pair of FT-35 bifocals, have a relatively high Add power, and are completely unmotivated to wear progressive lenses. Are you surprised that don't like progressive lenses as much when you occasionally try them on?

Now, to be sure, I am not suggesting that progressive lenses are superior to traditional bifocals for every patient or for every application. I am simply responding to your own generalizations, which incorrectly characterize them as optically inferior and terribly over-priced with no meaningful appeal to consumers.

[chip anderson]

Skibunny: I don't even want to think about you and cucumbers.

[SkiBunny]

Good, because if you so much as ever even have a dream about me, you best wake up and apologize... ha!

[35oldguy]

I have a question. If progressive lenses are the product of choice for multifocal users why is the price higher than tradiional bifocal and trifocals etc? With volume sales why is there such a difference in price? Also if a traditional multifocal wearer does not adapt to progressives what guarantees are there to offset the cost if he cannot wear progressives?

[chip anderson]

35 Most progressives come with a warranty that they will be replaced with bifocals (some places even refund the difference) if the patient does not adapt. But of course the trick is to put them into progressives first so that they will never realize how much clearer the bifocal was.

Chip

[chip anderson]

Pete: I have terrified respect for you in all things optical and mechanical but I don't think a lens can have astigmatism. Eyes have astigmatism, lenses have aberration (although when one sells them, words like transition zones, astigmatism, sand, blending area, etc. sound better to optical types.)

Chip

[SkiBunny]

Do you think women stop worrying about their appearance once they turn 40? I think you have grossly underestimated the level of motivation in our society to look younger or better, whether this is in the form of a progressive lens, cosmetic surgery, tight blue jeans, or a membership to the gym.

Thank you Darryl. You bet I belong to a gym, I still wear tight jeans/tops, and I may well purchase a Zeiss progressive when my SV distance glasses finally fail me. I do not look/act 40, nor do I wish to. Chris, I'm still sexy at 40 damn you ;) . The main difference between 40 and 30 is that now I am more mature and less naive, and by the way I weigh less now and earn twice as much. A man secure with himself likely finds me more attractive now than he would have when I was 30

Why does some gray hair on man make him look "distinguished" but make a woman look "old"?
Why is an assertive man called "decisive" but an assertive woman called a "b1tch"?
Why do bifocals or half-readers make a man look "experienced" but make a woman look like she has "granny glasses"?

[chip anderson]

SKK: Do cucumbers care what you look like?

[35oldguy]

Thanks Chip for your explanation. I already knew this. I started fitting the old AO Ultraview back in the '60's. I am open to wearing progressives since I wore them for more than 15 years but as you know with age we get these damn cataracts and we have to find a different solution.

I am tired of seeing my fellow craftsman try to get the most out of a pair of progressives and ARC and thinner this or that! The consumer us boomers as we are called deserve to see as well as possible and I believer that $$$ are more important than we are. Why do boomers have to pay so much? This is more my question than the guarntee solution for non-adaptation.

We want to look well. Cosmetically we want to look younger yes? I want to see better or not? When you get a older person in the door of your office is your first thought "my another baby boomer." How much can I stick him for? Why do eyeglasses cost so much?

35 Most progressives come with a warranty that they will be replaced with bifocals (some places even refund the difference) if the patient does not adapt. But of course the trick is to put them into progressives first so that they will never realize how much clearer the bifocal was.

Chip

[Chris Ryser]

Chris, One of these days you're going to start a thread that isn't a surreptitious segue into one of your tirades against corporations, and lens manufacturers in particular, and I will rejoice. ;)

Darryl, I love you, specially when you get exited over some of my comments either imaginary or in reality, when you put on your armour to bravely defend your side of the optical world.

Below is the only reference to corporations in my previous post that seemingly got your adrenaline pump going:

Because some optician has told you that the most expensive Zeiss lens is better than the most expensive Essilor lens?

The rest is all my personal opinion on progressive lenses which does not have to be shared by anybody. So I believe that your entrance into this discussion has been in full attack mode, as per your above quote.

I am not a mathematical wizard with a head full of optical formulas, but I am a pretty good practical guy that has numerous years of optics in his backpak.

I also look at the economics of the business which is today more in favour of the manufacturer, excuse me for daring to say so.

It is my opinion that in tougher times retailers should not push the customer into purchasing the most expensive items, because if they do the public will tend to favour the discount and online services. Not everybody is a SkiBunny in this world.

[Chris Ryser]

Actually to come back to Vision Expo attendance I have searched the latest press releases on attendance figures by today.............but did not find any.