When will it stop???

[obxeyeguy]

Just received my vision monday, (yes, its friday but the mail here is terrible). The "in the news" section lists 6 new licensing agreements. Who are all of these people? And when will it end? I thought we had pretty much seen the bottom when Pepsi started licensing with Hart. Soda's, eyewear?? Makes me thirsty every time I read. I fully understand branded product does sell, but how much branded product can we carry. Good survey question in the future.
Do these new lines draw you to them by there name, or by the manufacturer?? Thoughts??

[For-Life]

It will stop when stores start buying because of quality and design versus name.

[HarryChiling]

It will stop when stores start buying because of quality and design versus name.

I could kiss you. :D

[Fezz]

I could kiss you. :D

Crickey-

First OPTIDONN is running around gropping and hugging everyone, now Harry is kissing everyone in sight. What the heck is in the water over there at th ATO?


;):cheers:;):cheers:;)

[For-Life]

That Chuck and Larry movie has showed people that it can be funny.

[obxeyeguy]

It will stop when stores start buying because of quality and design versus name.

Agreed. But are we driven to these by the consumer, or the other way around? Are we driving them to that product?
Just questions.

[For-Life]

I believe it is the other way around. I believe only a small minority of consumers care about the name, and we buy it because we are impressed that Calvin Klien has an eyewear line.

The only role I really see for the name is stores that have poor customer service, and the name is what would get the customer to take the frame off of the board.

[HarryChiling]

Agreed. But are we driven to these by the consumer, or the other way around? Are we driving them to that product?
Just questions.

Good questions, from my experience we are driving them to the product. When I have a patient come in to look at glasses it is very rare that someone says we are here for brand XXX glasses. I have worked in two very similar stores and one carried brands and the other carried stylish glasses, the difference has always been that people come to expect quality from brand XXX that is not always there and it usually leads to the impression that our store is somehow at fault. (you know, these are brand XXX they shouldn't break so easily) On top of that the margins for the branded product are just not there.

[obxeyeguy]

The only role I really see for the name is stores that have poor customer service, and the name is what would get the customer to take the frame off of the board.

Grat point. I have in the past carried very good quality denmark, japanese, german, all generic, and did very well. I also sell myself and my service.

[RustyS]

It will stop when stores start buying because of quality and design versus name.

exactly right


It is our own fault as an industry as a whole. The client needs to be educated and its much easier to sell a perceived designer than talk about quality and innovation. I have always found when you spend an extra few minutes and educate them your avg. sale goes up, your client feels "in the know" when it comes to purchases, they love you for it and you marginalize 90% of your competition. There are some really amazing opticians posting here who can grasp complex mathematical formulas and trouble shoot problems with excellence, but they have little knowledge of advances in the manufacturing processes of frames or what is really coming around in terms of current look. Pardon the analogy but we are selling cars and most opticians spend their time looking under the hood. The customer assuredly will go to you for quality optics but they want to look good in what they wear. If you offer them the "whole package" and if your honest, and personable you will always win. If the properly educated customer passes by one of these chain or mass market stores with the big sale sign they will just pass it by. It kind of goes hand in hand with inventory comments i made earlier on another post and the script i wrote. I got a jibe or two tossed at me but i have seen this happen more often as a rule than not. Inventory management is hard 10 times harder than a lens inventory. We have been trained to be reliant on a distribution system. I hate to bring to up again but It is one of my points of reference. When i worked for Oliver Peoples i would go into a potential account to show them the collection. I would get some people going oh this is a XXXX knockoff it came out 6 months ago and i could show them in our catalog the release date and they had sold this style for 5 years. Paul Smith released a color 7 years ago thats amazing in terms of look and now XXXXX collection released it as their new color in every womens frame in the line 8 months ago. Fashion and innovation is a spring the farther you go upstream the better the water tastes.

[HarryChiling]

Fashion and innovation is a spring the farther you go upstream the better the water tastes.

Unfortunately some of the manufacturers have decided to build a damn and tell you it's where the stream begins. :D

[Barry Santini]

There is no resaon why mass-market, fashion-brand named eyewear cannot be a quality product. For me, however, the health of the industry and it prospects for future growth rest with steering the public toward the concept that eyewear itself is fashion. And Brand names are essential to this end. Yes, they can commoditize a product. But...my feeling is that the public in general has and is exposed to such a negative view of eyewear that *anything* that can change this attitude is essential to the industry's future. Fashion will always be around.

Let's all try to apply it to eyewear.

FWIW

Barry

[obxeyeguy]

There is no resaon why mass-market, fashion-brand named eyewear cannot be a quality product. For me, however, the health of the industry and it prospects for future growth rest with steering the public toward the concept that eyewear itself is fashion. And Brand names are essential to this end.

I know we discussed the quality issue recently on a diff thread, and a good part of the name products could use the most improvement in that area. $$ frames sold to us for $$$$$ because its whoeverdesigner. The fashion statement is great, we are a fashion industry to a lot of people, and the rest think of "glasses" as utilitarian. Fashion is eyewear, glasses are what i drink from,well actually I like it in the bottle.:cheers:

[HarryChiling]

It's funny that with lenses we will talk about quality of optics all day long and that's how we measure our progressives, our AR coatings, and our materials, but when it comes to frames the brand name frame is where we measure the bar.

But...my feeling is that the public in general has and is exposed to such a negative view of eyewear that *anything* that can change this attitude is essential to the industry's future. Fashion will always be around.

Let's all try to apply it to eyewear.

I thought we had pretty much seen the bottom when Pepsi started licensing with Hart. Soda's, eyewear??

I agree fashion is key to our industry, but BRANDSFASHION (example given above)I think every optician should be thumbing through Cosmo, GQ, Esquire, and any other fashion magazine for hints and clues as to whats the latest trends in fashion, heck leave them around so your patients see the same thing you did as you purchased stock. If you are relying on a frame rep you are getting old styles that large manufacturers may see potential in, but they are old styles none the less. OR they say this frame is HOT right now = I get a better commision on this frame because it's a dog and no one in thier right mind will buy it. [/size]

I want to look __________ when I wear my glasses?

• Sexy
• Handsome
• Smart
• Sophisticated
• Mean
• Cool
• Stylish

Don't let a brand distract your patient from what they want from their glasses. That's why I fit glasses, not sell them.

[Barry Santini]

Great Post, Harry!

Barry

[obxeyeguy]

but BRANDSFASHION

very nice,but I still like to refer to it as eyewear, not glasses.

[obxeyeguy]

oops! not real computer literate here.

[RustyS]

I know we discussed the quality issue recently on a diff thread, and a good part of the name products could use the most improvement in that area. $$ frames sold to us for $$$$$ because its whoeverdesigner. The fashion statement is great, we are a fashion industry to a lot of people, and the rest think of "glasses" as utilitarian. Fashion is eyewear, glasses are what i drink from,well actually I like it in the bottle.:cheers:

Congrats Obxeyeguy you got in your cheap shot and completely missed the point. This could send another interesting (for a few) thread on this board to the bottom again. Im not sure where the venom comes from maybe Oliver Peoples maimed you or a family member at some point honestly I could care less. Since my anonymity has been compromised on this board i guess that puts everything i say in diametric opposition to whatever you believe; so be it. I do not work for Oliver Peoples any longer and could care less if you bought it or not. I really doubt you sold Oliver Peoples products ever in your career.


This is spin to turn obvious negativity into something more thread specific and further communication. When we were referring to "designer" eyewear we were not talking about Lindberg, 2.5, Kazuo Kawasaki, Lafont, Mikli, Orgreen, Chrome Hearts, Matsuda, Mykita, Cartier, Face a face, Lunor, Freudenhaus, LA Eyeworks, Pro Design, Dita, IC Berlin, Bevel, Blinde, Salt, Oliver Peoples sorry boutique manufacturers i missed a few of you.

It was about lines like Pepsi and what the public views as designers who have made there money in fashion and LISCENSED their name. Where the innovation and/or quality is not there to justify price; When the some "designer" products are side by side they are indistinguishable from products 30% less without the label. And that is where eyewear gets its bad name and drives people to think that glasses are a ripoff especially since the optician is representing them as being the best and putting them in their "designer section" The maunufacturing infrastructure is not there for the mass market designers to be truly innovative so they follow trends in shape and style and replicate as best they can with their machines and their distribution system gets it to market faster. AO had this problem in around 1933??? they were losing market share because they needed to solidify their distribution due to market conditions.

[RustyS]

great post harry while trying to keep thread on track you already beat me to it. Thank You



:cheers:

[AngryFish]

Branding to me makes sense and I use it to advance my sales and customer service. People who are loyal or even familiar with a brand have expectations based on the history of that brand and the relationship between quality and cost, said another way, the manufacture has put great effort into positioning it’s product in the market place at a price point that identifies it’s value in the mind of the consumer. With names like Polo and Calvin Klein, for example, there is a level of quality and a corresponding expectation of cost that is fairly consistent with all products carrying these brand names whether the consumer is looking at shirts, underwear, or eyeglass frames. They are typically of above average quality, found in retailers of that are upscale in orientation and represent a brand consistent style that appeals to the targeted buyer. Disney frames are another example. Disney spends tens of millions of dollars each year promoting its brand. Disney frame are, in my mind, consistent with the values that Disney as a brand has across its product offerings. Targeted toward children, of above average quality, and priced as a solid value not cheap not overly expensive. Why would I as a retailer not want to take advantage of the millions of marketing dollars spent every year to promote the name by carrying the frames and surrounding the product with point of purchase materials from the ocean of items that are available? No doubt most consumers do not know that Disney make eyewear but when they are introduced to it will have an appeal to many based on its reputation in the areas the consumer is familiar with it and since the product, I believe, is in actuality consistent with the quality/value expectation of the consumer the relationship with the brand, in this case, Disney is reinforced. When I see names that I don’t recognize I am usually being introduced to a ready market of buyers that I up until then was ignorant of. For me, not too many years ago, that was Kate Spade, Coach, and D&G, to name just a few. Twenty years ago I had no idea who these brands were. Does this suggest that everyone needs to sell familiar brands? Does it mean that there is no room for an unbranded frame? No, of course not there are great values out there that are unbranded as well. Does it mean that every designer frame is a good value, priced well and is of quality? Again no but on the whole they are a pretty safe bet I believe. A good argument could be made for “unbranded” frames actually being seen as a “brand” to some shoppers who look to unbranded product as a source for value or out of a sense of non-conformity or an antiestablishment sentiment.

[HarryChiling]

Great points AngryFish, taking adavtage of the brands marketing is a great advatage when choosing brands, and the loyalty and familiarity of a brand is a good thing if we choose to carry only the brand that do meet the quality and expectations that this brand name carries.

Let's get this out in the open: gettign you rbrand out into the market and recognized is not easy, it's very very hard.

If yoru brand is built upon style, then the eyewear better be stylish.
If your brand is built upon durabilit, then your eyewear better be rugged.

With names like Polo and Calvin Klein, for example, there is a level of quality and a corresponding expectation of cost that is fairly consistent with all products carrying these brand names whether the consumer is looking at shirts, underwear, or eyeglass frames.

We had a patient come in and accuse us of having sold her a knock off because her Burberry sunglass frame said "made in china", at the time her ophthalmic frame still said "made in italy". The patients expectation was let down by the MANUFACTURER, but it was me who lost the sale and the patients confidence along with whomever she told that we were selling knock offs to. This is just one example.

When the frame is unbranded, the consumer turns to you for guidance as to if the frame has any value, this is where the power lies as professionals. If you choose to stock nothing but quality product or choose to mark low cost product up to a point that you can service this frame like no other and still have them marked at a fair price that the patient thinks is fair. That's when you are the brand and instead of selling XXX which the store down the road sells cheaper, your are selling yourself and your expertise.

[AngryFish]

This is a profound truth.

When the frame is unbranded, the consumer turns to you for guidance as to if the frame has any value, this is where the power lies as professionals. If you choose to stock nothing but quality product or choose to mark low cost product up to a point that you can service this frame like no other and still have them marked at a fair price that the patient thinks is fair. That's when you are the brand and instead of selling XXX which the store down the road sells cheaper, your are selling yourself and your expertise.[/quote]

[RustyS]

Branding theoretical versus practical applications. Your position is unassailable in regards to branding, although kids are emotional as opposed to analytical buyers. The problem is mass market perception and eyewear where we have lost our credibility and i think its because of rampant branding. The companies in my above statement have essentially all created their own brand (with the exception of Chrome Hearts but i really feel the eyewear helped broaden public exposure) but it is up to us to differentiate brand from fluff and communicate this to the end user to make a decision on fact. We are not doing our job and also a disservice to that end user. EasyOff makes a great oven cleaner but i wouldnt buy their underwear...or... nevermind. Brands have their limitations and i have proven this over and over by using innovation and trends to back my position. It takes time to research and an extra 10 minutes with my client but pays off exponentially in references and repeat biz. Its the fashion houses that decide what person to sell their name to and usually they make the deal with whomever will generate largest revenue instantly without regard to longevity

[Johns]

Agreed. But are we driven to these by the consumer, or the other way around? Are we driving them to that product?
Just questions.

Why would an optician push a brand?

Beacause they don't make prudent buying decisions. They buy on emotion, they buy in "me too" mode, they buy like they don't wnat to miss the boat.

If you just put in 12 pieces (probably what the min. was), guess what the "hottest thing" is in your office ? Sure, you're pushing what yu have the most $$ wrapped up in.


I pity the customers of those that are suckered by the cheapo brands.

Pepsi
McDonalds
X-Games
Wynnona
Laura Ashley
and on, and on, and on...

[obxeyeguy]

Congrats Obxeyeguy you got in your cheap shot and completely missed the point. This could send another interesting (for a few) thread on this board to the bottom again. Im not sure where the venom comes from maybe Oliver Peoples maimed you or a family member at some point honestly I could care less. Since my anonymity has been compromised on this board i guess that puts everything i say in diametric opposition to whatever you believe; so be it. I do not work for Oliver Peoples any longer and could care less if you bought it or not. I really doubt you sold Oliver Peoples products ever in your career.


This is spin to turn obvious negativity into something more thread specific and further communication. When we were referring to "designer" eyewear we were not talking about Lindberg, 2.5, Kazuo Kawasaki, Lafont, Mikli, Orgreen, Chrome Hearts, Matsuda, Mykita, Cartier, Face a face, Lunor, Freudenhaus, LA Eyeworks, Pro Design, Dita, IC Berlin, Bevel, Blinde, Salt, Oliver Peoples sorry boutique manufacturers i missed a few of you.

Huh? you lost me. Cheap shot at what?? We were talking about branded, Pro-Design la Eyeworks ect.. are frame lines, my origional post was in reference to all the name designers signing licensing agreements. I don't get the cheap shot issue . Call me stupid.