UK Advertising

[John R]

The GOC in the UK are looking at relaxing the advertising rule's on optical products. This is due to Asda/Walmart wanting to be able to have price comparisions in their advertising.
I see that this will be a good move as there would be an increase in advertising, thus raising the profile of the optical proffesion in the publics eyes.
Now some indie's are worried that this will do them more harm than good as the big 4 have the money to hit us with tv national papers etc while they dont, but as most only serve local area's i dont see this as a problem.
I would say that the big 4 will proberly confuse joe public more than ever with their pricing in the adds but i think that if the indie's have a clear pricing strcture where it can be seen in their shops they could well gain more than they lose in the end.

Any other views on this subject from the UK or how it is done in your country.

[Cindy Hamlin]

John,
Here on the other side of the big pond, there is price comparison advertising aplenty.

I think, though, it only helps the competitors. When LC started their Featherweights advertising, it helped us to upgrade patients to better lenses (Spectralite, mid-index, etc). They came in wanting Featherweights, so we were guaranteed an upgrade. Personally, I usually recommended they not choose poly and went with mid-index or spectralite. The kiddies I kept in poly, though, for safety reasons.

If anything it raises the public's awareness that there are other options for them. It gets them asking questions and that is never a bad thing!

As has been said over and over on the board and out in the Optical world, "Take care of the customer and they have no reason to go elsewhere". Those that do were wanting more than they got at your dispensary. It may not be that you were doing anything wrong-just that they "felt" they needed faster, less expensive, more choices, etc.

That's my 2 cents!

~Cindy

[Texas Ranger]

John, I think price ads have actually RAISED the cost of glasses. most of the majors here have high overhead, work long hours, have basic "sales" staffs(Texas has no competency standards), the sales lend more to "bait and switch". i.e. advertise some really cheap product, then when the client comes in to get the cheaper glasses, then they get upsold to the good glasses that cost more than the market average. we had a store near us that recently went out of biz. they advertised glasses for 59.95 with a "free" eye exam, but their average retail ticket was $250. get the idea? like the bogo's where you pay 10-20 % above average for pair #1. then get a cheap pair "free". just ways that price advertisers attempt to decieve consumers. they still have to pay their overhead, and that's usually a lot highr than most indies!

[Jo]

Al:

My favorite was always the ads for $89 no-lines. Folks thought they were getting a great deal on PAL's and they turned out to be blended bifocals. :finger: If you want midrange, that'll cost you $100 more.

[John R]

Yes now we have had the americian view, which pans out quite well.
Just how is it done in other countries, i know there are many people from around the world who are going to read this so please add a bit on how its done it your neck of the world.

[John R]

Seems that the GOC are going to say NO to the idea of comparing prices etc. but have come up with these new guidelines which are to be debated on and may be the new laws in march 2002
The recommendations are:



Rules regulating the publicity produced by the optical profession remain necessary


The rules should distinguish between the supply of optical appliances and the provision of optometric and dispensing services


All publicity should be legal, decent, honest and truthful and comply with the principles of good advertising promoted within the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion


Additional restrictions on the form and nature of publicity produced in respect of optometric and dispensing services are required to ensure that the public are not misled. In this respect, although publicity of optometric and dispensing services will be allowed, and indeed, encouraged, it should not be of a comparative nature.'