Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
A very wise man once wrote: "Build something the world needs and grow wealthy. Build something it doesn't need and become rich!"
Suspect this is as usefull and Blue Blockers, Eagle eyes and a lot of other wonderful inovations that proved useless.
Chip
we had the gunnar rep in, and talked with him at great length a few times while the company has grown. They changed power in the lenses, and changed their marketing some in the 2 month span between the first time the rep visted me and the next time he brought their sale manager.
while i think the author of the article is taking a few liberties in what he is writing (i believe CVS is an actual problem, but thats another argument) he found the same conclusino i did.
oakley marketing doesnt always work
wow. someone should tell that guy he overplussed himself with the CVS ones, I think the Gunnar guys use +.25 or +.50 Maybe it's because Gunnar is in the OC-a Republican stronghold and that guy is a Lib?? (just kidding everyone)
Seriously I have a good friend that works there and he gave me a pair to give to my bro who is 2020 but spends all day at a computer designing web stuff. I will see him this week and give them to him and let you know what he says. I think CVS exists, don't you?
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
You misspelled my name. There is no "a" only an "e". Thanks in advance!
So we just had the Gunnar rep in our office this morning as well. A few thoughts after listening to the pitch:
1. Oakley guys, who left Oakley and are now trying to put the same sort of techno-babble spin on glasses to treat CVS still sound just like....Oakley guys.
2. The tint and AR(?). Personally, I find it awful. Like a sick version of a blueblocker. I personally can't stand it. But the product is not available without it, nor offers any option to change it's cast or density - a pretty glaring omission for CVS needs. Their A/R is also very strange - it doesn't look like A/R. It LOOKS like a flash blue mirror. Pretty horribly for a computer, fluorecent lighting environment or just about anything apart from a fancy dance club frame. No set of eyes is the same, and almost no monitor or working environment is either. This feels like a one size fits all approach, and in the world of medical optics, I feel is misleading at best.
3. They DO offer a full 1 year mfr. warranty on both frame and lens, and a 1 year against scratching. According to the rep., "they looked at what the rest of the industry was doing and followed suit." Which, while I no doubt sound very cynical here, feels to be what they've done with the product as a whole.
4. VSP. Very very interesting. As most of you know, VSP will not authorize a lens or product that is proprietary, meaning that it has to be available to any dispensary without limitation or "buy-in rights". So lenses like Vision Source's Truclear progressive, or any of the myriad "house brand" contact lenses ain't kosher with them. Our rep stated that they don't allow other offices within a 5 mile radius to carry their product. He also told us that the "were the fasted product VSP had ever accepted." But I'm still very unclear as to how that actually works. We'd be THE exclusive dealer...unless ANYone else who is VSP wanted to be as well - and then we're not so exclusive anymore???
5. 6-8 base lenses. The claim: "The actually keep your eyes perfectly moisturized because they fit so close!" My claim: "BS!!!" They stand so far off the face there is no physical means by which this could actually happen. Sounds like it came right out of the old Oakley play book.
6. Low add in all OTC versions, and an Rx availability. Their extensive testing (their verbage) has shown that an add of +0.50 was too strong, so they lowered it to less than a quarter diopter: +0.20. The little kiddies didn't like the half diopter of plus so again, we're all subjected to the same paint brush - kids may not have tolerated the plus, but what about older, less accomodative eyes? Who *exactly* is the market here again Oakley...I mean Gunnar?
7. Material. All of the OTC models use "High performance Trivex". The Rx lense is a Shamir Autograph based poly - regardless of Rx. 4 cyl max power.
8. One of their big things he pushed this morning was their decentering process that makes their lenses "better than anything else on the market!". Again, sounds like page one of the Oakley sales pitch book - and a lot of smoke and mirrors magic in that regard.
All things being equal, I think I was more confused at the end of the pitch that I was before it...perhaps because I was instantly soured and tuned out with what felt like a heavy reliance on Oakley marketing ploys. While they're not Oakley in name, all their designers and marketers used to work for them so it certainly appeared to me to be a pretty perfect clone. I'm not really aware of anything new or unique to these glasses either in their OTC or Rx varieties. Overall score: lukewarm at best. To be fair, and perfectly clear, the above is strictly my own personal subjective impression of this product line and it's marketing, and in no way is meant as an endorsement or direct negative reflection on the company or product. Hope perhaps it offers a little more info for any interested. All the best!
Brian~
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks