You once told me in Anaheim a few years ago that National Standards would never occur in my lifetime. (I think you may have phrased it differently) and after my November Doctors visit it looked you may have been right. But to see it in print this morning, and have it advocated by someone other than me,was enough to get the juices flowing again. Co-incidently this occurs on the day I retire from business! Which I did this morning very unceremoniously. YAHOOOOOOOOO!
Last edited by hcjilson; 03-29-2012 at 09:00 AM. Reason: spelling grievous error
"Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
Lord Byron
Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
www.capecodphotoalbum.com
I continue to push for same, HArry, and hope this comes together.........and it is well within your life time.
Warren
Originally Posted by Craig
I agree with both of you. I believe that a standard education is the only way to advance our profession and legitamize ourselves as medical professionals across the board in all states. However if I had not been given the opportunity to be a lab rat at 18 years old, I don't know that I would have landed in this profession or even stayed with it all these years. I was not college-minded at the time and the way I was trained it was a few years before I started to dispense; first I had to learn how to do all the tedious, boring stuff like answer phones, file, clean out the generator, etc.
It was only after I learned about all of the cool science behind optics that I was hooked- otherwise who knows what I might be doing today.
I think there is something to be said for a hybrid apprenticeship that includes a formal education.
"Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened beings; only enlightened activity." -Shunryu Suzuki
Drk, nail on the head.... nail on the head
I am hopeful... I will remain in tune...
The most of the concerns listed here are legitimate.
I've been saying this for years, always causes arguments around here. It should include ALL lab work and dispensing. I'm also still in favour of a certification of some type for labrats.
Hi . Canada here and chipping in my two cents . I was not invited either. I don't know much but what I don't know , I know well . My two cents says we definitely need a branding campaign on a national level with only one brand name for opticians . If nothing else we need to start with that.
Oakley. Ray Ban. Anne Klein. Vogue. Serengeti. Bolle. BMW. Hummer. Armani.
They are all brand names that command premium Value Added Dollars .
Opticians need to be branded . Then consumers will want and desire us . Then others will want to be educated to be us .
The first step is branding on a unified continually advertised basis . The audience is the public.
Ophthalmic Opticians.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
I don't think so . The public is already confused by the 3 O's so branding with something that is contracted to an acronym OO might backfire.
Besides most opticians can't spell Ophthalmic never mind the public.
Thanks, Johns. +1
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
In Canada , Licensed Optician, Registered Optician and Vision Architect are already trademarked and there is a Licensed Optician branding campaign in place , but not advertised enough yet .
When the public first has a vision problem the first thing they think of is what we need to brand ourselves as. We need to be the source they think of for that vision solution and the branding name needs to reflect that position in their minds . It can't be something they can't spell or do not relate to .
For instance in Canada beer can only be bought from the Brewer's Retail Store. However after many years Brewer's Retail came to their senses and repositioned , rebranded and renamed themselves in terms the public thought of ... now they are called exactly what men always said to their wives .."Honey, I am going to the Beer Store" and now Brewer's Retail is called THE BEER STORE.
What the public is confused by are opticians, frame stylists, eyewear consultants, eyewear techs, and doctors' little helpers, that portray themselves to the public as something they are not.
What is a brand? It is a label that is put on a product to testify as to the quality of the product. What good is a brand if the product is junk?
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
Effective branding is being unique and rememberable in terms our customers think of . Branding will never be as effective if it is only expressed in terms that a lawyer and Dr of Latin languages understands. Effective branding is being rememberable in terms our customers understand and relate to ...not us.
Always remember who the audience and readership is.
What good is a brand that has too many letters that leads to constant mispelling on a google search ?
Oh...you mean like Yugo, or Enron?
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
Prime time media advertising can't be wasted by trying to teach the audience how to spell the word they want to look up in the Yellow Pages for a phone number to call .
Now you are mocking me and I had such respect for Johns . Where is Fezz when you need him ?
Wes, Barry ,Warren , Ted ,Chris can you help me out here ?
No...you know I'm not mocking you! I'm trying to make the point that a brand has to be more than a catchy name or phrase. If it has no integrity, even if people know it, and know it well, then it has no value. In our case, I believe that the way to add value to what we do (under any name), is to back it with education.
We are all on the same team, and I really appreciate the opportunity for this discussion.
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
I am teasing you Johns.
A catchy name was not my point. Enron and Yugo are acronyms and only advertising made an association in the public mind with a product much like Coke or Pepsi.
We need to associate with what is already an established first thought in the public mind.
The public does not think of an ophthalmologist or an O.D. or optometrist, they first think " I can't see, I need an eye test. How do we relate to this established thought when they first start in their vision solving journey ?
Last edited by idispense; 03-28-2012 at 09:45 PM.
You must also understand, my Canadian friend, that the term Optician in the US is far different than it is there. In Canada, and you know I have spent much time there, Opticians have to go through some formal education and have similar backgrounds. Here in the US that is not the case. In 27 states, the arduous requirement to enter this field is a pulse, and I even question that in a few cases! Even in licensed states, they cannot agree with anything different than what their state does, which is a real issue. US Opticians must develop a similar background before we will ever really reach any significant change. And whehter the education-haters (usually because they lack one) want to agree or not, it must include a formal education component.
Warren I am a proponent of education, I believe in it. At this stage though a good branding campaign will be the starting point to get everyhone on board the same train. You have the advantage that only a pulse is required so you can trademark the name and license it on the condition of higher education without first requiring individual state licensure legislation .
Drive the public to the brand then the opticans with or without a pulse or education will want to buy into the brand for which you will now require continued education.
The brand is the all important key that drives the rest and if enough buy into the branding concept then the rest including state licensure may follow as a by product.
It must be trademarked using a similiar approach as was used by the North American MLS "Realtor" branding and trademark.
I am saying that we start from the top down .
As opticianry and optometry developed over the last few hundred years it started off as individual local chapters and then evolved into a national level. I am proposing the opposite approach . Start from a national brand and sell down to the local levels till they educate upwards .
I am aware of branding, and its value, but before you can brand anything, there has to be similarities across the target market. Opticians here are vastly different from one state to the other. I can tell you, as a management professor, branding is next to impossible here, and will remain so until we have something to brand across all jurisdictions. A trademark is another issue. You have something there I have recommended for years. Great idea.
Till now , in the States , you have had nothing to sell. people could get a job as an optician with no education or experience or legals that required qualifications . You have been unsuccessfully trying to sell education when none was required . What I am saying is you were selling the wrong thing . Sell the brand and benefit on a national public level then sell the CE and education to those that now see the power in the brand .
Many have tried to sell the education and licensure to the individual States . You have been going to them pleading. Instead make them come to you and plead for your brand .
Last edited by idispense; 03-28-2012 at 10:28 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks