What is the difference between antiglare coated lenses and ARC lenses. Please give me some brand examples.
What is the difference between antiglare coated lenses and ARC lenses. Please give me some brand examples.
They are the same thing. It's just semantics/marketing.
Consumer?/.
I wouldn't expect a consumer to ask about ARC. However, I would expect an ECP to be e-struck with marketing.
Really, you wouldn't? Because I've seen it almost daily for the past twenty years give or take.Originally Posted by CuriousCat
If you're truly working in a lab setting (as the OP's profile stated), at worst this should be as easy an answer your first day on the job as finding the co-worker next to you.
If you mean glare from the wearer's standpoint in the day time, it's called polarized. If you mean glare from the lights at night, or from the standpoint of people looking at the wearer, you have ARC (anti-reflective coating) which may actually increase glare in the daylight from the wearer's standpoint.
Now if the "clear to polarized" actually turns out to be a viable product with ARC it may be both.
Chip
Actually the "anti-glare"-speak is a recent addition to our lExicon. ARC is not.
Essilor seems to call the ARC anti-glare for some reason.
I don't like using the phrase "anti-glare". Consumers get it confused with sun glare that polarization takes care of. "Anti-reflection" is the phrase of choice.
Caroline, L.O.
If you suffer from severe nonlinear waterfowl issues, you don't have your ducks in a row.
Heh. Might as well go ahead and call it what it REALLY is: multi-layer, visible-spectrum, electro-magnetic transmission film.
I HATE the term "glare" when used in an anti-reflective context. It's a dumbed-down consumer-focused term that makes distinguishing between AR and polarized benefits extremely difficult.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Thank you Ange...indeed it does.
In school it's called an anti reflective coating, on the dispensary floor it's best described as an anti glare lens. My sales are higher when I call it anti glare, my posterity is greater when I call it anti reflective. For me it's an anti glare lens.
+1. Do you want to spend time educating the patient on the "correct" terminology, or provide the best experience and spend your time on the factors needed to educate a 2nd and 3rd pair. If that's how they relate, done. Moving on. What's next.
I rarely, if ever see the confusion between sun glare and headlight glare with patients, when using anti-glare. Idk where you all live though, maybe it's relative to geography.
If you call the product anti-glare the customer will expect it to reduce glare from windshields and the like in daylight.
It will actually increase this. You have miss-lead the customer. But I guess anything is OK if it's for Sales.
Chip
+1. Using the term "glare" interchangeably for ARC and polarized is sloppy practice, and confuses the issue enormously. It's simply not that difficult or sales-prohibitive to educate the patient about the very different drawbacks of surface glare and lens reflection. My practice does about 90% AR on clear lenses and nearly 100% polarized on suns because of, not despite, our efforts to educate.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Your lack of education is misleading on this thread but I'll give you a pass. ARC lenses don't increase glare they allow a higher transmission of light so they allow more of the glare to pass through the lens. If I ever caught you lying like that to a client on my sales floor you'd be fired on the spot. We expect professionalism on the sales floor, they should teach that in MS.
Surface glare and lens reflection, you sound like a robot. I never even mentioned polarized so your off on a tangent drinking that haterade.
We do 100% polarized on sunglasses too, not because of the benefits solely but because who wants to breath in those noxious fumes and try matching tints all day for very little money. I hardly ever offer tint, except when we have the low vision patients and I need a 550 or 600 filter, the rest of the time your getting polarized.
Heck sometimes all I have to say is you'll see the fish, bro. That's one of my sales pitches, if I got into surface reflection and some of this other nonsense they would be out the door looking at me like some uppity salesman.
We talk english to our clients, not surface glare lens reflection jibber jabber.
To drive the point home when I buy a car the salesman doesn't have to sell me the tires I assume that they are included. That's why I call it an anti glare lens. "Would you like your lenses with or without glare", not many people want them with glare.
I respectfully but completely disagree, PhiTrace. Please note how I manage to do it without calling you names.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Sloppy practice was not the most respectful response and your not training a pitbull your talking to a human being here. I didn't call you a name, you seem to either have a disconnect with my posts or your trying ot make something out of it, which seems the most likely so, "I say good day".
That was a cheap shot and unprofessional as well.
You’ve kind of lost the high ground here, PhiTrace.
= calling Chip stupid for having a different educated opinion on the subject.lack of education
= calling Chip unprofessional and insulting his home state.We expect professionalism on the sales floor, they should teach that in MS.
= definitely intentionally belittling.you sound like a robot
= also belittling. Also, it's a complete nonsense argument considering my very high AR percentages.We talk english to our clients, not surface glare lens reflection jibber jabber.
I maintain, and pretty much every optical professional I’ve ever worked with agrees, that using the word "glare" to interchangeably describe two very different optical phenomena with two very different solutions is sloppy optical practice, particularly when the alternative is not terribly difficult and doesn’t assume that your patients are too stupid to understand the difference. I don’t think you’ll find a single patient in my office who thinks I sound like a robot. You, on the other hand, sound pretty ignorant in this thread.
Last edited by AngeHamm; 05-04-2012 at 03:36 PM.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Also, did you just call Chip Anderson uneducated????Check out his post count and compare it with yours, dude. Spend some time reading the things he's written on this site.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
That is exactly how your Essilor Eye Know training expects you to respond. And that's the definition of a robotic response, IMHO.
Actually:
Was a cheap shot.
CuriousCat,
If passive agressive is Ok, I dn't understand why a more agressive approach isn't Ok. Again you don't have to like me for my point to be valid, but the passive agressive responses were replied too in kind.
Now that's a great response and I am glad you are at least admitting the method I use is a valid and effective respose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks