How do you market your Digital lenses?

**jmchapman** · 07-02-2012, 02:49 PM

So I want to know, my fellow opticians. How do you market your digital lenses, specifically digital single vision lenses. Do you call them HD lenses? What are you doing? With the addition of Digital lenses to VSP's benefits I want to start offering them more now.

**Robert_S** · 07-02-2012, 02:54 PM

I just call them digital lenses and explain the benefits to the patient. 'HD' might be slightly misleading. If you take a -1.00/-0.25 R+L, it isn't going to be any more 'HD'.

If you want to break it down into the specific features, see my earlier post:

Originally Posted by Robert_S

Here's what you should tell the patient they are getting if you are dispensing Nulux EP:

1) The sharpest vision possible through the centre of the lens.
2) Excellent vision from edge to edge (the best peripheral vision).
3) The flattest, and usually thinnest prescription lens available (assuming you use the correct material).
4) Improved cosmetic appearance; less magnification/demagnification of objects through the lens, particularly the patient's eyes.
5) A Hoya coating (a choice of Super HiVision or HiVision Longlife) -Hoya make the best coatings in the world. I usually tell the patients about their premium AR whilst I'm writing out the order.

With all that, I don't know how some of them say no! Unfortunately some will, but the ones who invest in the lenses will be very impressed. Remember to only dispense it if the prescription is one that will benefit, as Barry and I discussed above.

PS. Sorry for sounding like I work for Hoya. I use the Zeiss Individual SV as well, and it's a great lens.

**jmchapman** · 07-02-2012, 03:15 PM

I appreciate the response Robert!

**Robert_S** · 07-02-2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by jmchapman

I appreciate the response Robert!

You're welcome. If I have a patient who I think will benefit from a digital lens, I will simply describe the lens I recommend and explain the benefits the patient will receive. That is usually enough.

I'll always preface our discussion by explaining that superb vision is achieved only from a good combination of lens design, prescription, material, and coating, so that they appreciate the discussion we're about to have, as many think that as long as their prescription is filled, that's enough.

**J.P.** · 07-02-2012, 04:11 PM

I hate the term "HD Lenses" I have actually told my doctors to STOP using that therm when they describe them. I call them "FreeForm" or "Personalized Lenses" that are made within .01 diopters of their RX instead of .25 to make for a more accurate, precise and crisper vision superior to previous ground lenses.

Keep it simple, don't try to over do it. Unless you have that engineer who just has to know every step of how they are made

**Robert_S** · 07-02-2012, 04:17 PM

I very much agree, J.P. It's like calling AR 'anti-glare' - a lazy terminology.

**Barry Santini** · 07-02-2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by J.P.

I hate the term "HD Lenses" I have actually told my doctors to STOP using that therm when they describe them. I call them "FreeForm" or "Personalized Lenses" that are made within .01 diopters of their RX instead of .25 to make for a more accurate, precise and crisper vision superior to previous ground lenses.

Keep it simple, don't try to over do it. Unless you have that engineer who just has to know every step of how they are made

I would respectfully disagree. I think to call them "more accurate" is a misnomer. They are, when done right, lens designs that are better corrected for the way in which your eyewear fits and is used. The "scope" of vision is sharper. Central acuity is, for the most part, not much different. it is the areas away from the center which are much better corrected. Of course, some corrections, because of their strength, eyepoint orn POW values, also perform better in straight ahead gaze angles.

I see no problem with the term "HD" vision. I tell my clients that this "class" of lens is referred to as commonly digitally-enhanced or HD, and that there exists a tiered hierarchy of good, better best, just like with all other consumer products.

FWIW

B

**Robert_S** · 07-02-2012, 05:06 PM

The problem is that if you asked customers what they would think you meant by the term "HD Vision", 90% or more would assume you are referring to sharper vision through the centre, and as you noted, that is not necessarily the case. Of course it can be in some instances. I know where you're coming from though. I think we do agree, really.

**J.P.** · 07-02-2012, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Barry Santini

I would respectfully disagree. I think to call them "more accurate" is a misnomer. They are, when done right, lens designs that are better corrected for the way in which your eyewear fits and is used. The "scope" of vision is sharper. Central acuity is, for the most part, not much different. it is the areas away from the center which are much better corrected. Of course, some corrections, because of their strength, eyepoint orn POW values, also perform better in straight ahead gaze angles.

I see no problem with the term "HD" vision. I tell my clients that this "class" of lens is referred to as commonly digitally-enhanced or HD, and that there exists a tiered hierarchy of good, better best, just like with all other consumer products.

FWIW

B

Barry, I have to still disagree with the term. HD or High Definition is a term used for TV's and can be VERY misleading to a large portions of glasses wearers. High Myopes yes will be given a larger and wider range of vision, up to a 25% and greater peripheral vision, but a great many that I have done digitally surfaced lenses with a -7.00+ and the frame shape and lens BC are a match, most will say "Yeah, I do have a small amount of additional peripheral vision, and things look about the same" .... Of course they may be a 20/Happy and just not really notice the difference. Most people you can wave a shiny object in front of them, tell them it's the best they will ever have and they will honestly believe it. Just like HD TV's, which I honestly see no real difference except colors look better. That doesn't mean colors are going to look any better in a Digital Lens.

It's just a term I feel uncomfortable using to try to up sell lenses. I'm straight forward and I'm just going to tell them "things will look better, you will have sharper and clearer vision, and a wider field of vision." It's more of a mouth full, but better then using a term that I don't feel fits spectacle terminology.

**jmchapman** · 07-02-2012, 08:50 PM

I like the term digitally enhanced. It "sounds" awesome.

**Yeap** · 07-03-2012, 12:53 AM

usually my approach is to tell them as customize or tailored made lens to their wearing habit then quote a example such as a pair of shoe or a new suit. make them aware the benefit compare to conventional lenses and perceive the value they paid. hope it helps in your practice.

**Barry Santini** · 07-03-2012, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by J.P.

Barry, I have to still disagree with the term. HD or High Definition is a term used for TV's and can be VERY misleading to a large portions of glasses wearers. High Myopes yes will be given a larger and wider range of vision, up to a 25% and greater peripheral vision, but a great many that I have done digitally surfaced lenses with a -7.00+ and the frame shape and lens BC are a match, most will say "Yeah, I do have a small amount of additional peripheral vision, and things look about the same" .... Of course they may be a 20/Happy and just not really notice the difference. Most people you can wave a shiny object in front of them, tell them it's the best they will ever have and they will honestly believe it. Just like HD TV's, which I honestly see no real difference except colors look better. That doesn't mean colors are going to look any better in a Digital Lens.

It's just a term I feel uncomfortable using to try to up sell lenses. I'm straight forward and I'm just going to tell them "things will look better, you will have sharper and clearer vision, and a wider field of vision." It's more of a mouth full, but better then using a term that I don't feel fits spectacle terminology.

interesting. Your experiences do not match mine at all. If I use Zeiss Individual SV in a -7.00 sphere with proper POWsand care about total prism in front of the axial gaze, i always get "I never want anything but these lenses ever again."

I guess YMMV.

B

**J.P.** · 07-03-2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Barry Santini

interesting. Your experiences do not match mine at all. If I use Zeiss Individual SV in a -7.00 sphere with proper POWsand care about total prism in front of the axial gaze, i always get "I never want anything but these lenses ever again."

I guess YMMV.

B

I'm not saying that all don't like it, but the majority will always say, "ehh, Yeah, I guess it looks better" even one of my OD's was the same way with her's. I mostly use the Shamir SV Autograph II with all POW measurments, and I've used Essilors lenses as well, and all I get about eh same response.