Stopping Warby Parker

**Chris Ryser** · 09-29-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by denizen

The page is no longer available. Could you please tell me what the second column determines? Is it ranking the popularity of the website? Thanks.

The page is fully available at ------------------> http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm

The second coloumn is the Google ranking and the next one the Alexa traffic ranking at ---------> http://www.alexa.com/

**Dennis** · 09-29-2012, 02:12 PM

The second column is the Google Page Rank, also known as PR. (Facebook has ER, Edge Rank) It determines the popularity of the website based on the Google patented algorithm, with more than 200 factors being considered, such as the links quality and quantity, links authority, web content, social media footprint, customer reviews, web layout, server response speed, many many factors.

To correct Chris's PR number and Alexa rank with the NEW order as follows: (As of Sept 29, 2012)

1. MisterSpex PR 5, Alexa 18953 (Germany), Number of Facebook fans: 0

2. ZenniOptical PR 5, Alexa 24367 (US), Number of Facebook fans: 69K

3. WarbyParker PR 6 Alexa 25801 (US), Number of Facebook fans: 93K

4. FramesDirect PR 5, Alexa 27486 (US), Number of Facebook fans: 6K

5. Firmoo, PR 4, Alexa 27764 (US), Number of Facebook fans: 525K

6. EyeBuyDirect PR 4 , Alexa 42659 (US), Number of Facebook fans: 6K

Normally a website above PR 3 is a good site.

Firmoo has the highest number of Facebook fans, as high as 525K; the second is WarbyParker with 93K. Facebook fan number becomes the biggest metrics of social network footprint for one website.

WarbyParker has higher PR of 6, because their publicity policy contains many press release in nation-wide high-authority media such New York Times, and recently they are airing new ADDRESSABLE TV ads at DishTV.

Hope this answers your question.

**denizen** · 09-29-2012, 04:21 PM

thank you both for the explanation.

**opt63** · 09-29-2012, 06:02 PM

The assumption that outfits like Warby Parker are just after the "bottom feeders" is quite frankly way off. (On a side note, if folks have such a cynical view of potential customers this might explain ones struggling sales... just saying).

Places like WP aren't focusing on the bottom of the market, they're really focusing on simple single vision Rx jobs (I don't believe they'll fill anything else) and targeting towards a certain fashion genre. When looking at their customer base they're looking at the people that view glasses as part of their wardrobe. They're going after the customer that owns and uses 3+ different pair, choosing a daily pair based on their mood and outfit. This sort of customer wants a quality, fashionable pair of specs at a decent price--once that means they can own many different pairs. This type of customer isn't going to buy one $600 pair of glasses... they're more interested in owning 4 $150 pair of glasses. It would appear many of the folks pointing fingers at WP, with I might add a somewhat obvious tone of regret, clearly don't understand this very important and growing segment of today's optical customer base.

As to what this means for us... well markets change and we need to adapt. For a savvy simple single vision Rx customer it's hard to sell them a $500 pair of glasses. That doesn't mean the customer is some sort of "bottom feeder." It means that the person selling the specs isn't putting a product and service out there that people think is worth $500. The fact that so many of us are upset though suggests that we are hurting and we're frustrated that we can't quickly adapt business models to meet consumer expectations. We like to think of our industry as being part of the medical profession, but fundamentally optical is a consumer driven business and like any consumer driven business you either adapt to changing markets or you gradually become irrelivent.

As for those hoping regulations will shut down WP and similar, this is a dead end. We all like to think of specs as a "medical device" and from a functional standpoint they certainly are... but from a regulatory standpoint this is a whole different arena. History has shown time and time again that specs are regulated more like a consumer product than a medical device.

I get the frustration with online... we all feel it. But quite honestly we really have two choices: 1) continue to groan about it while it continues to steal away more customers, or 2) figure out how we evolve and adapt our business models to stay on top--we may not like the competition, but it IS increasingly our competition.

Personally, I focus my time and energy on #2 lest I be part of the brick and mortar industry that the market will make irrelevant to make room for the growing online segment.

Just my two cents...

**Dennis** · 09-29-2012, 07:38 PM

Online optical will be there around the world. There are two cases of venture capital funding supporting the online optical business, one is brille24.de (again in Germany), the other is WP. Relative reports see below, both cases occur in September of 2012:

1. Brille24. de, in Sept 2012, http://www.finsmes.com/2012/09/brill...-partners.html first round 12M Euro

2. WP, also in Sept 2012, http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...es-36-million/, third round 36M USD

**tx11** · 09-29-2012, 09:58 PM

I guess we need to come up with an Master of Ophthalmic Retailing certification

**Browman** · 10-01-2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by opt63

The assumption that outfits like Warby Parker are just after the "bottom feeders" is quite frankly way off. (On a side note, if folks have such a cynical view of potential customers this might explain ones struggling sales... just saying).

Places like WP aren't focusing on the bottom of the market, they're really focusing on simple single vision Rx jobs (I don't believe they'll fill anything else) and targeting towards a certain fashion genre. When looking at their customer base they're looking at the people that view glasses as part of their wardrobe. They're going after the customer that owns and uses 3+ different pair, choosing a daily pair based on their mood and outfit. This sort of customer wants a quality, fashionable pair of specs at a decent price--once that means they can own many different pairs. This type of customer isn't going to buy one $600 pair of glasses... they're more interested in owning 4 $150 pair of glasses. It would appear many of the folks pointing fingers at WP, with I might add a somewhat obvious tone of regret, clearly don't understand this very important and growing segment of today's optical customer base.

Another market consideration: 20-somethings. It's no coincidence that most of the onlines are hocking big plastics; this is what flies with the early-20s to early 30s crowd right now. (Seriously, step back a moment, and look at WP's catalogue. Does anyone here really think that these people are taking your business from anyone over 40)? This demographic also has less purchasing power, a higher chance of no vision insurance, and more job and financial instability than someone in his/her mid-30s+. They may like the idea of a designer frame with a $150 water-repellant AR coating, but their pocketbook says otherwise. The WPs of the net are offering them a product they need, like, and can afford. Most of us aren't going to see these people in our places of business, anyway.

**opt63** · 10-01-2012, 11:43 AM

Agreed. The issue for us though is that Warby sells high index with a decent (albeit private label) AR. Frames are also private label and of good quality (from the few I've seen in person). So how do we justify selling a product that is multiples more in price? It's hard. Really hard... and our industry has done a very poor job of convincing most consumers why X AR is better than Y AR (or pick your other expensive add on). I go back to my original problem statement that an increasing number of consumers don't understand why we think our product and service is worth what we're asking. The answers there are hard an will keep getting harder as online takes a firmer hold. For now we focus on the more complicated Rx where online is, at least today, less of a viable option for many... but that too will like evolve in the future. Who knows the eyeglasses dispensing vending machine is probably closer than we'd like to think!

**Barry Santini** · 10-01-2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by opt63

Agreed. The issue for us though is that Warby sells high index with a decent (albeit private label) AR. Frames are also private label and of good quality (from the few I've seen in person). So how do we justify selling a product that is multiples more in price? It's hard. Really hard... !

Not really. Firstly, most Rxs in these deep shapes are best done with moderate to high Abbe FF lenses, with pupil heights, panto, and wrap angles taken. Plus, they're fitted by people (like me) that REALLY know how to fit eyewear.

With the above, plus many others, it's not hard at all to justify the cost difference. I do it every day.

B

**opt63** · 10-01-2012, 12:55 PM

^^ :-)

We agree there. It can certainly be done but it does require work (you suggest it's not hard but one still does have to justify the prices--which you clearly do.). However you also clearly have the right attitude too: namely "I'll win because I'm going to produce a better product and convince the consumer to choose me." The attitude of done on this forum seems to be "I don't like the competition so how do we get them shut down". The latter is one that's historically doomed for failure.

**denizen** · 10-01-2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by opt63

Agreed. The issue for us though is that Warby sells high index with a decent (albeit private label) AR. Frames are also private label and of good quality (from the few I've seen in person). So how do we justify selling a product that is multiples more in price? It's hard. Really hard... and our industry has done a very poor job of convincing most consumers why X AR is better than Y AR (or pick your other expensive add on). I go back to my original problem statement that an increasing number of consumers don't understand why we think our product and service is worth what we're asking. The answers there are hard an will keep getting harder as online takes a firmer hold. For now we focus on the more complicated Rx where online is, at least today, less of a viable option for many... but that too will like evolve in the future. Who knows the eyeglasses dispensing vending machine is probably closer than we'd like to think!

Are you kidding? Good quality frames? They claim they come from the same factories as Ray Ban China but they are leagues apart.

I do agree that people need a more positive outlook. Online companies compete for a particular niche. You cannot satisfy everybody even with products people use everyday like toilet paper. There are a ton of toilet paper brands for different preferences and at differing price points.

Companies like Warby did not reinvent the wheel. They took aspects of companies already successful and implemented the positives.

I will give one advice I paid nearly 10k for in consulting fees five years ago. Lol. The optical consultant stated I had too much of a mixture of frame pricing. I had crapola to high end. He says that is confusing to consumers. You either go low end and sell the hell out of them or you go high end. He stated when you go to buy nice clothes, you do not go to Target or Walmart. You head to places like Nordstroms. Different market. Focus on one market and do it well.

**tx11** · 10-02-2012, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by denizen

Are you kidding? Good quality frames? They claim they come from the same factories as Ray Ban China but they are leagues apart.

I do agree that people need a more positive outlook. Online companies compete for a particular niche. You cannot satisfy everybody even with products people use everyday like toilet paper. There are a ton of toilet paper brands for different preferences and at differing price points.

Companies like Warby did not reinvent the wheel. They took aspects of companies already successful and implemented the positives.

I will give one advice I paid nearly 10k for in consulting fees five years ago. Lol. The optical consultant stated I had too much of a mixture of frame pricing. I had crapola to high end. He says that is confusing to consumers. You either go low end and sell the hell out of them or you go high end. He stated when you go to buy nice clothes, you do not go to Target or Walmart. You head to places like Nordstroms. Different market. Focus on one market and do it well.

AND... IMHO don't get upset if consumers don't see the value for the price and take their money elsewhere. If you are okay with that, then you will be a happy optical retailer.

**tx11** · 10-02-2012, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by opt63

Agreed. The issue for us though is that Warby sells high index with a decent (albeit private label) AR. Frames are also private label and of good quality (from the few I've seen in person). So how do we justify selling a product that is multiples more in price? It's hard. Really hard... and our industry has done a very poor job of convincing most consumers why X AR is better than Y AR (or pick your other expensive add on). I go back to my original problem statement that an increasing number of consumers don't understand why we think our product and service is worth what we're asking. The answers there are hard an will keep getting harder as online takes a firmer hold. For now we focus on the more complicated Rx where online is, at least today, less of a viable option for many... but that too will like evolve in the future. Who knows the eyeglasses dispensing vending machine is probably closer than we'd like to think!

Is there a way for B&M to ALSO compete on-line and keep some of that market?

**idispense** · 10-02-2012, 09:42 AM

as I mentioned earlier, on liners succeed because :

(1) they are willing to break laws.
(2) you are afraid to break laws

but I should have added:

(3) you are afraid of your regulators and refuse to ask for value for your licensing dollars

For those of you that are wondering how to lower the cost of running a brick and mortar store so you can compete, the answer to that is simple:

Step (1) stop paying your license fees as many of you have pointed out that your regulators are doing nothing to stop the on liners. If that is the case and they are there for "Public Protection" then quit paying for no return on your investment. When their cash flow is cut off and they rethink their existence then revisit licensing. In the meantime lower your expenses. They are wasting your time and you are wasting your money.

You won't do step (1) because you are afraid of the very thing you created, Regulators . Your fear to demand ROI (return on investment) created your 2nd problem , ON LINERS , they are not afraid to break laws because they know you are afraid to uphold them and your are scared and afraid of your own creation , Regulators. And Regulators are afraid to go up against on liners , why should they spend money on that anyhow?

Regulators already have your yearly money coming in like clock work and you are afraid of them. Regulators know that you are ruled by fear and will never oppose them or seek Return on Investment, they don't need to do anything risky.

You created your own monster and you continue to feed it yearly and your fear creates the by product known as On Liners who do not share your vision and fear.

**Barry Santini** · 10-02-2012, 09:51 AM

I have a different philosophy about Warby Parker:

I think it will never be about the *percentage* of unhappy clients. Rather, it will be about the *total number of unhappy clients*

As with laser surgery, if someone knows someone who hears about someone...

Then THAT, non-complimentary social buzz will be the engine of stopping their growth. Therefore, you want them to enjoy tremendous success NOW...when they are least able to:

1. Have their contract labs handle it.
2. Ensure their contract labs deliver acceptable quality and vision
3. Consider using better lenses and AR (cost!)

Mark my words. You will see!

B

**Browman** · 10-02-2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

as I mentioned earlier, on liners succeed because :

(1) they are willing to break laws.
(2) you are afraid to break laws

but I should have added:

(3) you are afraid of your regulators and refuse to ask for value for your licensing dollars

For those of you that are wondering how to lower the cost of running a brick and mortar store so you can compete, the answer to that is simple:

The part after (3) betrays the rest:

lower the cost of running a brick and mortar store so you can compete

We can try and make ourselves feel noble all we like by talking about law breaking and low abiding, but ultimately, people aren't going to online because they get off on law breaking, and online would still be able to provide lower costs even with regulation. It's down to dollars and cents: For myriad reasons, some legitimate, some not, B&M is charging more than people are willing to pay. We're witnessing market adjustment, plain and simple.

**Browman** · 10-02-2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by denizen

Are you kidding? Good quality frames? They claim they come from the same factories as Ray Ban China but they are leagues apart.

They're no Ray-Ban-- nothing is-- but there's a big space between Ray-Ban and pliable, melts-in-the-sun crap. In the world of online, it's a higher-end product than most are selling (and probably a lot more durable than some of our own B&M "budget" lines; I'd like to see an experiment of WP vs. Wal-Mart's "basic" zyls).

**denizen** · 10-02-2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Browman

They're no Ray-Ban-- nothing is-- but there's a big space between Ray-Ban and pliable, melts-in-the-sun crap. In the world of online, it's a higher-end product than most are selling (and probably a lot more durable than some of our own B&M "budget" lines; I'd like to see an experiment of WP vs. Wal-Mart's "basic" zyls).

probably comparable quality, but warby has a big leg up on the styling.

**denizen** · 10-02-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by tx11

[/COLOR]
AND... IMHO don't get upset if consumers don't see the value for the price and take their money elsewhere. If you are okay with that, then you will be a happy optical retailer.

I totally agree. We all want to sell to anybody with money, but in the long run, better to target repeat customers. That loyalty comes with filling a niche. I concentrate on high end now. I sell less frames due to the price, but I make more money and work less than I did when I had the lower line frames. I have nothing against churning out lower and high margin frames, it is not the business model I wanted. Each their own.

**Chris Ryser** · 10-02-2012, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Browman

They're no Ray-Ban-- nothing is-- but there's a big space between Ray-Ban and pliable, melts-in-the-sun crap.

You can find them all on http://alibaba.com . A name means nothing anymore these days, there are frame manufacrurers by the ton in ever area of the globe: here is a count:

Select Country/Region

East Asia (26370)
South Asia (140)
Southeast Asia (64)
North America (218)

Europe (49)
Middle East (25)
South America (5)
Africa (1)

Have fun checking them all out and find the real and fake ones

**drk** · 10-02-2012, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by idispense

as I mentioned earlier, on liners succeed because :

(1) they are willing to break laws.
(2) you are afraid to break laws

but I should have added:

(3) you are afraid of your regulators and refuse to ask for value for your licensing dollars

For those of you that are wondering how to lower the cost of running a brick and mortar store so you can compete, the answer to that is simple:

Step (1) stop paying your license fees as many of you have pointed out that your regulators are doing nothing to stop the on liners. If that is the case and they are there for "Public Protection" then quit paying for no return on your investment. When their cash flow is cut off and they rethink their existence then revisit licensing. In the meantime lower your expenses. They are wasting your time and you are wasting your money.

You won't do step (1) because you are afraid of the very thing you created, Regulators . Your fear to demand ROI (return on investment) created your 2nd problem , ON LINERS , they are not afraid to break laws because they know you are afraid to uphold them and your are scared and afraid of your own creation , Regulators. And Regulators are afraid to go up against on liners , why should they spend money on that anyhow?

Regulators already have your yearly money coming in like clock work and you are afraid of them. Regulators know that you are ruled by fear and will never oppose them or seek Return on Investment, they don't need to do anything risky.

You created your own monster and you continue to feed it yearly and your fear creates the by product known as On Liners who do not share your vision and fear.

I applaud this.

I think if we can get the fine for violation way, way up, the States will have a revenue incentive to enforce. Just like a speed trap in a podunk town.

**opt63** · 10-03-2012, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by drk

I applaud this.

I think if we can get the fine for violation way, way up, the States will have a revenue incentive to enforce. Just like a speed trap in a podunk town.

It's really the Feds (ie the FTC) that we need to convince more so than the states. Most online purchases are interstate commerce transactions. Historically the Feds have not been friendly to the views of many on this forum.

When asked to comment on online optical in the past the FTC has been largely supportive of the idea. For decades the FTC has enforced the rule that after an exam a patient but be given an Rx that contains all the info required for them to have a pair of glasses made by a business other than the one that provided the exam. This is the problem with the views of many on this forum. If we convince states that things like the PD are an essential exam measurement the FTC will likely simply turn around and say "fine, now you must include that on the patient Rx so it's available to the outfit producing the glasses"

Of course it's better to make measurements as part of a personal fitting but quite frankly that argument is just too nuanced for a regulatory fight and the big lawyers the PE backed online shops would bring to any such fight would rip it up. (After all people have been doing their own exams and fittings with drug shop readers for ages without much issue... Would a pair fitted and made by a master optician be better? Of course. But should the former be blocked by regulation? That's probably not going to happen)

We need to focus our energy towards competing on quality of service not crying to regulators that very well may come down against us in the end anyway.

**idispense** · 10-03-2012, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by opt63

... Would a pair fitted and made by a master optician be better? Of course. But should the former be blocked by regulation? That's probably not going to happen)

We need to focus our energy towards competing on quality of service not crying to regulators that very well may come down against us in the end anyway.

There you have it , the fear at work ! The fear of repercussion . The paranoia ... they will come to get me if I go crying to them and ask for a return on my investment.

On-liners do not have that fear or that expense. They are not crippled in a changing world.

**optimensch** · 10-03-2012, 07:52 AM

A long-standing client (the whole family really) recently brought in about 6 pairs of WP frames. Needed progressives in all of them. Bitter sweet experience since it was a nice bit of work for us (6 pairs of HD progressives). All were bought a bit "sight (site?) unseen" and they all looked quite fine on him. To be totally honest, these frames had nice hinges, of the 5 or 7 barrel type. I thought the quality seemed quite ok , particularly for the price. These WP guys are venturing more in to Canada and into the PAL market soon. Oy vey.

**MikeAurelius** · 10-03-2012, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by opt63

It's really the Feds (ie the FTC) that we need to convince more so than the states. Most online purchases are interstate commerce transactions. Historically the Feds have not been friendly to the views of many on this forum.

When asked to comment on online optical in the past the FTC has been largely supportive of the idea. For decades the FTC has enforced the rule that after an exam a patient but be given an Rx that contains all the info required for them to have a pair of glasses made by a business other than the one that provided the exam. This is the problem with the views of many on this forum. If we convince states that things like the PD are an essential exam measurement the FTC will likely simply turn around and say "fine, now you must include that on the patient Rx so it's available to the outfit producing the glasses"

Of course it's better to make measurements as part of a personal fitting but quite frankly that argument is just too nuanced for a regulatory fight and the big lawyers the PE backed online shops would bring to any such fight would rip it up. (After all people have been doing their own exams and fittings with drug shop readers for ages without much issue... Would a pair fitted and made by a master optician be better? Of course. But should the former be blocked by regulation? That's probably not going to happen)

We need to focus our energy towards competing on quality of service not crying to regulators that very well may come down against us in the end anyway.

+1. The FTC is on the side of the consumer. This has been shown time and time again. The more dispensers and opticians make it difficult for the patient to obtain an PD, the more the FTC will push back and ultimately they are going to rule that the PD is part of the prescription and you will be FORCED to provide it free of charge and in a form usable by ANYBODY. Which means not in inches, not in some secret code, but in millimeters, and most likely in monocular form.

There is always going to be a place for the brick and mortar store, just like there is going to always be a place for the on-line store. But the more you push against it by unfair (to the consumer) competition, the more likely it is that you are going to be slapped down by the Feds (regardless of who the President is).