Coastal Bait & Switch - Where's the BIG DEAL???

[HindSight2020]

Curiousity finally prevailed...So, I finally thought I'd waste ten minutes of my life over my morning java and test out Coastal's website as an on-line consumer. Their $38 special is back for a limited time for St. Paddy's day, I was in the mood to look like Buddy Holly, so I gave it a whirl...

A Derek Cardigan plastic frame (fictitious designer), simple Rx for my myopia, a few clicks later and voila - $147.00 was in the cart. A few more clicks on a popular plastic Ray-Ban with the same Rx and this time was $247.00. Classic bait and switch with no real savings, so where's the deals?

There's some decent margins in those figures even at a retail level. Perhaps the culprit of failure for a retailer is one of greed rather than competition?

[optimensch]

Curiousity finally prevailed...So, I finally thought I'd waste ten minutes of my life over my morning java and test out Coastal's website as an on-line consumer. Their $38 special is back for a limited time for St. Paddy's day, I was in the mood to look like Buddy Holly, so I gave it a whirl...

A Derek Cardigan plastic frame (fictitious designer), simple Rx for my myopia, a few clicks later and voila - $147.00 was in the cart. A few more clicks on a popular plastic Ray-Ban with the same Rx and this time was $247.00. Classic bait and switch with no real savings, so where's the deals?

There's some decent margins in those figures even at a retail level. Perhaps the culprit of failure for a retailer is one of greed rather than competition?

Now THAT is some good investigative optical undercover work, love it.
the bait/switch at work there, and yet their numbers indicate an average sale of $58- which leads me to believe there are tons of giveaways (which builds a customer base of people looking for free glasses - and not much else) in addition to a few who are hoodwinked into the bigger spend.

[HindSight2020]

Now THAT is some good investigative optical undercover work, love it.
the bait/switch at work there, and yet their numbers indicate an average sale of $58- which leads me to believe there are tons of giveaways (which builds a customer base of people looking for free glasses - and not much else) in addition to a few who are hoodwinked into the bigger spend.

And exactly the kind of consumers a BM doesn't want! Perhaps they are doing us a favour and more of a friend than a foe?

[MakeOptics]

Your exact same scenario turned up $242.70 for both pair. (proof attached) To compete you have to stop lying to yourself first.

[Browman]

Seems like the exact same scenario that would take place at a chain optical. I don't see what's so "special" here. Anyone ever try to take advantage of VisionWorks' "two for $99" deal? I guarantee you the average consumer will NOT have $99 on their bill at the end of the sale.

The "average" sale figure makes perfect sense-- most of CC's customers are probably under 40, and most probably have RXs of ~-2.00, give or take a few diopters. That means they get to have the SV poly lenses (RX over, I believe, -3.00 or -3.25 forces the customer into a 1.67, hence the elevated price).

[HindSight2020]

Seems like the exact same scenario that would take place at a chain optical. I don't see what's so "special" here. Anyone ever try to take advantage of VisionWorks' "two for $99" deal? I guarantee you the average consumer will NOT have $99 on their bill at the end of the sale.

The "average" sale figure makes perfect sense-- most of CC's customers are probably under 40, and most probably have RXs of ~-2.00, give or take a few diopters. That means they get to have the SV poly lenses (RX over, I believe, -3.00 or -3.25 forces the customer into a 1.67, hence the elevated price).

Heck, wouldn't be a bad idea to run through the website with a customer while in your office just to prove the value us 'Legal Independents' are providing at no additional cost!

[Golfnorth]

I think you would look maaaveelloeous in those Buddy Holly frames!

Regards,
Golfnorth

[idispense]

Still they should not be allowed to dispense into licensed provinces. That is a serious faux pas on the part of regulators. The regulators are just asking for membership backlash and creating their their own serious credibility problems with both membership and legislators wondering why anyone needs their existence for "protection" .

Regulators need to work on their " proof of harm " issues and do something useful with the money they collect from us .

[idispense]

Some of the largest damage being done to our industry today is that onliners are establishing in the publics mind the perception of value of eyewear as being $ 38.00 or less .

That $ 38.00 perception of value established in Hindsight's mind is what finally prompted Hindsight to order. Thats the same thing that propels the public to order.

That "price image branding" destroys trust and faith in ECP's and our product.

In Ontario we pay almost $ 2,000,000.00 per year in licensing fees. The only outreach the regulator makes to contact the public and protect them is what ? Whats their budget to directly reach the public they protect ? Is their web site the one and only means they use to reach that public they protect ?

Will they pay out almost the entire years revenue in a lawsuit instead ?

[IhaveSpecialEyes]

Besides the 50% failure rate of Online glasses the other thing that really irritates the %$#@## out of me is that NO-ONE is getting these RX's verified. SO I can go put in any old Rx and get glasses, that is some BS right there.

[Browman]

I think you would look maaaveelloeous in those Buddy Holly frames!

Regards,
Golfnorth

If that's sarcasm, then you are woefully out of touch with what is in vogue amongst 18-30 somethings. There's a reason for the proliferation of 50s plastics.

[HindSight2020]

If that's sarcasm, then you are woefully out of touch with what is in vogue amongst 18-30 somethings. There's a reason for the proliferation of 50s plastics.

Golfnorth is just poking a little fun - all good!

[idispense]

Besides the 50% failure rate of Online glasses the other thing that really irritates the %$#@## out of me is that NO-ONE is getting these RX's verified. SO I can go put in any old Rx and get glasses, that is some BS right there.

If there is a 50 % failure rate then why is this not being communicated to the ones that need "public protection" by the one that claims a mandate "to protect the public" ?

They have our almost $ 2,000,000.00 to enable them. Where is the money being spent ?

[HindSight2020]

Some of the largest damage being done to our industry today is that onliners are establishing in the publics mind the perception of value of eyewear as being $ 38.00 or less .

That $ 38.00 perception of value established in Hindsight's mind is what finally prompted Hindsight to order. Thats the same thing that propels the public to order.

That "price image branding" destroys trust and faith in ECP's and our product.

In Ontario we pay almost $ 2,000,000.00 per year in licensing fees. The only outreach the regulator makes to contact the public and protect them is what ? Whats their budget to directly reach the public they protect ? Is their web site the one and only means they use to reach that public they protect ?

Will they pay out almost the entire years revenue in a lawsuit instead ?

Just so we're clear...

1. I didn't order the glasses - just simply tested it all out as far as I could before they asked for payment. Geesh cut me some slack and give me some credit man.
2. I disagree that we are all being painted with the $38 analogy. Value is perceived differently by everyone.
3. People don't shop solely based on price as the key factor in their decision - unless they're from Niagara Falls.
4. The College doesn't care about us and probably never will so get Tito to pass you a tissue and move on.

[idispense]

And exactly the kind of consumers a BM doesn't want! Perhaps they are doing us a favour and more of a friend than a foe?

Whether we want those customers or not is not the point.

[Browman]

Golfnorth is just poking a little fun - all good!

Sorry, but this is the genuine attitude of a lot of ECPs I've encountered -- "It's ugly and outdated" -- who are genuinely oblivious to the fact that this is what their patients want. It's very hard to tell in print.

Meanwhile, I just went ahead and tried to place my own order on the American site. Got a final price of $33 USD (myope, low RX with a low stig in OD) including shipping and SV poly lenses; the frame is being comped, but without the coupon, it still only would've been $71. Would probably be among the lowest price I've paid for a pair of specs, insurance not withstanding.

[IhaveSpecialEyes]

Good question, although I myself have read several articles regarding this.

[IhaveSpecialEyes]

http://newsfromaoa.org/2011/11/09/ha...pecifications/

[Golfnorth]

[QUOTE=Browman;455367]Sorry, but this is the genuine attitude of a lot of ECPs I've encountered -- "It's ugly and outdated" -- who are genuinely oblivious to the fact that this is what their patients want. It's very hard to tell in print.

It's okay. I do stock lots of the latest chunky plastics and we also have a Vintage section for those clients who prefer that look. I have met Hindsight and know that the chunky plastic frame would not be the best look for him. That's what was behind my post.

Regards,
Golfnorth

[idispense]

Heck, wouldn't be a bad idea to run through the website with a customer while in your office just to prove the value us 'Legal Independents' are providing at no additional cost!

That's a decent idea with the exception that it would be similar to what happened in the Great Glasses case a few years ago, each office would in effect be promoting the competition at the same time.

[HindSight2020]

That's a decent idea with the exception that it would be similar to what happened in the Great Glasses case a few years ago, each office would in effect be promoting the competition at the same time.

When one is providing a comparison to prove value and how you are the better choice for their well earned dollar, one is promoting themselves, not their competition.

[idispense]

When one is providing a comparison to prove value and how you are the better choice for their well earned dollar, one is promoting themselves, not their competition.

Very true, but you are also showing them an option for purchasing from their home which is technically illegal in many provinces, which also highlights the shortcomings of our thousand dollar a year College. It's not a nice can of worms to open up to the customer.


How do you tell the customer , here it is but don't do it even if the glasses are free because it is illegal in this province ?

If this issue has been festering for ten years then we have already put $ 20,000,000.00 yes twenty million, into this kitty . What direct public contact rebuttal have we purchased for twenty million ?

You would have no credibility with the customer when the Customer will just retort: "well if it were illegal it would not be happening and why shouldn't I take the free glasses ? "

Otherwise I truly like your idea, but it opens a can of worms we should not have to be even exposed to after providing two million dollars a year to stop .

[HindSight2020]

Very true, but you are also showing them an option for purchasing from their home which is technically illegal in many provinces, which also highlights the shortcomings of our thousand dollar a year College. It's not a nice can of worms to open up to the customer.


How do you tell the customer , here it is but don't do it even if the glasses are free because it is illegal in this province ?

If this issue has been festering for ten years then we have already put $ 20,000,000.00 yes twenty million, into this kitty . What direct public contact rebuttal have we purchased for twenty million ?

You would have no credibility with the customer when the Customer will just retort: "well if it were illegal it would not be happening and why shouldn't I take the free glasses ? "

Otherwise I truly like your idea, but it opens a can of worms we should not have to be even exposed to after providing two million dollars a year to stop .

The consumers generally don't care about our industry's politics, legalities and shortcomings. They are only interested in getting quality eyewear and service at a fair price.

To bring any of those things up with a consumer while they are in your facility 'shopping' would be assanine, suicide, dumb and a great way to talk yourself out of a sale. Just like our regulatory bodies, they don't care - period.

[MakeOptics]

Sorry, but this is the genuine attitude of a lot of ECPs I've encountered -- "It's ugly and outdated" -- who are genuinely oblivious to the fact that this is what their patients want. It's very hard to tell in print.

Meanwhile, I just went ahead and tried to place my own order on the American site. Got a final price of $33 USD (myope, low RX with a low stig in OD) including shipping and SV poly lenses; the frame is being comped, but without the coupon, it still only would've been $71. Would probably be among the lowest price I've paid for a pair of specs, insurance not withstanding.

I provided a screen grab of the checkout as proof and you created the same scenario with lower priced glasses as a result. It seems as though the outcome was decided before the test was done. Instead of being a useful thread highlighting the shortcomings of online dispensing the outcome shows a blatant disregard for facts. Case in point even the 50% wrong post had a link to proof of valid results, yet the original flaw that was supposedly uncovered turned out to be a fallacy on the original posters part reinforcing the opticians are hustlers line that online vendors portray to the public when convincing then to part with their money. Should this thread ever be used as a rebuttal or argument against online vending it seems the ammo was loaded in the wrong gun.

[Chris Ryser]

Coastal.com to Ring The NASDAQ Stock Market Opening Bell January 7, 2013




Coastal Contacts IncCompany AnnouncementCoastal.com to Ring The NASDAQ Stock

Market Opening Bell January 7, 2013VANCOUVER, British Columbia, 2013-01-04

17:33 CET (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Coastal Contacts Inc. ("Coastal") (Nasdaq:COA)


Coastal Contacts IncCompany AnnouncementCoastal.com to Ring The NASDAQ Stock

Market Opening Bell January 7, 2013VANCOUVER, British Columbia, 2013-01-04

17:33 CET (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Coastal Contacts Inc. ("Coastal") (Nasdaq:COA)

(TSX:COA) (Stockholm:COA), the leading online retailer of vision care products,

announced today that it has been given the honor of ringing The Opening Bell of the

NASDAQ Stock Market on Monday,January 7th, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Coastal commenced trading on the NASDAQ October 24th, 2012 under the symbol

COA. Roger Hardy, Coastal's founder and CEO will be in attendance along with other

Company representatives.

"We are pleased to be listed on NASDAQ as part of the Coastal's long term strategy

to build the leading direct to consumer retailer of eyeglasses, contact lenses and

vision accessories," commented Roger Hardy, Coastal's founder and CEO. "We

believe the listing will provide U.S. based investors and funds with greater access to

Coastal shares, which they would not otherwise have. It should also help to build

awareness of the Coastal.com brand as we invest in acquiring customers across the

U.S.A.
During fiscal 2012, Coastal manufactured and shipped more than one

million pairs of eyeglasses and during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 our

U.S. eyeglasses business grew approximately 100% over the same period in


2011. It is an exciting time at Coastal as the web continues to rapidly gain

share from traditional optical channels in the U.S. eyeglasses market that exceeds $18 Billion annually."

continue ------------> http://online.barrons.com/article/PR...04-914215.html