National avg 30% now 35%

[I4real]

A couple years ago we took on digital/freeform lenses and were told that we were expected to sell according to the national average. I asked for the data or survey/report that this figure was gleaned from and didn't get anything.
This year the company is using the national avg in our performance reviews. Again I asked for the data that supports the now 35% figure and still no joy. Anyone here know where these figures come from? Is it 35% of all sales, fabrication, dispensed, produced???
I don't have issues with the product (we use Zeiss mostly), but my customers have issue with the cost increase.

[cowboytelemark]

If you educate the patient well on the benefits of a digital progressive, you will easily surpass that percentage even with the cost increase. We are at roughly 65% digital progressive sales in the last year, and that is without trying too hard.

This gets much easier when you know what lens will work best for an individual patient. Instead of asking, "Do you want the more expensive lenses?", you are asking "Do you want the lenses that will work better for your lifestyle?".

[jefe]

With all the lens designs and price-points available, it's easy to find a lens for just about any need and budget. I am at about 99% digital progressive sales.

[standarduck]

I think it is a convenient fallacy that we often use in sales that people are not prepared to stump up to pay for more expensive items.

We used to have a similar situation, stuck everyone in conventional progressives, and never made anything that really excelled optically (unless specifically requested by the patient). As a result, dispensing was tedious, and unprofitable.

Not too long ago (<12 months), we adopted a new policy to take extra time during the dispensing process to clearly explain the benefits of the higher price point lenses. I was astounded by the decisions made by patients who I would never have dreamt would pay for top of the range lenses. We are still improving, and work always needs to be done, but we have moved from <10% of patients having 'digital' varifocals to well over 40%. That's not as impressive as either of the previous numbers, but it shows a marked increase, especially over a short period of time.

It all comes down to how well explained the products are. As cowboy said, 'more expensive lenses' sound scary. 'lenses that will work better for you' sound great. This is not even salesmanship - it is simply thorough explanation.

Don't take this all as me being condescending, I was in a similar position to you not all that long ago. Make sure all staff are well aware of the benefits for the patient.

[rdcoach5]

A couple years ago we took on digital/freeform lenses and were told that we were expected to sell according to the national average. I asked for the data or survey/report that this figure was gleaned from and didn't get anything.
This year the company is using the national avg in our performance reviews. Again I asked for the data that supports the now 35% figure and still no joy. Anyone here know where these figures come from? Is it 35% of all sales, fabrication, dispensed, produced???
I don't have issues with the product (we use Zeiss mostly), but my customers have issue with the cost increase.

I agree with cowboy. We are also about 60 % digital free-form and the cost increase is no an issue when our pt's are told and then see the benefits. We do, however have access to a very good IOT design that costs us less than the Physio, which is not free-form.

[I4real]

Thanks for the responses. If only we were graded on only our progressive lens sales it would be easy. Our sales in that category are similar to some of yours. We are expected to sell 35 % digital for all types of lenses. Our Flat/round segs, computer office progressives, and any SV non-digital count against us. Pretty tough to get Mom to cough up the cost of little Jimmy's digital SV lens that are almost twice as costly as last years. Still looking for that report if anyone has access to it. I'd love to see the raw data.

[cowboytelemark]

Here is my trick for getting at least some young adults into SV digital: For VSP patients, Signature plan charges 23.00 copay for poly. If you do a digital aspheric SV, it is 33.00 WITH poly. 10.00 for digital, easy sell.

[Uncle Fester]

OK. Time to stir the pot...

Are we talking about compensated digital progressives or lenses generated on "Freeform" machines?

How many of us know the difference?

Do you do the W.A.V.E.???

[erichwmack]

We adjusted our "menu" of lenses to feature only digital designs and during the sales protocol enforce the benefits of our lenses and their custom vision solution. We only go into non-digital when absolutely necessary which is pretty rare. We do have a good demographic in our location though. Affluent, 50+ y/o, presbyopes. Most of the non-digitals are for the 18-35 y/o crowd. Money is usually tighter for this crowd and they don't have parents buying for them anymore.

I guess I would say know your demographic and make a concise lens "menu" accordingly if possible. This would be a method based on hard data and setting lens mix goals makes more sense then. Just trying to reach a sales goal without basis, or non-communicated data, is a tough sale to employees.

Uncle Fester,
My answer off the top of my head would be compensated digital progressive = a surface geometry with compensated RX powers to reduce higher order aberrations.
Lenses generated on a "Freeform" surfacer = could be made with compensated or non-compensated powers. Flexibilty in front/back curve could be generated and custom aspheric surface geometries could be generated. Its up to the algorithm used to make the lens.

A true front and back surface free form in theory has more control on correcting wave front aberrations. Gradient refractive index materials in conjunction free form surface geometries could be the next step IMO.

[Chris Ryser]

Simple solution.............................

In the 1960s when Coburn came out with their electronic generators, Weco with the automatic diamond edgers a new wave of making and working lenses had been invented. Today it has been standard ever since.

Recently with computerized machinery they can make surfacing and edging more automatic and efficient and precise without having to use more brain power, and forcing every lab to purchase the latest equipment to follow the hype.....................

you will soon learn that this is the new wave that in a little while will be the dayly way to go.

We ahve seen it before and will see it again some day.

[I4real]

Uncle Fester, I would say it is compensated digital since trully free form wouldn't have a patent brand now would it? We sell the Zeiss brand GT2, GT2 3D, GT2 3DV, Individual 2, and the SV Individual 2. For lower end digital we sell the Sola HDV and HD SV. We don't take VSP so the slight upsale to digital isn't an option.

I like the banter about sales, but my original intent was to locate this report/survey that my company is using to guage the sale of digital type lenses. I find it hard to believe that 30% of lenses sold (?) 2 years ago were digital when the largest players in the market hadn't even taken them on at that time. Would like to see the data is all.

[Robert Martellaro]

A couple years ago we took on digital/freeform lenses and were told that we were expected to sell according to the national average. I asked for the data or survey/report that this figure was gleaned from and didn't get anything.
This year the company is using the national avg in our performance reviews. Again I asked for the data that supports the now 35% figure and still no joy. Anyone here know where these figures come from? Is it 35% of all sales, fabrication, dispensed, produced???
I don't have issues with the product (we use Zeiss mostly), but my customers have issue with the cost increase.

Maybe this.

http://www.eyecarebusiness.com/artic...ticleID=108119

Note that only 22% of PALs were surfaced on a free-form generator. Free-form lenses, as ill-defined as they are, may include dumb lenses that have no optimizations, in fact may be 'dumber' than some semi-finished lenses. Caveat emptor.

[Uncle Fester]

I like the banter about sales, but my original intent was to locate this report/survey that my company is using to guage the sale of digital type lenses. I find it hard to believe that 30% of lenses sold (?) 2 years ago were digital when the largest players in the market hadn't even taken them on at that time. Would like to see the data is all.

I'll bet the report or one like it came from here. If your lab belongs to this organization a rep may be able to get it.


http://www.ola-labs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1

[Paul Smith LDO]

A couple years ago we took on digital/freeform lenses and were told that we were expected to sell according to the national average. I asked for the data or survey/report that this figure was gleaned from and didn't get anything.
This year the company is using the national avg in our performance reviews. Again I asked for the data that supports the now 35% figure and still no joy. Anyone here know where these figures come from? Is it 35% of all sales, fabrication, dispensed, produced???
I don't have issues with the product (we use Zeiss mostly), but my customers have issue with the cost increase.

The location where you work, is it a private practice or a national chain. I ask because you say you sell mostly Zeiss. Why not offer some other lens companies to your digital/free-form tool box. We sell nothing but Digital/Free-Form PALS and have been doing so for about 5 years. Our FFSV product percentage has been increasing each year and we are at about 20%. We explain to our patients the benefits of the FF and Digital products and have had no trouble making the switch. That is not to say that we didn't have our growing pains, we experienced success with some companies and not so much with others. At this stage of the game we have a high 90% success rate with our progressives.

[I4real]

Thanks Robert. Thats sounds like something similar to what they may have been quoting.

Fester, we used to have our own lab and they belonged to OLA. I bet our new lab is a member, but we don't have access to the lab only our service center.

Paul we are neither private or a chain, just a small HMO. We in the trenches have no say in what product we sell. Our digital progressives had a higher redo rate in the beginning but now they have stabalized. I have been fairly satisfied with the Zeiss products, but wish we had access to some of the other FF designs.