Opticians, Canadians have questions. Can you help answer them?

[MT]

Does that same line of thinking apply to the on liners not obeying rules ?

Sorry, I actually don't quite understand your question. Can you expand on it?

I think what you're saying is that onliners won't obey the rules even if there's laws, and yes, I do think that would be the case. Even if onliners are given strict laws to obey, much like uploaders of torrents (piraters), as long as consumers demand it, onliners will find a loophole or a way to sell.

I think there are really strict laws right now about the owners of some pirating sites, and their owners are being placed in jail etc, but they continue to operate and piraters continue to pirate, because the consumers demand it. But if consumers don't demand it, then there's no reason for them to take the risk (no money)

[idispense]

Sorry, I actually don't quite understand your question. Can you expand on it?

I think what you're saying is that onliners won't obey the rules even if there's laws, and yes, I do think that would be the case. Even if onliners are given strict laws to obey, much like uploaders of torrents (piraters), as long as consumers demand it, onliners will find a loophole or a way to sell.

I think there are really strict laws right now about the owners of some pirating sites, and their owners are being placed in jail etc, but they continue to operate and piraters continue to pirate, because the consumers demand it. But if consumers don't demand it, then there's no reason for them to take the risk (no money)

So if that's the case why would we want these sorts as our partners ?

[MT]

So if that's the case why would we want these sorts as our partners ?

Okay, assuming these sorts of onliners are our partners, I'm assuming it is so for the end goal of educating the public. I say, as long as the initiatives aren't flawed by the funding, then who cares where the money comes from? As Chris mentioned before, the public doesn't know nor do they care, so why do you?

Let's look at the alternative, say we aren't partners with the onliners, what happens then? There's no money to educate the public to get consumers on our side. What sort of miracle are you expecting to happen if they aren't our partners?

[idispense]

Okay, assuming these sorts of onliners are our partners, I'm assuming it is so for the end goal of educating the public. I say, as long as the initiatives aren't flawed by the funding, then who cares where the money comes from? As Chris mentioned before, the public doesn't know nor do they care, so why do you?

Let's look at the alternative, say we aren't partners with the onliners, what happens then? There's no money to educate the public to get consumers on our side. What sort of miracle are you expecting to happen if they aren't our partners?

ethics

[HindSight2020]

Whether or not this is true doesn't even matter. If the public doesn't see value in ECPs, laws ain't going to change anything. You make buying online illegal, so what? Pirating is too. Millions do it. There's no reason for the public to follow the law even if it exists.

Great post Marc. I beg to differ; the fact is this is 100% true and factual and happening. Regardless if the general public don't see the value in ECP's is irrelevant.

True, piracy and copyright infringement is also illegal, a small percentage of those 'cheap consumers' do get charged in the courts on a regular basis and rightfully so.

So, does spinning this thread and the wheel make it right and legal just to save money and step on an ECP who's invested heavily into their own brick and mortar venture?

I doubt it.

[MT]

[QUOTE=idispense;494593]

Okay, assuming these sorts of onliners are our partners, I'm assuming it is so for the end goal of educating the public. I say, as long as the initiatives aren't flawed by the funding, then who cares where the money comes from? As Chris mentioned before, the public doesn't know nor do they care, so why do you?

Let's look at the alternative, say we aren't partners with the onliners, what happens then? There's no money to educate the public to get consumers on our side. What sort of miracle are you expecting to happen if they aren't our partners?[/QUOTE

ethics

Okay, so if it's about ethics, then the conversation ends here. I guess there's nothing we can do but sit here and twiddle our thumbs and complain on optiboard!

[MT]

Great post Marc. I beg to differ; the fact is this is 100% true and factual and happening. Regardless if the general public don't see the value in ECP's is irrelevant.

True, piracy and copyright infringement is also illegal, a small percentage of those 'cheap consumers' do get charged in the courts on a regular basis and rightfully so.

So, does spinning this thread and the wheel make it right and legal just to save money and step on an ECP who's invested heavily into their own brick and mortar venture?

I doubt it.

ECP's who have invested heavily into their brick and mortar and are complaining about the law being a problem. I am merely stating that the law is not going to do anything, it's the education of the public that will solve the problem. If we agree on that, then the discussion is HOW and WITH WHAT MEANS we're educating the public. If I'm correct, then the main concern is the moral issue of all this?

[HindSight2020]

It's rather humorous when an individual hits a dead end, quotes their own previous quote then throws in the towel.

[HindSight2020]

ECP's who have invested heavily into their brick and mortar and are complaining about the law being a problem. I am merely stating that the law is not going to do anything, it's the education of the public that will solve the problem. If we agree on that, then the discussion is HOW and WITH WHAT MEANS we're educating the public. If I'm correct, then the main concern is the moral issue of all this?

Clearly you have never invested into your own venture and took substantial risk to survive.

Collecting a salary from an employer regardless of how big they are doesn't count.

One must step into an owner's shoes to understand.

[MT]

Clearly you have never invested into your own venture and took substantial risk to survive.

Collecting a salary from an employer regardless of how big they are doesn't count.

One must step into an owner's shoes to understand.

I co-own my own business (hope that counts). We can be upset about the morality about it, but if we do nothing about it but complain, then I feel it's a waste of time. What's done is done, it may suck but as a owner you know that playing victim is not going to do anything. All I'm saying is let's think ahead and start trying to solve the problem.

[idispense]

[QUOTE=MT;494596]

Okay, so if it's about ethics, then the conversation ends here. I guess there's nothing we can do but sit here and twiddle our thumbs and complain on optiboard!

Or fix it then change the funding.

[MT]

[QUOTE=idispense;494611]

Or fix it then change the funding.

Then perhaps this is more an emotional/moral issue than what the original post is about. Sharing our knowledge seems to be the correct direction, so my only point of view was to make the best of the current situation by educating the public, since that is all that we have control over.

[Chris Ryser]

then perhaps this is more an emotional/moral issue than what the original post is about. Sharing our knowledge seems to be the correct direction, so my only point of view was to make the best of the current situation by educating the public, since that is all that we have control over.

How would you educate the consumer that he should pay xxxx amount more to a B&M store when he can get it delivered to his home in good brand name quality for xxxx amount less ?

You have promoted the latest technologies and products in the field for years and you have already educated the consumer of what to purchase.
The only difference is the price.

Question:.......Would a good looking women ever go to have her hair cut by a cheaper internet machine ............???? No Way

However an good optician can properly adjust, measure and check what comes straight from a lab.

[Golfnorth]

Worked out fine for the on liners. And who owns the largest on liners ? E ?

Are you supporting them now ?

What I am saying is that you have been whining on about this issue for what seems like years and years. So I'm challenging you to put up or shuttup! If you believe in your cause then refused to pay your own fees instead of going on about it here ad naseum. If not then you are nothing but a rabble rouser with nothing better to do in your spare time then stir things up on Optiboard.
If I don't see that your liscence has been suspended due to non payment of fees next year you would be nothing but a flake.

[Chris Ryser]

What I am saying is that you have been whining on about this issue for what seems like years and years. So I'm challenging you to put up or shuttup! If you believe in your cause then refused to pay your own fees instead of going on about it here ad naseum. If not then you are nothing but a rabble rouser with nothing better to do in your spare time then stir things up on Optiboard.
If I don't see that your liscence has been suspended due to non payment of fees next year you would be nothing but a flake.

In this world of anonymity as OptiBoard members are discussing finally on an open basis one of the most important situations, worse than ever, during the old days of the "Imperial Optical Empire", we should leave personal feelings against one or the other posters on the side of the track.

We do not want a thread being closed because it becomes too personal.

[Golfnorth]

In this world of anonymity as OptiBoard members are discussing finally on an open basis one of the most important situations, worse than ever, during the old days of the "Imperial Optical Empire", we should leave personal feelings against one or the other posters on the side of the track.

We do not want a thread being closed because it becomes too personal.

Chris......there is absolutely no anonymity going on here.
The other poster and I do actually know one another. I
have no ill feelings towards him.....only what he writes on most occasions.
Go fish.

Regards,
Golfnorth

[MT]

How would you educate the consumer that he should pay xxxx amount more to a B&M store when he can get it delivered to his home in good brand name quality for xxxx amount less ?

You have promoted the latest technologies and products in the field for years and you have already educated the consumer of what to purchase.
The only difference is the price.

Question:.......Would a good looking women ever go to have her hair cut by a cheaper internet machine ............???? No Way

However an good optician can properly adjust, measure and check what comes straight from a lab.

What I am exactly referring to is the last sentence you wrote - educating the consumer on the value an optician provides (properly adjusting, measuring, checking among other things), not educating on the technology/products. It's all about the value an optician provides.

[idispense]

Who will educate the consumer on the hypocrisy of opticians,maintaining visionary partners that own the on line stores selling into regulated provinces ? Will your education of the public exclude this ? How will your education of the public speak to the licensing and the Minister of Health allowing this? Will you educate about licensing or whitewash it ?

License fees form a portion of the cost of the consumers eyeglasses, how will you explain why the public should pay this cost when onliners may not be licensed therefore cheaper?

[Chris Ryser]

How are you to educate the public, that in the strongest regulated Canadian Province as Quebec, apparently the Government has partially financed a now very successful on-line optical, as

BonLook Eyewear, Montreal

………………….http://bonlook.com

today's Alexa rating 175,346, in USA6,589

(today they announced that they are also shipping in Canada, so some last legal hurdle must have been solved.)

as per my on-line listings at: http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm
where I have been keeping close track of the developments for soon 8 years.

[HindSight2020]

What I am exactly referring to is the last sentence you wrote - educating the consumer on the value an optician provides (properly adjusting, measuring, checking among other things), not educating on the technology/products. It's all about the value an optician provides.

You are completely wrong. Amongst the various skills where an optician provides exceptional value, there is also an equally important area of technical expertise on products/technology that also must be provided by the optician to the consumer, not the manufacturer.

The manufacturer's responsibilities include product development, ECP technical training, ECP direct-assist marketing and consumer marketing (simple, brief, non-misleading jargon) to create interest and have the consumers be directed to an ECP, not a non-regulated illegal website.

It's rather humorous how this thread began by the opticians council, started a great debate with many good posts, attracted interest and banter from a key individual associated with the main sponsor of the optician council, now the optician council sits silent and has stopped posting. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

[idispense]

What I am exactly referring to is the last sentence you wrote - educating the consumer on the value an optician provides (properly adjusting, measuring, checking among other things), not educating on the technology/products. It's all about the value an optician provides.

Try explaining to your membership who owns the on liners, then try polling them to see how they feel about this hypocrisy of Visionary Partners vs regulation. You have no credibility.

How would you expect consumers to have faith in a system built this way ?

On top of that you are promoting the notion that "it doesn't matter the source of the funding" . Again you have no credibility.

The moment you try steering consumers towards ECP s vs on liners then the on liners will point out that they are endorsed by ECPs and point the consumers to the appropriate association web sites for vindication. If not that then they'll gladly point out that no regulatory body is pursuing the matter.

[MT]

Who will educate the consumer on the hypocrisy of opticians,maintaining visionary partners that own the on line stores selling into regulated provinces ? Will your education of the public exclude this ? How will your education of the public speak to the licensing and the Minister of Health allowing this? Will you educate about licensing or whitewash it ?

License fees form a portion of the cost of the consumers eyeglasses, how will you explain why the public should pay this cost when onliners may not be licensed therefore cheaper?

Because the licensing is the explanation for the additional cost/value. I think I explained this earlier before. As for the hypocrisy, like I said, it's beyond control for ECPs. So, making the best out of the situation is educating the public on optician's value. If you're looking to educate the public on the source of the financial contributions, I would like to know why.

[MT]

You are completely wrong. Amongst the various skills where an optician provides exceptional value, there is also an equally important area of technical expertise on products/technology that also must be provided by the optician to the consumer, not the manufacturer.

The manufacturer's responsibilities include product development, ECP technical training, ECP direct-assist marketing and consumer marketing (simple, brief, non-misleading jargon) to create interest and have the consumers be directed to an ECP, not a non-regulated illegal website.

It's rather humorous how this thread began by the opticians council, started a great debate with many good posts, attracted interest and banter from a key individual associated with the main sponsor of the optician council, now the optician council sits silent and has stopped posting. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

To say I'm completely wrong is ignoring the point I'm trying to make. In order to educate the consumers on why to pay XX amount more at B&M rather than online is to provide value as an optician. All the knowledge attained that online can't provide, and sharing that knowledge so there's more trust than online.

Like I said before, even if there was an option to get surgery from someone unregulated and it was cheaper, we would all still prefer the person that is regulated right? So how do we convey the same value to the public? The issue right now is that public can focus on price because they don't see enough of the value opticians provide

[MT]

Try explaining to your membership who owns the on liners, then try polling them to see how they feel about this hypocrisy of Visionary Partners vs regulation. You have no credibility.

How would you expect consumers to have faith in a system built this way ?

On top of that you are promoting the notion that "it doesn't matter the source of the funding" . Again you have no credibility.

The moment you try steering consumers towards ECP s vs on liners then the on liners will point out that they are endorsed by ECPs and point the consumers to the appropriate association web sites for vindication. If not that then they'll gladly point out that no regulatory body is pursuing the matter.

What would be the point in seeing what membership thinks? What matters is what your consumers think. They do not know about any of this. We as consumers also do not know the truths about all the products we buy (and i'm sure there's huge corruption involved in some of the products we buy).

Look at Dove, for example: http://bellejar.ca/2013/04/22/dove-d...eel-beautiful/. Consumers have long associated Dove for the opposite of what this article is saying. They are still doing very well as a company. You can find this with almost any successful organization, including Google, who's mandate is to "do no evil".

[MT]

It's rather humorous how this thread began by the opticians council, started a great debate with many good posts, attracted interest and banter from a key individual associated with the main sponsor of the optician council, now the optician council sits silent and has stopped posting. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

The key individual associated with the main sponsor of the opticians council is? If you're implying it's me, you are so wrong. I have no money to sponsor anything.

The opticians council post is about sharing expertise with the public, and all that is happening is complaining about the source of money. Something that none of the public knows nor cares about. Read my post above