Eyeglass Retailer Warby Parker Valued at $ 1.2 Billion .................

[Chris Ryser]

Eyeglass Retailer Warby Parker Valued at $ 1.2 Billion
9:00 am ET
Apr 30, 2015


Online eyeglass retailer Warby Parker has raised a fresh round of capital that values it over $1 billion and bolsters its expansion of brick-and-mortar stores.
T. Rowe Price led a $100 million round of funding in Warby Parker, the company said in an interview this week. The round values five-year-old Warby Parker at $1.2 billion, according to a person familiar with the company’s finances.
The funding makes Warby Parker one of only a handful of online retail startups to grow beyond a $1 billion valuation before going public or getting acquired. Among private, venture-backed e-commerce companies based in the U.S., only sports merchandise site Fanatics, valued at $3.1 billion in 2013, is worth more than Warby Parker.
The capital will help expand Warby Parker’s chain of retail shops, where the company generates a growing portion of sales. The storefronts, started in 2013 as an experiment, now employ about half of the company’s 500 employees and help drive awareness for the Warby Parker brand in each of the 9 U.S. cities where they operate.
“We think about Warby as a blend of offline and online” commerce, said Henry Ellenbogen, who manages T. Rowe Price’s $16 billion New Horizons fund. “The more successful Warby is offline in a market, the more successful they are online.”
Wellington Management, along with previous backers Tiger Global and General Catalyst, also contributed to the funding round.

Continue ====> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/04/...t-1-2-billion/

[newguyaroundhere]

Warby Parker plans to expand to 20 physical stores by yearend, up from 12 currently. The company is also building new technology to make shopping for frames in stores and online easier. Gilboa said Warby Parker is investing in technology to let customers conduct eye exams using just their mobile phones.

“We think that would increase access to eye exams,” Gilboa said. “It’s early in the process but we are excited about the potential.”



The game is continuing to change....

[Lab Insight]

Eyeglass Retailer Warby Parker Valued at $ 1.2 Billion
9:00 am ET
Apr 30, 2015


Online eyeglass retailer Warby Parker has raised a fresh round of capital that values it over $1 billion and bolsters its expansion of brick-and-mortar stores.
T. Rowe Price led a $100 million round of funding in Warby Parker, the company said in an interview this week. The round values five-year-old Warby Parker at $1.2 billion, according to a person familiar with the company’s finances.
The funding makes Warby Parker one of only a handful of online retail startups to grow beyond a $1 billion valuation before going public or getting acquired. Among private, venture-backed e-commerce companies based in the U.S., only sports merchandise site Fanatics, valued at $3.1 billion in 2013, is worth more than Warby Parker.
The capital will help expand Warby Parker’s chain of retail shops, where the company generates a growing portion of sales. The storefronts, started in 2013 as an experiment, now employ about half of the company’s 500 employees and help drive awareness for the Warby Parker brand in each of the 9 U.S. cities where they operate.
“We think about Warby as a blend of offline and online” commerce, said Henry Ellenbogen, who manages T. Rowe Price’s $16 billion New Horizons fund. “The more successful Warby is offline in a market, the more successful they are online.”
Wellington Management, along with previous backers Tiger Global and General Catalyst, also contributed to the funding round.

Continue ====> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/04/...t-1-2-billion/

What a ridiculous evaluation - extremely over rated. These suckers buying the stock should doing their homework before investing.

[idispense]

If you made millions trading stocks like this you might have to rethink your statement. Go back and look at the old sec filings of other similiar competitors. Do your research and think again. Look at who is Buying and selling.

Look at the organizational charts of the investors. Look at the timing and accumulations.

[COMEINPEACE]

UMMM LUX (everyones favorite)opened(ipo'ed) at under $1.00
it could have been life changing if you bought
hovering now around $67

[rbanting69]

Still haven't posted a profit. Go figure.

[Chris Ryser]

\

Still haven't posted a profit. Go figure.

I have seen this same argument a few years back when we discussed Costal Contacts with no profit made and finally somebody paid 41 million dollars to purchase them.

[newguyaroundhere]

If this has been shared before, I apologize in advance but I did find this somewhat interesting

http://valleywag.gawker.com/warby-pa...ees-1616898738

[Chris Ryser]

If this has been shared before, I apologize in advance but I did find this somewhat interesting

http://valleywag.gawker.com/warby-pa...ees-1616898738

interesting, specially the last paragraph............

Here are a lot of words that mean one thing: like Vice, Warby Parker, which paid a model to pretend to stand and read during a Soho launch party, thinks it can pay its employees less because of its image. One Valleywag reader provided me with a copy of his signing contract, showing he will make only $12 an hour for full-time sales work:

[Lab Insight]

I have seen this same argument a few years back when we discussed Costal Contacts with no profit made and finally somebody paid 41 million dollars to purchase them.

It sold for $435M. Never made a cent in profit prior to its sale or since the acquisition just over a year ago. This could be one of Essilor's biggest purchase blunders ever globally since other than volume, this platform never matched their business plan, not to mention they've lost alot of longtime loyal independent ECP clients because of it.

[idispense]

Have you ever bought a home, and reaped a reward when you sold it 10 years after living in it ?

Is that any different than going to work each day for ten years then selling your workplace equity for a 41 million gain?

The home owner made a nice profit. The business owner did fine on his equity. The large investors did pretty darn good making millions themselves. Where does it say a business must show a profit in any other format ?

[optimensch]

Isnt it interesting....Google spends 1.5 gajillion dollars on "glass" - a piece of wearable technology which enables you to perhaps run a nuclear power plant from your left temple, has patents up and down the yinyang, and..... FLOPS. how may electrical/computer engineers and russian billionaires does it take to screw in a temple?
Warby shmears a hokey name on some chinese plastic, and sort of does the "4 minute ab" routine (remember something about mary? 4 minute abs will KILL the 5 minute ab guys) by cutting out the middle man (how incredibly inventive, very nouveau and very web 4.0) and delivers cheap eyewear (at a loss) to moustachioed hipster barristas --- all through the web. Except it loses so much and is so boxed in by this model that , GASP, they are opening up stores all over the place with venture capitalist money. All because of the ZIRP of the Fed. oh, and because someone on wall street figured out that cities are filled with a quaint and "legacy" distribution model, called "stores", which can PERHAPS be part of webtail 5.0 (first they need to be "repurposed") The TED conference will soon be up for all to watch.

g-d domned geniuses. I am envious, and good on them. I say Essilor (back of the envelope calculation) should soon offer them 12 billion, and 4 seats on the board for the wharton business school boys who done this.

[edKENdance]

Now they want to cut out that pesky doctor. You can use the money you save to buy another pair. http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/01/w...-eye-exam-app/

[Chris Ryser]

It sold for $435M. Never made a cent in profit prior to its sale or since the acquisition just over a year ago. This could be one of Essilor's biggest purchase blunders ever globally since other than volume, this platform never matched their business plan, not to mention they've lost alot of longtime loyal independent ECP clients because of it.

I would bet that of the many pairs sold not one lens is from another manufacturer than Essilor. If you have any idea how much a lens costs to make or mold, you can figure out that they make already a good buck at the source.

The manufacturing cost of a single vision or a multifocal lense are the same.

[Barry Santini]

Isnt it interesting....Google spends 1.5 gajillion dollars on "glass" - a piece of wearable technology which enables you to perhaps run a nuclear power plant from your left temple, has patents up and down the yinyang, and..... FLOPS. how may electrical/computer engineers and russian billionaires does it take to screw in a temple?
Warby shmears a hokey name on some chinese plastic, and sort of does the "4 minute ab" routine (remember something about mary? 4 minute abs will KILL the 5 minute ab guys) by cutting out the middle man (how incredibly inventive, very nouveau and very web 4.0) and delivers cheap eyewear (at a loss) to moustachioed hipster barristas --- all through the web. Except it loses so much and is so boxed in by this model that , GASP, they are opening up stores all over the place with venture capitalist money. All because of the ZIRP of the Fed. oh, and because someone on wall street figured out that cities are filled with a quaint and "legacy" distribution model, called "stores", which can PERHAPS be part of webtail 5.0 (first they need to be "repurposed") The TED conference will soon be up for all to watch.

g-d domned geniuses. I am envious, and good on them. I say Essilor (back of the envelope calculation) should soon offer them 12 billion, and 4 seats on the board for the wharton business school boys who done this.

It's not the product, no the price, really...optimensch.

It's the story that was told. It resonated with the target demographic.

We're *greedy*.

We're *controlling*.

And we deserved it.

B

[Tigerclaw]

I can't help but wonder when consumers will wise up and realize the "For every Volkswagen you buy, VW will donate 5 cents to breast cancer research" model is to subconsciously remove most of the objections you have to buying stuff, as opposed to "doing good". Hopefully consumers will wake up and realize it's all a ploy to manipulate them.

Besides, that name... "Warby Parker"... Sounds like "Sam's Choice".

[Chris Ryser]

Among private, venture-backed e-commerce companies based in the U.S., only sports merchandise site Fanatics, valued at $3.1 billion in 2013, is worth more than Warby Parker.

WarbyParker has a web success rating by Alexa of 7,166, in the USA 2,175

Luxottica has a web success rating by Alexa of 7,166, in the USA 24,768

Warby Parker has now the best website in the optical field passing any other by 10x in the USA

[Lab Insight]

It's not the product, no the price, really...optimensch.

It's the story that was told. It resonated with the target demographic.

We're *greedy*.

We're *controlling*.

And we deserved it.

B

And 'arrogant'.

[Lab Insight]

I would bet that of the many pairs sold not one lens is from another manufacturer than Essilor. If you have any idea how much a lens costs to make or mold, you can figure out that they make already a good buck at the source.

The manufacturing cost of a single vision or a multifocal lense are the same.

Hence my comments 'other than volume'; I'm sure their manufacturing factories in Asia and abroad are going gang busters right now and contributing immensely to the overall bottom line.

[optimensch]

It's not the product, no the price, really...optimensch.

It's the story that was told. It resonated with the target demographic.

We're *greedy*.

We're *controlling*.

And we deserved it.

B

I think that the perception of eyewear being a massively overpriced commodity is our fault. The professionals have bought into the hype pumped out by essilor and others and choose to sell premium lenses, at huge prices, while we occasionally offer cheaper products (which we position of course as "inferior").
In so many other fields there has been price compression, think technology.
WP and others are NOT positioning their products as inferior, but as the best available.
Any of us, ANY OF US, could sell eyewear as good as WPs, or better, at the same price. And not lose money.
you need more volume, but perhaps with lower prices, volume would increase....
I've been positioning lower cost goods in my own practise accordingly. We offer a very compelling product package at the right price. Oh and we can sell you muh more expensive premium goods if you wish. I basically FLIPPED it. I hope I don't get blasted for this, but it has been working for me. I think.

[Don Gilman]

I would bet that of the many pairs sold not one lens is from another manufacturer than Essilor. If you have any idea how much a lens costs to make or mold, you can figure out that they make already a good buck at the source.

The manufacturing cost of a single vision or a multifocal lense are the same.

Not to nit pick Chris but I will anyway. Cost of resin is the same on SV and Multi but many more complex molds, rights and lefts, different bases and adds have to be factored into the costs.

[Barry Santini]

Any of us, ANY OF US, could sell eyewear as good as WPs, or better, at the same price. And not lose money.

As I've said...ECPS have had it too easy,which led to greedy.

[Tigerclaw]

As I've said...ECPS have had it too easy,which led to greedy.

Following your logic we should all make minimum wage. Every single worker in America. Thanks for the support man, so optometrists are "greedy" now? Maybe you should start chipping in for rent and student loans.

[Barry Santini]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying we should uniformly match the WP pricing. But until the free market evolved to tendered competitors such as we see now, there was no impetus to offer value-priced goods. The prices asked for had no effective lower cost alternate. Now there is. We have to deal with it. Docs, IMHO, should not allow VCPs to dictate the monies realized from exam fees, which is what all those loans you spoke of were about.

Products, and opticians, don't have such education overhead.

B

[Tigerclaw]

There have always been budget opticals, at least prior to the prevalence of the drugstore look and online do-it-yourself eyecare. Personally I am taking the other road, aiming for the people who don't want to advertise to the world that they cheap out on their eyes but not their purses, belts, or shoes. Worked for Starbucks. The problem is at least OD's haven't had the unity to work together as a unit. I am starting to believe I am one of the only OD's who files complaints with the FTC with 1800-CONTACTS. But no, we open Saturdays, settle for $35 or less for total exam fees, and hire incompetent staff to seemingly keep profit margins just high enough to keep the doors open, selling our souls to corporations and managed care (same demon) and forgetting our bread and butter while we strive to play with lasers.