Price vs Happiness, in glasses

[userod]

I'm an OD.

I only know what I read and have experienced so never ever call me an expert in anything.

This isn't a question about selling more or making more money.

When I read in my trade journals, I read propaganda. I don't know how much better a FF is to standard form.

I'm trying to get to my question here.

Ok, here it is.

Why do you think the price of what you're selling (in a lens or coating) is really worth more than a less expensive product?

You might wonder why I ask. And this brings me to that more deeper question.....are the more expensive products really worth the extra dollars? And if so, why are they worth that extra amount? If they are so much more advanced, why are they not worth $500/lens or more?

How do you get your drive to sell it as if it's $100 better knowing the marketing is leading you to say the things you might say?

Is happiness really just how much you spent or saved on this kind of product because I don't know how you explain a lens that they can't use until it's in their glasses.

[Chris Ryser]

Price versus happiness is:


telling you patient that he can see very well with his reading glasses that cost him $ 20.00. However he will get tired after 2 hours of reading.

If he would spend $ 200.00 for a better pair he would never get tired all day.

[Lab Insight]

I'm an OD.

I only know what I read and have experienced so never ever call me an expert in anything.

This isn't a question about selling more or making more money.

When I read in my trade journals, I read propaganda. I don't know how much better a FF is to standard form.

I'm trying to get to my question here.

Ok, here it is.

Why do you think the price of what you're selling (in a lens or coating) is really worth more than a less expensive product?

You might wonder why I ask. And this brings me to that more deeper question.....are the more expensive products really worth the extra dollars? And if so, why are they worth that extra amount? If they are so much more advanced, why are they not worth $500/lens or more?

How do you get your drive to sell it as if it's $100 better knowing the marketing is leading you to say the things you might say?

Is happiness really just how much you spent or saved on this kind of product because I don't know how you explain a lens that they can't use until it's in their glasses.

The answer to your question is NO, they most definitely are not worth the extra dollars. In fact, other than manufacturer's own self documented, paid clinical trials, there is no evidence of their premium branded products being superior to white label/private label non-branded products.

All of their self claimed success is to simply back their marketing materials jargon which is also very misleading.

The companies and their sales teams will tell you otherwise because these companies would rather sell you a product for $400 than $100 naturally. Although the higher priced product may be a slightly more complex algorithm, they both start on a $3 blank and go through the AR chamber in the same batch.

Do your own test trial and you will see for yourself it's not apples to oranges.

[userod]

Price versus happiness is:


telling you patient that he can see very well with his reading glasses that cost him $ 20.00. However he will get tired after 2 hours of reading.

If he would spend $ 200.00 for a better pair he would never get tired all day.

I think an avid reader might believe that but what's the difference in a +1.75 OTC vs +1.75 from a lab? I know pd's might be different and not sure about sustained reading for many people for over 2 hrs. I've heard there's a "quality" difference in lens materials but I don't know what that means.

Are there any indepedent studies for that statement of yours?

[userod]

I believe that. How is any of it confirmed though?

[Kujiradesu]

I'm an OD.

I only know what I read and have experienced so never ever call me an expert in anything.

This isn't a question about selling more or making more money.

When I read in my trade journals, I read propaganda. I don't know how much better a FF is to standard form.

I'm trying to get to my question here.

Ok, here it is.

Why do you think the price of what you're selling (in a lens or coating) is really worth more than a less expensive product?

You might wonder why I ask. And this brings me to that more deeper question.....are the more expensive products really worth the extra dollars? And if so, why are they worth that extra amount? If they are so much more advanced, why are they not worth $500/lens or more?

How do you get your drive to sell it as if it's $100 better knowing the marketing is leading you to say the things you might say?

Is happiness really just how much you spent or saved on this kind of product because I don't know how you explain a lens that they can't use until it's in their glasses.

As has been said above, there are differences between lenses. A lot of it is marketing, no question. I tell most of my patients when were discussing PAL vs. FT, that its generally a vanity issue. If it wasnt for vain baby-boomers there wouldnt be a very large market for PALs.

[tx11]

If the patient cannot discern the difference, then they are generally more critical of the more expensive product than they are the less expensive that perceptually functions just as well for the period of time that it is used before it is replaced.

[Kwill212]

.... I tell most of my patients when were discussing PAL vs. FT, that its generally a vanity issue. If it wasnt for vain baby-boomers there wouldnt be a very large market for PALs.

Do you discuss the differences in how the lenses work as well? Like how there is no image jump in PALs, there are more than just 1 or 2 set distances that PALs work for, as opposed to FTs.

[ThatOneGuy]

FF lenses in most cases are not guaranteed to be better. This post is very concerning to me, given the responses thus far.

There are products that make a significant difference, but you do need to know how they work and how to fit them. Are they worth the price? Yes. Worth more than what they currently cost? Not really.

When I started in the industry 14 years ago, CR-39 FF progressive lenses were >$600/lens. The price has only dropped over the years. I would dare say most people in the industry fail to realize that FF has been around as long as it has. Optics are optics, and we all still have to do our job as well as people generations past. You still have to understand how curvature, fit, and lens quality will affect the final product. A FF lens at its simplest is an aspheric lens. Why would you use an aspheric lens? If you can answer that question, then you have begun the journey to understanding FF lenses.

Now, if you don't understand the what and why, and simply regurgitate marketing to your patient without understanding how to properly fit/dispense the products, then you better gear up for an angry patient.

[Kujiradesu]

Do you discuss the differences in how the lenses work as well? Like how there is no image jump in PALs, there are more than just 1 or 2 set distances that PALs work for, as opposed to FTs.

Of course, but for most people image jump isnt as much of a draw as "not looking old". Depending on your type of work for most people 2 areas are all you need. Im not against PALs per se. I just dont see them as something everyone should have in all presbyopic cases.

[Hayde]

I think trying to answer this question lumping all 'FreeForms' in one massive blob isn't going to be fruitful.

I have seen enough upgrades from traditional surface to FFs successfully turning non-adapts into happy PAL wearers to know the net of customer satisfaction odds CAN be cast wider with FF tech. (Far more than the rare Px's who reject a properly fit compensated FF yet are happy as clams in the old molds.)

Backing out of PALs in such cases into FTs (or the occasional round seg) enjoys better odds and also saves money---but at that point it's the patient who gets to decide "worth."

Huge fan of Physio Enchanced (or W3+ nowadays) and the Shamir Autograph 3. Haven't ever sold Zeiss's, but their rate of CS satisfaction from the (hyperopic) patients I see earns my nod of respect. They still sell the [old] Comfort [2] for a reason, it's a good lens. But yes, in my experience those people who are on the fence about their Comfort are almost universally more satisfied when they upgrade to a well-chosen Freeform design.

[Quince]

My office doesn't have a large percentage of patients that would be okay with not having an intermediate zone. That pretty much knocks out the FT and when we do have patients who are self-conscious (especially the young) we usually lean towards the Shamir Duo.

High-end PALs have been tested time and time again in our office and I can tell you there is a line that once crossed, is noticeable. I would compare it to someone who has worn AR getting a non-AR'd pair and going 'Whoa, why are these some much less clear?' Same deal trying to put a high-end PAL wearer into a conventional design.

Sure there are the few and far between that are stuck in hard designs and do not like the newer, more open designs. Not a normal issue, just as Hayde said.

I would put it this way- there is more bang for your buck if you are working with honest and knowledgeable opticians.

The strength of the Rx, material choices, frame choices, and length of consistent wear should ALL be factors.

I had a gentleman yesterday- a 1st time PAL wearer after 20 years of letting corrective surgery fend on the need for glasses. He asked about different grades of PAL and I explained what the difference between low and high end were. I suggested a middle of the road lens and when he ask if there were 'better' lenses for him I responded with his future in mind. I told him I could put him in the Cadillac of lenses now, but I would rather save that for when his Rx has increased and he is looking for an upgrade. Plano with moderate cyl and medium ADD. Once that Rx includes distance power and his ADD has increased he will enjoy that high end option much more than he would now. It would be overkill. He very much appreciated that view.

[Quince]

Also, I feel it is important to note that we have a higher profit margin off of lower end product. If we were in it for the money only we certainly wouldn't be promoting lenses that are much more expensive to us and that can't be processed in house.

[AngeHamm]

The question is too vague. What products are we comparing? What is the patient's RX? What are the PD, OC height, POW measurements? What are the applications of the lens? Is it a first pair, second pair, third pair, etc.? What is their history with similar or opposite products? What kind of lenses have they worn? How long have they worn glasses? Have they successfully worn product x before? And on and on and on and on.

[Robert Martellaro]

How is any of it confirmed though?

We can show you the science, the level of surface astigmatism, zone widths and heights, other aberrations and distortion, but how does that translate to subjective performance? There's clinical testing (see link below), but much depends on pupil diameter, blur sensitivity, Rx, etc. I'm sensitive to blur, and have slightly larger than average pupil size (moderate myope/astigmat age 64).

After trying three premium PALs and a budget PAL, I found one design, from one manufacturer, that had single vision-like on-axis distance vision combined with a high enough (for an avid reader) near zone that was unmatched by the other three manufacturer's best designs. I tried two budget lenses but only one was wearable, although disappointing when compared to the best.

Do your own testing on yourself, or with a trusted friend, read the white papers and patents, and insist that your optician does the same. Make recommendations based on the above, carefully selecting designs that will work optimally for each individual client/Rx. Learn when less is more, or as good, as well as when more is more, and do so with confidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21217408

Hope this helps,

Robert Martellaro

[Lab Insight]

FF lenses in most cases are not guaranteed to be better. This post is very concerning to me, given the responses thus far.

There are products that make a significant difference, but you do need to know how they work and how to fit them. Are they worth the price? Yes. Worth more than what they currently cost? Not really.

When I started in the industry 14 years ago, CR-39 FF progressive lenses were >$600/lens. The price has only dropped over the years. I would dare say most people in the industry fail to realize that FF has been around as long as it has. Optics are optics, and we all still have to do our job as well as people generations past. You still have to understand how curvature, fit, and lens quality will affect the final product. A FF lens at its simplest is an aspheric lens. Why would you use an aspheric lens? If you can answer that question, then you have begun the journey to understanding FF lenses.

Now, if you don't understand the what and why, and simply regurgitate marketing to your patient without understanding how to properly fit/dispense the products, then you better gear up for an angry patient.

When it comes to the marketing jargon with branded FF designs, don't believe everything you read.

[userod]

FF lenses in most cases are not guaranteed to be better. This post is very concerning to me, given the responses thus far.

There are products that make a significant difference, but you do need to know how they work and how to fit them. Are they worth the price? Yes. Worth more than what they currently cost? Not really.

When I started in the industry 14 years ago, CR-39 FF progressive lenses were >$600/lens. The price has only dropped over the years. I would dare say most people in the industry fail to realize that FF has been around as long as it has. Optics are optics, and we all still have to do our job as well as people generations past. You still have to understand how curvature, fit, and lens quality will affect the final product. A FF lens at its simplest is an aspheric lens. Why would you use an aspheric lens? If you can answer that question, then you have begun the journey to understanding FF lenses.

Now, if you don't understand the what and why, and simply regurgitate marketing to your patient without understanding how to properly fit/dispense the products, then you better gear up for an angry patient.

Well, aspheric is not a new concept

[userod]

When it comes to the marketing jargon with branded FF designs, don't believe everything you read.

What is there to believe then?

[Browman]

What is there to believe then?

Some of the "propaganda" in the trades is actually unbiased product review. I'd start there.

[lensmanmd]

Why do so many practices charge a premium for FF when the COGs are significantly lower than molded PALs? Greed! You can't tell me that it is in the cost of the equipment. C'mon SV pucks are so much less expensive than molded, even considering the clicks. Remake and spoilage costs are further reduced.

And yes, there are differences in FF designs, but I can tell you that there is little difference from one MFR to another. They all have budget to super premium designs, just like molded PALs. The biggest difference is the "on-demand" customization of FF vs the rigid molded. And just like molded PALs, it is up to the optician to determine what is best for the patient. Even the best of the FF with POW, if measured incorrectly, will not perform better than the entry level FF that is fitted properly. Just saying.

[userod]

Some of the "propaganda" in the trades is actually unbiased product review. I'd start there.

I probably would guess that the unbiased opinion doesn't have any case studies, just optical data to make assumptions from.

[Lab Insight]

What is there to believe then?

Although there are some subtle differences in design performance (wider corridor, reading etc.) what they really want you to believe is the amazing science, math and marketing behind their self claims.

I'm not saying it's all hogwash, it's just those subtle differences are highly exaggerated by them to justify the enormous inflated selling prices.

Think about it for a minute...all designs start on the same $3 blank (assuming clear CR39), get taped, blocked, generated via Satisloh or Schneider (the point at which the design is carved into the surface with the guidance of advanced software), straight to polish (careful not to rub off the design that just got created) and then finally off to coating with hundreds of other lenses.

Sure the algorithm is slightly more complex with more calculations. But other than that part of the manufacturing process, the rest is exactly the same including the coating process.

How does that justify the huge price gap between the $100 pair of lenses and $500 pair of lenses? It doesn't...but what it does do is allow the companies to pay for the enormous overhead and marketing costs while offering a full price range portfolio and saying only they have the best lenses available in the market.

Could you imagine if the government allowed car manufacturers to sell low and high end automobiles (which are highly tangible like Rx eyewear) to be sold to consumers with performance and safety statistics not verified by engineers and test tracks and were self claimed?

Just saying...

[Craig]

FF lenses in most cases are not guaranteed to be better. This post is very concerning to me, given the responses thus far.

There are products that make a significant difference, but you do need to know how they work and how to fit them. Are they worth the price? Yes. Worth more than what they currently cost? Not really.

When I started in the industry 14 years ago, CR-39 FF progressive lenses were >$600/lens. The price has only dropped over the years. I would dare say most people in the industry fail to realize that FF has been around as long as it has. Optics are optics, and we all still have to do our job as well as people generations past. You still have to understand how curvature, fit, and lens quality will affect the final product. A FF lens at its simplest is an aspheric lens. Why would you use an aspheric lens? If you can answer that question, then you have begun the journey to understanding FF lenses.

Now, if you don't understand the what and why, and simply regurgitate marketing to your patient without understanding how to properly fit/dispense the products, then you better gear up for an angry patient.

FYI, Free form lenses do not have to be aspheric and most are actually spherical. What does curvature, fit and lens quality have to do with with free form specifically? What is different between dispensing free form vs non digital?

I am the Founder of LenSync lenses and platform while also bringing free form to the US market from Japan 15 years ago.

[lensmanmd]

FYI, Free form lenses do not have to be aspheric and most are actually spherical.

To be quite honest, FF is an aspheric-atoric lens. Its just on the backside, not the front.

[Browman]

I probably would guess that the unbiased opinion doesn't have any case studies, just optical data to make assumptions from.

Product reviews don't tend to include case studies-- unless Consumer Reports has radically changed in the time since I last read it.