Are Progressives Truly Different or Just Great Marketing?

[Lee Prewitt]

With all the different progressives that are on the market today, what is it that makes some brands stand far and above others? I would like to hear what any one thinks on this subject and your reasons for your position. Are progressive lens designs truly different or are they subject to some savvy marketing?

[Pete Hanlin]

Without reservation, I would say that some are truly different and some are pretty much the same (how's that for a PC non-answer answer?).
;)

Having looked at evaluations, contour plots, rate-of-change plots, and wearer study results of many different designs, there are some companies who launch completely new "generations" each time a new design is released, and there are companies who make only very minor modifications to old designs with each new release.

There are PALs out there with truly eloquent multi-designs and some that are mono-design, rotated "no-lines" that are little more than glorified blendeds with a fitting cross.

Several companies (Essilor among them, IMHO) make truly advanced designs which are heads and shoulders above some of the older designs still being fit today.

So, mark me down as "Yes, truly different!"

[Steve Machol]

Have been the Technical Services Manager of a major lens company, I definitely say both are true. There are real differences between designs *and* there is some excellent marketing that accentuates and explains these differences to the marketplace.

The real question is 'what is the end result of these designs?' In otherwords, is there a real difference between them in terms of visual acuity and patient acceptance. And if the differences are real, what are they? :)

[Lee Prewitt]

I think both Steve and Pete have zeroed in on the issue. Yes Pete, there are lenses that are released that are just rehashed designs and then there are truly revolutionary design changes.

Steve also honed in on the crux of the issue. If there are differences, what are they and how does the market (patient) perceive them?

I see that more than 2 people have voted but only two were brave enough to comment. Voting is not enough without the thoughts behind the decision. Please take a moment and post your coments.

[aaron]

here it goes...

I have a limited understanding of PAL design having split my carreer between dispensing and "repping" (that probably isn't a real word). What I do know is that most of the most popular designs in the market (ie. Comfort, VIP, etc ) have been around for a looooong time. This being the case I realize that there are some very forward thinking designs that have come out in recent time. But don't the laws of physics put specific limitations on the designs themselves. For the regular Joe optician the smallest intricate details between some designs don't affect their decitions nearly as much as the individual with a nice personality who comes in the office with "an innovative new design in progressives." The marketing does make a huge differance. Just look at how some patients will walk into an office asking for a "Varilux" when all they are really talking about is a progressive. That is a marketing miracle!!! The truth is that Essilor has deep enough pockets to put a ton of money into advertising, and R&D so that they also have a good product.


So put me down for "Both". Even though it may seem like the easy way out, it is the most true of the three statements.

ad

[Jedi]

Steve Machol said:
The real question is 'what is the end result of these designs?' In otherwords, is there a real difference between them in terms of visual acuity and patient acceptance. And if the differences are real, what are they? :)

We regularly use Rodenstock Life 2 as our everyday prog lense, low non-adapts, patients like it for the most part. I'm sure there are other lenses out there the perform the same way and the patient could tell the differnce. Now when it comes to patients who have specific visual needs then comes the time to start changing designs. I do like Solamax because patients tell me the reading is wider than other lenses. I do like AO B'Activ because the patient who shoots targets can see better out of the periphery than other lenses. I like Life xs for new presbyopes with low adds. All these lenses were tried, partially because of marketing and partially because of this site and other professionals but, I will use these lenses again because they work, and they work differently.

So put me down for both.

[Texas Ranger]

aaron.
first the VIP is a very old design, and the Comfort came along in '94, which in PAL technology is way more recent, by about 10-12 years. now, that person thatasks for a Varilux when they come in, may very well know exactly what they want, so if you assume that they mean "no-line" and switch them to say a VIP, your client and you are going to be very disappointed. we've fit Varilux's since '78, and 90% of our clients wear them, have tried at some time other designs, and seriously prefer "Varilux". and if you don't duplicate monocular pd's, seg hts, and base curves, you'll create a different problem. example, we had one of the "new school" bright, MDs put in his own shop a few years back, immediately told our clientes that they needn't bother going back to us, and "all no-lines" are the same", so the ones that bit on that deal were very upset with the doctor and now they don't even go back for his professional services, much less their glasses. So, my advice is if they ask for a Varilux, give it to them, check the references marks on their old lenses to verify...

[Pete Hanlin]

The real question is: "What is the end result of these designs?" In other words, is there a real difference between them in terms of visual acuity and patient acceptance? If the differences are real, what are they?

What is the end result of the these designs?
Comfort was launched in 1994- Panamic was launched in 2000. In my opinion, Steve's question boils down to this- Was there a real reason for the launch of a new product in 2000, or did Essilor simply need to launch something "fresh?"

Naturally, the same question applies to every new design launched by every manufacturer.

Panamic is a design which DOES improve patient vision. Comparitive study demonstrated that approximately 70% of the subjects preferred their vision with Panamic over Comfort (which, regardless of your lens of choice, is without a doubt one of the most successful PAL designs ever launched). Plus, Panamic scored higher in every aspect tested (cf. chart below).

If the differences are real, what are they?
Regarding Panamic - Comfort the differences are profound. The designs are based upon entirely different philosophies. Comfort was designed to have a short progression with soft properties with an elevated reading zone that required less eye/head movement to acquire. In a way, it was designed from the "inside out" to the periphery (i.e., it maximized intermediate progression width).
Panamic was designed from the "outside in." On a monocular basis, Panamic was not designed to have the widest periphery. Rather, the periphery was designed to provide binocular fusion across a wide area. In other words, while the intermediate area that is free of unwanted astigmatism may actually be narrower in Panamic, it is better balanced. This means binocular vision is improved as both eyes encounter similar amounts of astigmatism on either side of the intermediate zone.

So what is the difference? When fit properly, Panamic provides a patient with less swim and disorientation (since the eyes are perceiving images that are very similar). This represents a change in PAL design. Panamic also varies the design of the lens dramatically as the add power and base curve changes. Again, when fit properly, the design ensures that the midpoint of the intended reading area will be placed at a point in the middle of the patient's vision- regardless of add power or ametropia.

Is all this marketing hype? I might have labeled it so a year ago myself (although I have to add that I personally observed patients who noticed dramatic improvement when we would switch them from VIP to Panamic when I was still practicing Opticianry). Now that I've seen the research behind the design, I have to say I'm a firm believer in the revolutionary nature of the Panamic design. I think there are some issues to identify (such as patients with binocular anomolies that prevent them from utilizing the Panamic design and fitting process problems that are clearly evident in the field), but I'm convinced that a Panamic can provide demonstrably better vision to the majority of PAL wearing patients.

You asked...

[aaron]

Mr Ranger,

Thanks for the tips. I assure you that the conversation between myself and the patient extends beyond "I want Varilux." IF I have determined that they are asking for a specific lens by the name then I will give them what they ask for of course. But if while talking to them I discern that they happened upon a commercial or were told they were to ask for Varilux or something like that, than I will recommend what I feel is best for the patient, which may or may not include Varilux. If the patient is happy with what they are wearing then even more so I will match everything all around.


Thanks for letting me know about the Comfort being released in 94. I got into the biz the year after that so I suppose I assumed it was older than that.


The truth is many people do confuse the word Varilux with the TYPE of lens they are asking for (meaning a PAL), and do not neccesarily associate it with brand. That is something that if I told a marketing firm I could do for their clients, I would have to leave the board in order to find more time to spend my money.


I have no doubt that the Panamic is a wonderful lens with an incredable philosophy and design. But there are other lenses that also have a wonderful design philosophy but do not have the marketing dollars Essilor has. Hense the "both" come into play.


ad

P.S. I don't fit VIP just in case..........

[Foveator]

One other thing to consider is the frame fit on the face.

I have 2 identical pair of Panamic Crizals. Same Rx, same height, same frame sizes and shapes. One is in a Revolution frame (with mangetic clip) and the 2nd is a Polo frame. The Revolution frame sits slightly further from the face; the Polo frame sits a little closer than most. Without doubt, I see better out of the the closer fitting Polo frame. The closer the frame and correct pantoscopic tilt, the better the vision. With any lens.

I think that the Panamic is a very good lens. It, along with Comfort, represents the majority of my pals. I also have a pair of Rodenstock Muligressives. Distance vision is similar is similar to the Panamic. Near vision, however, literally jumped off the page! I was amazed at the crispness of the near vision. Is it worth the additional (substantial) cost? I offer it to patients who demand the best acuity available, particularly at near. Many times, they were previous non-adapts. I haven't had one pair returned.

Compared with VIP, it's like comparing the new Mercedes hardtop convertible with a toaster. No comparison. And those who make the switch, particularly in higher powers, will never forget your advice.

Just make sure the frames are "selected" and adjusted correctly.

[BobV]

Foveator, I think you hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter which lens you use. Just make sure you have sufficient "drop" in the frame and just about any lens will produce the desired effect.

I must say though, out of all the lenses I have tried, I fall back on two repeatedly. Varilux Comfort and AO B'active. I enjoy the wide periphery the B'active gives. I hunt and fish, and the B'active polarized is my choice for all outdoor activities.

Bob V.

[Chris Ryser]

Compare with the Pharmaceutical Industry ..............

BobV said:
Foveator, I think you hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter which lens you use. Just make sure you have sufficient "drop" in the frame and just about any lens will produce the desired effect.


Bob V.

When a pharmaceutical company comes out with a new product to treat a specific ill, the product is patented and nobody can produce and sell a copy (called generic version) for as long as the patents are valid. 15-20 years.

After that time period everybody within that industry jumps on the bandwagon and produces generic versions at much lower prices.

In the optical field ESSILOR made the invention in 1954 and had the monopoly for 20 years after that.

After patents expired everybody else jumped in with their own versions, then followed up with some improvements here and there.

IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DRASTIC TOTALLY DIFFERENT IMPROVEMENT, WE COULD ASSUME THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE SLAPPED SOME PATENTS ON THE IDEA TO PREVENT THE COMPETITION FROM USING ANY REVOLUTIONARY NEW IDEA OR PRINCIPLE.

Therefore, following this logical train of thought, we have to assume that MOST of the talk on these superb differences of progressive lenses has to be marketing, marketing, marketing.

[Texas Ranger]

Chris, Varilux Comfort has 5 unique international patents and Panamics have an additional four, built upon the Comfort design, so the Panamic has 9 unique "patents".

[Lee Prewitt]

Chris brought up a good point when he mentioned the pharmeceuticals. My point is not with the patents but more from the marketing perspective. The drug companies have taken this to a completely different plane. With direct marketing to the consumer, they are now asking their doctors for the drugs directly. Nexium comes to mind, the purple pill. But do they ever tell you what it is for? I can't remember if they ever do but I know about "the purple pill".

So, Varilux is really the only one who has done any real campaign direct to the consumer with the Presbyopic Six. So with the success of the drug companies marketing campaign, are we that far behind with the presbyopic population exploding for this type of direct campaigns?

[Chris Ryser]

Just wanted to know ...................

Texas Ranger said:
Chris, Varilux Comfort has 5 unique international patents and Panamics have an additional four, built upon the Comfort design, so the Panamic has 9 unique "patents".

your comments tickled my fancy so I checked it out:

ESSILOR has 357 patents listed out of which 9 refer to progressive lenses, here are the listings and dates when granted:

4,461,550 July 24, 1984
4,778,266 October 18, 1988
4,861,153 August 29, 1989
4,854,689 August 8, 1989
5,123,725 June 23, 1992
5,270,745 December 14, 1993
5,272,495 December 21, 1993
5,488,442 January 30, 1996
6,186,626 February 13, 2001