Re: How do we educate the consumer on the Independants vs chains!

[kcangelo1]

You must all be under the impression that the chains don’t care about the patient and their optical needs. The problem with grouping them, (the chains) all together is like saying all opticians are the same. I work for a chain and take pride in my work and optical knowledge. I am licensed in two states, have my ABO and NCLE and participate in continuing education yearly. Many of my patients return to me YEARLY! They refer family and friends to me regularly. Remember that there are many opticians who take pride in their profession even if it is in a retail host environment. Yes we are encouraged to sell certain products, but, we can also think “out of the box” as you put it. I work hard to maintain my integrity and that shows in the trust my patients give me. I was transferred to a new location closer to my home and yet I still have patients travel 30+ miles to see me 6 years later. How many independents do they pass along the way? The chain’s advertising gets them in the door and I make sure I keep them with my service.

[mrba]

Here Here!

[Johns]

kcangelo:

The only real point here is that in you post, you said "They travel to see ME."

Your customers are returning to you in spite of you working for a chain, not because of it.

You do what you do best, and that's all anyone can ask for. If you're happy where you work, there should be no reason to have to justify it to anyone.

[kcangelo1]

John,

It’s not that I am trying to justify it, it’s just that I’m getting tired of all the negative talk the chain opticians get. At my last CE class my own Opticians Association thanked the independents for their support. Never made mention to the hundreds of chain opticians who pay $130 in yearly dues and support the society by paying to attend their classes, which I might add are more costly than those given by other groups.

[Johns]

That was my point...you're doing a great job while doing what you enjoy, but you'rehaving to defend it against all the negative talk of your peers.

Most people don't have anything against chain store employees, it is the management that they have a problem with. The employees are the tools that enable the chains to carry out their agendas.

When chain stores (major retailers) actively lobby our state leaders to lower standards and to abolish licensing, while at the same time trying to drive the competition out of business, it is not difficult to understand the animosity towards chain stores.

[Chris Ryser]

What has been stated above is absolutely fact. Even chain stores have good employees.

In the optical retail an optician will get people coming back to him or her if they give good honest service, know how to adjust frames and sell the right to product for the intended purpose.

[B]However the chains are trying to push the medium or small guy off the market and the ultimate goal is to be the ONLY dominating factor on the market.

So I think that the "how to educate" theme should not be used to bash chain employees but to find out how to find arguments against using chain stores as suppliers for the publics needs for glasses

[Alan W]

So I think that the "how to educate" theme should not be used to bash chain employees but to find out how to find arguments against using chain stores as suppliers for the publics needs for glasses

I couldn't agree more. We are a cult of superlatives and polarities. Cheap vs expensive, inferior vs superior, etc. What I find interesting is that that there are so many opticians out there working for themselves, chains and independents that whatever value system exists may not apply to all. What we need to do is adopt a value system that trandscends those things we easily use as clubs over the head of chains. Chains come in different flavors, too. So, we have different value systems even amongst them. Optometrists are no better. Some have elevated to health care, some have descended to price and packages. But, we also need to know who carries the title "optician" wants to to share a common value system. I don't believe all do. I also feel that vendors will promote excelence in product and service, but will not do anything that will skew the advantage they have of nutrality. After all, they sell to competitors. I have a problem with what I've seen in organizations who undertake to market opticianry. While some say education is the ultimate element of a value system, others say legislative influence is. I have to see any opticians organization hire a PR firm and let them do their thing. Over the past 40 years as an optician I have seen one group after another try to be the P&R firm with the golden bullet. Bottom line . . . we need an image maker and a firm that knows how to package it. And, each optician, wherever they work, needs to put up $1.00. That will pay for plenty. The last image of professionalism and trust I can recall was Norman Rockwell's picture of an optometrist. And, that's a classic nobody questions.

[For-Life]

I agree. We allow ourselves to get beaten up by the chains, OD's, and other Opticians. From the OD's that I know they do not step on each others feets. So why do us Opticians not work together. I have seen associations, but they never seem to create a general union among us. I am not talking about collusion, but fighting to make sure that legislation is fair to us, and to create a positive image of our profession. I have seen Johnson and Johnson banners telling people why they should buy their contacts from OD's. Maybe we should have ads saying why it is important to purchase glasses from a licenced optician.

[Alan W]

I personally believe licensed and certified opticians form the foundation of a campaign I affectionatly call "Who Do You Trust?" And, it's the issue of who do you trust that, in my mind, is rarely articulated. We have been trying to intellectualize, consumer advocatize, academize, and what not to gain credibility. We have the audacity to say to patients "Don't buy from them. Their product is inferior. Yet, on investigation, they use the same brands and the same lab or lab equipment as anyone else. That is NOT the issue. The issue is "trust me . . . you can count on me." Not count on me more than the other guy. Not count on me because I'm an independent and they are cheapo chains. Not count on me because I'm smarter. Not because I have a license and they don't. It's because the script writer, the producer know how to say: "You can count on me." That's their job. And, I have not yet met anyone in the ranks of opticianry who knows how to and execute a plan to show it. Professionals create the public service annoucements, an infomercials on broadcast or internet, a "popup" that appears everytime someone looks for an internet pair of glasses. (Well.....that's stretching it.) But, the point is that good visual imagery, the sound of a warm/fuzzy/but stabile voice, and the real living picture of someone "to be trusted" is what we don't do. It's not just that simple. But it is a no brainer. How many years will it take for all of us to realize that we have been saying the same thing year after year after year, yet avoid as much as we can . . . the obvious. The old saying is right . . .
"I love to constantly bang my head against the wall, because it feels so good when I stop." Like I said.: If each of us kicked in a dollar there would be enough to pay a small but quality PR firm to do the work. There are many. But, the real problem is and always will be . . . too many opticians want to be PR professionals (BTW....PR in this case is Public Relations, not Punctum Remotum!), but as they say down here in Bayou City . . . . "they ain't!" Here's how a bunch of small businesspeople with limited budgets handled it using a professional: low band high band

[Andrew Weiss]

I like where this discussion is going.

I've worked only for independents and ODs. I've interviewed at a couple of chains, and I have great respect for any optician who works for a chain and maintains a "patient-first", quality orientation. I have great respect for them because in many cases they are bucking the incentive structure of their chain's management; from what I've seen, those incentives prioritize high profit-margin items and quick turn-around times over quality work.

What I see is that the only way we can educate/convince people to trust us as opticians is by the quality of the work we do. That reputation will get spread quickly. The office I work in now has a high-quality orientation and never advertises. We continue to get referrals from outside ODs and opthalmologist(and we are an OD office!), and our practice continues to grow, because people know from our reputation that we'll do the job right and if it isn't done right the first time we'll redo it until it is. Some of our patients have tried other places -- other independents and chains -- and they all come back to us because we do the work correctly and do the necessary hand-holding.

What I've come to understand is that we won't convince anyone by advertising. We'll do it one patient at a time. And to me that means all of us, whether we're independent opticians or chain opticians, so long as we put the patient first and do our work thoroughly and with high standards.

Now, here's what I don't like about chains -- and all of these are management issues:

I don't like deceptive advertizing, whether as to quality or price. I don't like aggressive marketing designed to put us out of business. I don't like standardization of frame selections and lens selections; it limits choice and sometimes the patient's ability to get the best lens for his visual needs. We're at a phase that pharmacies were at about 10 years ago, when the big chains aggressively opened right next to independent pharmacies, undercut their prices, and drove them out of business. We don't have to let that happen. I'd hate to see a world with only chain outlets and no independents; what bothers me is that I don't think chain management folks see this the same way. If you are a chain manager and you know differently, please contradict me!

[Alan W]

I respect your principle-based practice. As you shared that with us . . . we need to share that with the public. The foundation is principle based. Not that we are better. We are right . . . . and you can take that to the bank, as the old saying goes. It has to be repeated and repeated and repeated until what buzz we create remains indellible. Then, after the public believes in us . . . trusts us... we set the bar higher. But it has to be in that order. You can't legislate yourself into superiority.

One of my clients deals in consumer advocacy. Their slogan is . . . argue in court. . . win in the marketplace. What they eventually see as the goal in dealing with ripoffs is that the public will turn its back on those who have been proven not to be trusted. That's a tough concept. It isn't material. And, it takes a while to leave a lasting impression,

But, it works . . . . and you are proving it. Good job.

Respectfully yours!

[chm2023]

Building on some of the other thoughts (I am not an optician BTW but have been involved in consumer marketing forever!) I think independent opticians need to embrace the best practices of the large chains. What do they do that make so many people buy from them? Adopt or adapt those practices that make sense. Some percentage of the market is price-driven, but that is true in any industry. Price to most people is one only factor.

Making the experience as pleasant, convenient and professional as possible is the key, I would think. This of course is where you have the opportunity to run rings around the chains. Also would suggest the independents (ODs and opticians) need to work together, fighting between the disciplines serves no-one. (Not a novel idea I know, but think it bears repeating.)

[Cowboy]

I live in NH and we are not a licensed state. I have been in this industry for 15 years and I have been ABO certified for 10. I am currently working on my ABOA. I do take my profession seriously and respect those who do the same. I would never cut loose on a fellow optician if he maitained "patient and professionalism first" attitude. The 'sales associate' who works for a chain that has been employed for two months that gets the title optician simply because they are in the industry is my quandry. The chain that employs them is the same that buys a NA vote when the licensing bill comes to house. It is this same company that refuses to even provide the associate with the states rule of "dispensing certification". This is where individualism certainly takes its role. I did start at that same chain 15 years ago, and decided that this was my career path. I am sure that the same is true for those who work for the chains. It is what each person puts into the choice of what they do that will make them an optician. When it comes to educating the public, unfortunately, the success rate of that will never prove to be worthwhile as the publics only intrest in our profession is the final outcome - the eyeglasses and contacts they wear. We, as professionals, can only do our part, as one of you said earlier, one patient at a time.
:cheers:

Cowboy

[Alan W]

Let's make this real . . . since you don't come from the optical industry, and, thank you for visiting with us . . . could you kindly list what attributes you observe or believe there are, that a chain operation has that an independent doesn't have, and vice versa. I am curious to know what you observe and believe subjectively. And, for your help you will receive, free, undying gratitude!

We all agree not to physically or psychologically abuse you no matter what the answer! You are safe on The Optiboard!

[chm2023]

I didn't say I wasn't from the optical industry, just that I am not an optician.

I will give it a go: chains generally have a larger selection, are more easily accessed (location/parking), longer hours, accept more vision plans, have more powerful and innovative in-store graphics, have store credit cards. They base their business and marketing plans on market research, have lots of ad and promotion bucks so they are top of mind with the patient, provide sales training and have a sales mentality.

On the other hand: independents generally build long lasting relationships with patients and can provide personalized service, spend more time with patients and "go the extra mile", are better educated, more likely to provide the best solution for the individual patient, can have great variety in frame selection--not so cookie-cutter, have more employee stability and are preferred by people who have more money to spend on their eyeware.

This is just top of mind, for what it's worth.

[Texas Ranger]

chm2023, I don't know how chains could have a "larger selection", and independents have "great variety in frame selection"..chains work longer hours, yes, most work "mall hours", and that creates serious staffing issues and a great deal of employee turnover. And those mall and mall hour situations just pump up the overhead. they do "accept more vision plans", since some of the largest cahins "own their own vision plans", thereby being the insurer and the provider (do we smell a skunk?) but the plans require a higher than standard markup, making it MORE Expensive for their clientele. Market researc, and those lots of ad and promotion dollars are derived from those inflated markups! And worst of all they have a "sales mentality", sell 'em what you've got! So, look at what you said about independents; "better educated", "provide the best solutions", have "employee stability", "personalized service", "build lasting relationships", and "are preferred by people that have more money to spend", i.e. the smarter folks who can see through the decptive marketing schemes? just off the top of my mind...

[Cowboy]

Right on the money Texas:D

:cheers:

Cowboy

[chip anderson]

Question: If you worked in a precriber owned dispensary and you knew that it was unethical (even illegal) to fill and Rx from another source that did not "Share a common roof" with the precriber/owner. Would you turn the business away?

Chip

Point: We all have our own little conception of ethics, and right and wrong but the bottom line is usually: If he does it and it costs me money, it's wrong. If we do it and it makes us money, it's usually right.

[For-Life]

I find one thing that is very prevalent with chains is that they do not offer product. For instance, they do not offer the better lens, many do not offer the higher index, they will only off the lower AR coating. I find that independents try to offer the best. If someone wants AR, give them Alize, if they are a first time bifocal wearer make sure it is a PAL, stuff like that.

[Alan W]

I had a feeling this would happen. The original question all too often gets no answer. The interesting part about it is that as time passes certain members of chain staffs evolve through education to become decent opticians. What bugs me is that those folks stick around too long in environments that, in themselves, are not promoted as professionals to be trusted, but as sellers of glasses/contacts/seasonal unrelated products . . . . cheap! Interesting phenomenon is the plight of the medical doctor. They leave the independent practice because it's too hard to be an independent professional, so they go to an HMO where they can practice pure medicine and let the paperwork be done by others. But, what is also disheartening are the misconceptions which cause us to debate amongst ourselves and then nothing gets resolved. Let's face it . . . some of us are prejudiced for present economic reasons while others are prejudiced because of historical reputations of chains. I don't say they have evolved into the epitome of professionalsim as businesses . . . but perhaps some of the individuals who work there have. It's difficult to compare someone who never hand edged a lens to shape, when no one cares anymore and the new generation is good at pushing a button. Likewise, sales based businesses are not looking for people who can detect vertical imbalance or convergence prism before the glasses are made. Hopefully, independent firms foster that intellect. BUT . . . it is a person who nurtures, cares for, supports the patient, builds trust . . . It isn't the independent any more than the chain person who who nurtures, cares for, supports the patient, builds trust. I wonder when we all will decide whether we are promoting the optician or where the optician works. Educate the public by giving them a checklist of what an optician is that can be trusted . . . and it should be done (to my thinking) with images that Mom's and Dad's, Aunt's and Uncles, CEO's and Shipping Clerks, can say "That's what I want . . . I trust him or her because he/she is knowledgeable, caring, nurturing, and supportive" . . . and show it in real life and on screen. My last comment: My multimedia mentor said it . . . show what pulls on the heartstrings before you pull on the pursestrings if you want the best customers who pay up. In the immortal words of Paul Sr. from Orange County Choppers . . . Just do it right and take care of the customer. . . and xxxx or something like that!

[chm2023]

chm2023, I don't know how chains could have a "larger selection", and independents have "great variety in frame selection"..chains work longer hours, yes, most work "mall hours", and that creates serious staffing issues and a great deal of employee turnover. And those mall and mall hour situations just pump up the overhead. they do "accept more vision plans", since some of the largest cahins "own their own vision plans", thereby being the insurer and the provider (do we smell a skunk?) but the plans require a higher than standard markup, making it MORE Expensive for their clientele. Market researc, and those lots of ad and promotion dollars are derived from those inflated markups! And worst of all they have a "sales mentality", sell 'em what you've got! So, look at what you said about independents; "better educated", "provide the best solutions", have "employee stability", "personalized service", "build lasting relationships", and "are preferred by people that have more money to spend", i.e. the smarter folks who can see through the decptive marketing schemes? just off the top of my mind...

Hey T.R. I knew I wasn't stating that right when I wrote it: what I meant to communicate is that the chain selection is usually very middle of the road and that to get the more eclectic styles, you really need to visit an independent. Sorry for the confusion. I agree with your assertions but again, IMO, if the independents do not change the way they look at their businesses and get more competitive, they will go the way of the independent pharmacies, which would be a real shame.

I suspect the reason people with more money to spend prefer the higher quality of service and professionalism they get at the independent. I wouldn't go so far as to say they see through deceptive marketing schemes--just don't think the chains are on their radar period.

[Chris Ryser]

Gosh.......all of you have become long article writers on chains, but nobody has mentioned that one important chain belongs to, and the largest one might or will belong to an important frame manufacturer.

The dot on the i is, that .....................an important frame manufacturer can load his retail stores with any type of frames, cheap ones as well as middle priced ones and high end stuff.

All the discussion in above postings are nice to read, but they will get you nowwhere, because they have or will have the upper hand in the way of choice of quantity and quality of the merchandise they want to promote.

We have established further above that you can not knock the chain employees, because there are good ones as well as the other type

You can not knock the merchandise because they belong to the source who can fill them with stock of whatever they want.

Therefore you better find a good way to promote the independent and privately owned optical store before the avalanche moves down the slope and buries you.
:hammer:

[Joann Raytar]

Hey T.R. I knew I wasn't stating that right when I wrote it: what I meant to communicate is that the chain selection is usually very middle of the road and that to get the more eclectic styles, you really need to visit an independent. Sorry for the confusion.\

Actually chm2023, you weren't too far off the first time. It's all about the consumers' perceptions that chains have more frames. Any shop could have one frame in ten sizes and ten colors in every size. The consumer is going to view those frames as totalling one hundred frames not one frame one hundred times over. It's up to the independent to let the consumer know that out of one hundred frames in their shop there are ten different styles to choose from not one.

[Texas Ranger]

I remember a few years ago when there was a big deal made by the "major" frame companies to promote the idea of "don't carry more than a dozen lines" and let them "board manage"....I think that that had to have hurt small independent shops that just made themselves copies of everyone else...we may even have too much diversity in product, but one thing that our clientele knows is that we have the best selection around...

[Joann Raytar]

I remember a few years ago when there was a big deal made by the "major" frame companies to promote the idea of "don't carry more than a dozen lines" and let them "board manage"...

Where were you last week when I had to learn the hard way not to let someone "board manage?" At least, don't let someone manage your boards until you know and trust them.

Texas Ranger, how did you get the message across to your community about your frame selection, word of mouth or advertising? Do you bring in lines from smaller frame companies to offer something different or make sure you have all the popular lines? For everyone watching this thread, how do you create brand recognition of frames if you're not talking designer names?

PS - Alan, good to see you posting! Also, good message your sharing!