Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: I think I've come to the conclusion...:-)

  1. #1
    Bad address email on file Darris Chambless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    San Angelo, TX 76904
    Dispensing Optician


    Hey everyone,

    I was just reading my new issue of VM and basically getting bored. After I read a while I realized something. That something is that I could never be a journalist for any magazine that had to kid-glove so many companies.

    Here's what I'm getting at: There is an article concerning a downed second quarter for Signature Eyewear despite record increases in sales across the board. Because of changes made by the company going direct and the amount of money that had to be spent to reorganize, the profits were down. That's basically what the article said.

    Here's what I say "Dear Signature, You screwed up big time. You had companies in place that were selling your product and giving you a decent market share. Then waltzes in the "Lazy New Agers" that look at the numbers and say "We can do better. I know, we'll go direct and enjoy a larger profit because there won't be a middleman(even though we have no clue at the undertaking we will have to make)

    The loyalty to your product had nothing to do with Signature. It did have to do with the handling of the accounts by the distributors of your products and their account representatives which when you went direct you lost all of. So in a nutshell I say "What a bonehead play!"

    So you can see I wouldn't make a good journalist because I have to tell it like it is not how I think they would like for it to sound. I'm not saying that the journalism is bad, but it does have to be somewhat patronizing to the undeserving.

    Then we have the article about Cheryl Ladd and her association with the EOA Presbyopia Awareness Campaign. Cheryl (and I'll use first name because I feel like we are very close after reading the article)wears bifocals which makes her presbyopic and she is an actress. That pretty much spells expert to me, how about everyone else? I also wonder if Cheryl isn't getting some form of compensation from Essilor for being the spokes model for their campaign? I also wonder if this campaign is not just some marketing ploy to sell more Essilor products or if Essilor really cares about getting the information out to me (the consumer) so that I may lead a better life through advancements in technology? Surely they care ;-)

    I did see a picture of David Digby though. He looks younger than he writes :-) David if you're out there lurking I say "Howdy, dude!" Even if you are working for the blood sucking Luxottica Group ;-)

    Then there was the article that had me laughing so much I couldn't stand it (actually it was the title). "Santinelli Blocker Designed For Accuracy and Efficiency" I would prefer to have one designed with substandard features and a low reliability rating if you don't mind. :-) I would hope that Santinelli would design their products to be both accurate and efficient and I think they would even get more sales that way :-)

    I can't leave without addressing some of the advertising used in these trade mags. My favorite is the full page add for Emporio Armani where the lady with the rather "butch" hairdo is wearing a frame that is way too big for her face and PD and makes her look cross-eyed. I could see the response to that one being "You know, I seen this add fer some glasses and it made the cross-eyed, retarded girl in the picture look really good. I think I'd like a pair jist like 'em." :-)

    Well, I've done enough damage for now, but as I run across more funny stuff I'll keep you all informed. In fact I think as I find silly things I will just start writing them down here in "Just Conversation." I'll bet I could find at least one tidbit a day ;-)

    Talk to ya'll later,

    Darris "Back off Andy Rooney! It's my turn." Chambless

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder Jeff Trail's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Chattanooga TN.
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)

    Redhot Jumper


    You just figured that one out :) .. You never noticed that in ANY of Jobson's mags that you NEVER see a bad word about any person/place or company..
    Oh they do have some informative articles but since they are limited to 99% optical articles and 100% optical advertisement then you are not going to see anything "bad"..
    A while back I wrote an article for Review of Optometry on PAL's and when I sent it in it came back with slash here delete there, rewrite this part.. Etc. etc.
    More or less I could not mention ANY lens by brand, and had to keep the article on the basic's, fitting, dispensing .. explanation of the basic design.. BUT no stuff comparing any lens :)
    The funny part was that after reading that one of the mags , like consumer report type called and wanted me to do an article.. telling the general public all the inside scoops like my WHOLESALE prices on lens and frames etc. etc... .. told them to take their $500 and stick it up their .. well you get my drift :)
    BTW did you SEE that article about PPG? They developed a new polymer that is as "strong" as poly but the optics is more comparable to CR39 :)
    A side note is the guys who lic. it from PPG is listed on the stock market (NY exchange) it's a little over $2 a share.. I figured what the heck and bought 3,000 shares, maybe it will do something .. if not then well it's always a tax deduction on the losses :)

    Jeff "Jimmy Olsen or Clark Kent, which would you rather be?" Trail

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Eagan, MN USA


    In reference to to the mainstream optical press you referred to you, I agree that there is, for lack of a better term, a rather benign method to their reporting. However, this is not what irritates me. The only time these Jobson rags do any kind of reporting on new products is when there is a previously established relationship (specifically lens companys in my experience). I worked for Pentax for a couple of years in their marketing department in a technical capacity and spent most of my time discussing and explaining the optical principles of the AF and AF mini progressive. Upon the introduction of the AF mini I approached the publications in question and inquired as to whether they would be interested in doing a comparison with the Compact the Mini and possibly the Top. Their reply was to inform me that, while they were objective, they had no interest in inadvertently promoting a specific lens brand based on test results. This made sense to me until about two months later I saw a comparison of short corridor progressives with the mini not included. In retrospect I believe that the amount of advertising budget allotted to these mags has a direct impact on the amount of favorable press they will show a particular company in the future. By the way, this is my first post and I look forward to lots of exchanges. Thanks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. low 16 height progressive
    By harry888 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 252
    Last Post: 12-11-2004, 09:11 PM
  2. done deal?
    By edKENdance in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-03-2004, 07:45 PM
  3. The conclusion of "24"
    By Pete Hanlin in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-20-2003, 04:54 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment