State your unpopular opinion here

[drk]

Au contraire. Have you seen LC's prices on polycarb, Mr. Cherry?

With a lower base price, you can also add more options, you know.

[Cherry Optical]

Au contraire. Have you seen LC's prices on polycarb, Mr. Cherry?

With a lower base price, you can also add more options, you know.

I am not sure what the price of LC's poly has to do with the price of pants in Portugal. Is your assertion that Independents shop LC to set their base price? Some may; vast majority don't. If a patient is at LC's they are obviously not at an Indepedent's practice. Along the same line of thought, and again proving my point: What is LCs price of 1.67, 1.60, and the 'o-so-expensive' TRIVEX?

Perhaps I focus too heavily on the Independent practice.....

Your concept of a lower base price, which is usually associated with Polycarbonate, plays right into what I am saying. If 95% of your lenses have a lower base price than your other materials, than 95% of your lenses are lower priced than your other materials. Simple. Logical. True.

Think of the increased revenue of providing a different (I would argue better) product to 20% of your patients..... that is what I am talking about. Revenue. Growth. Better products.

Offering and dispensing Polycarbonate lens material to 95% of your patients is not a long term pro-growth, revenue generating strategy for an Independent practice. Maybe a 80/20, or 70/30; but 95/5 is stuck in the mud.

Adam

[drk]

Bleah.

Adam, I assure you, there is not a "better" material than poly. It's inexpensive 1.6: drill it, rimless it, kids, sunwear, moderate Rx, UV protection, safety. It's good stuff.

I bring up the LC because of their exorbitant profit margin on a pair of poly lenses. They're selling it all day, I'd bet (help me out here, Luxottica drone worker bees).

I fail to see the superiority of 1.6 (yea, even beautiful Finalite or beautiful Eyas) and 1.67 doesn't "materialize" until high, high Rxs (read: about 10% of the marketplace.)

I'm into inexpensive (but profitable) poly with super-good AR coats, for ALL. Throw in Transitions once in awhile. That is the sum of ophthalmic lenses, 2007.

[Cherry Optical]

Bleah.

Adam, I assure you, there is not a "better" material than poly.

That is the sum of ophthalmic lenses, 2007.

Boy. This thread couldn't be named better....

State your unpopular statements here!

Kind of sad to think that an almost 30 year old lens material is thought of by some as the pinnacle of our industry.

BTW: What percentage of POLY lenses sold worldwide are sold in the USA? (AND) If POLY is so incredibly superior and wildly profitable, why hasn't the rest of the world caught on?

Adam

[braheem24]

Adam is that you? Arent you supposed to be in FL?

[drk]

Boy. This thread couldn't be named better....

State your unpopular statements here!

Kind of sad to think that an almost 30 year old lens material is thought of by some as the pinnacle of our industry.

BTW: What percentage of POLY lenses sold worldwide are sold in the USA? (AND) If POLY is so incredibly superior and wildly profitable, why hasn't the rest of the world caught on?

Adam

Well, your tires are still made of rubber, I think. And your shirts are probably 100% cotton.

WHAT A DISGRACE TO TECHNOLOGY!!!

[k12311997]

And your shirts are probably 100% cotton.

WHAT A DISGRACE TO TECHNOLOGY!!!

chemically treated to resist wrinkles and spills, darn technology.

[OPTIDONN]

Boy. This thread couldn't be named better....

State your unpopular statements here!

Kind of sad to think that an almost 30 year old lens material is thought of by some as the pinnacle of our industry.

BTW: What percentage of POLY lenses sold worldwide are sold in the USA? (AND) If POLY is so incredibly superior and wildly profitable, why hasn't the rest of the world caught on?

Adam

So your saying that because the rest of the world is not using poly its because its not profitable? Well most of these markets that have low poly markets tend to have glass as thier primary lens of choice. So I guess that this would mean that glass is "incredibly superior and wildly profitable". From what I know this stuff called glass is pretty new, can't be any older than poly:hammer:

[optirep]

Optiboard is full of bullies and know-it-alls. Last time I checked and opinion was not right or wrong just and opinion.

There are many different ways to run a great business.

8000+ people have registered for the broard and I would guess 7500 have left with a bad taste in thier mouths.

The Premier online community of eyecare PROFESSIONALS!!!!

[chip anderson]

Glass is incredibly superior in a land without lawyers.

[HarryChiling]

I don't like Poly, reacts with plenty of chemicals, cracks, used in optyl frames it sometimes has a crazy reaction and causes the frame to break (had more than a few break in multiple places), quality of material varies too widely from manufacturer to manufacturer, shrinks over time, does not tint well, soft prone to scatches, etc., etc.

I could make a list like this for any of the materials that we use, it's really a matter of opinion. I personally don't like poly (what am I wearing right now, POLY), because I don't like it doesn't mean I can't find the use for it. I don't think it should be used in 95% of patients unless you are pigeon holeing your patients into the materal. I use it in drill, safety, and MVC. If given a choice I use 1.60 (which I use alot of). I also use CR-39, spectralite, and other materials. I have found I can surface a (+) lens in a 1.55 materal thinner than I can order a poly at less of the cost. Thsi is better for me and the patient.

[OPTIDONN]

I do HATE to work with poly!!!It's a pain in my butt! To me the greatest material ever is Spectralite!:D

[MarcE]

I do HATE to work with poly!!!It's a pain in my butt! To me the greatest material ever is Spectralite!:D

You bet! Spectralite is underrated. If it didn't chip, there would be no market for Trivex.

[OPTIDONN]

You bet! Spectralite is underrated. If it didn't chip, there would be no market for Trivex.

I hear it's getting phased out! I know we can no longer get it finished but have not had a problem getting it semi-finished.

[Judy Canty]

Does working for Polycore create any kind of conflict of interest? :D

Adam

Um...no. I'm an Optician first and foremost.

[glassynotassy]

DRK makes many excellent points!

Polycarbonate is good for 95% of rxs. That does not necessarily translate to fitting 95% in poly. How many out there are brave enough to admit that they are of the majority of private offices that fit 40+% CR39? Funny thing is that probably would not generate the same foaming of the mouth that "poly favor" does.

Rock on DRK!

[Chris Ryser]

we need to remember we are, most likely, in business for profit.

Basically a correct statement......................but...........

The profit could be spread differently, these days in the area of frames and lenses the profits are to high taking into consideration the real manufacturing cost.

Lenses that cost only a few cents to produce (polycarb) at the manufacturing end. sell for hundreds of dollars at the retail end.

Frames that cost only a few dollars to produce, sell also for hundreds of dollars at the retail end.

Manufacturers moved their production to the far east, producing their product at a fraction of their cost when production was situated in Europe or the USA..........but have not reduced their selling prices adjusted to the new manufacturing level. Therefore they are starting the chain of supply with a high markup that had never been seen in this business.

They are also using their inflated profits to buy up local supply companies for further control of the market and others are using those funds to purchase retail operation and actively becoming competitors of their direct customers, which are financing these projects.

Glasses compared to all the other products made in the far east are the "lone ranger" of high profit, that today's products are more expensive to the public than ever.

Therefore making profit is good, but making it under false pretense is not.

[Chris Ryser]

Optiboard is full of bullies and know-it-alls. .......................................and I would guess 7500 have left with a bad taste in thier mouths.

Is that why you are still actively posting ? Probably been told by the boss to defend the good old company.
Look at post "Can we afford................." :finger:

[optirep]

Is that why you are still actively posting ? Probably been told by the boss to defend the good old company.
Look at post "Can we afford................." :finger:

WRONG CHRIS. I do not speak for my company I speak for myself.

And thanks for proving my point.

I read your post, and being a bully is not going to get people to sign up. I am busy an spend maybe 5 minutes a day on Optiboard. I enjoy reading some of the posts. I don't have hours of free time like yourself.

I understand that you have invented everything and have been in the business for 100years and that your opinion is right and any other is wrong. And you have the best web site the world.

[FullCircle]

(help me out here, Luxottica drone worker bees).

Yea. um. I don't think so. Insult me AND ask me for help in the same sentence?

Please. Get bent.

[Chris Ryser]

I don't have hours of free time like yourself.

That was a bitter tasting post, ................probably got out of bed with the left foot.

Here is the way to have more time.................get up at 3.30am like me and start with a hot cup of coffee by 4 am. I can tell you it opens a few hours during a full working day to have some time for other things.

[Fezz]

Another one of my unpopular opinions=Chris Ryser gets up too da*n early! :D


:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

They are not filled with beer this time, it is coffee for Chris!

[Cherry Optical]

Well most of these markets that have low poly markets tend to have glass as thier primary lens of choice.

From what I know this stuff called glass is pretty new, can't be any older than poly:hammer:

Honestly? Really....? So, in your opinion 1.9, 1.8, and other high index mineral glass lenses in foreign markets are the same as standard grown & 1.60 glass commonly dispensed in the US market? Please..... If you are going to post a response this lame and unfounded, at least do a little research to find out what kind of glass is actually being sold in other markets.

Ultra thin, ultra high index glass lenses are very profitable! Find yourself an Optician in a foreign market and ask them to share their lens prices with you. I know that will instantly change your opinion. While you're at it, ask them their opinion of Polycarbonate and share your vision of sugar-plums and ferries that surround a successful polycarbonate practice. LMAO!

Adam

[C-10]

WRONG CHRIS. I do not speak for my company I speak for myself.

And thanks for proving my point.

I read your post, and being a bully is not going to get people to sign up. I am busy an spend maybe 5 minutes a day on Optiboard. I enjoy reading some of the posts. I don't have hours of free time like yourself.

I understand that you have invented everything and have been in the business for 100years and that your opinion is right and any other is wrong. And you have the best web site the world.

Take it easy these are just our opinions they are not written in stone and in many case we all expect to be disagreed with. Please don’t take anything on this board personally. I do not all the time agree with Chris I do respect him as a person and a teacher his views are his views alone. We should give him the respect that is due to him as he did not get where he is today by sitting on his duff. I for one have learnt a lot from Chris.

[Cherry Optical]

I do not speak for my company I speak for myself.

I understand that you have invented everything and have been in the business for 100years and that your opinion is right and any other is wrong. And you have the best web site the world.

But if your company changes, will your opinion change?

On a lighter note:

Milwaukee 22-10-.688 $71,986,500
Boston 22-10-.688 $143,526,214

The Red Sox are baseball's "TRIVEX" compared to Milwaukee's "POLY".

Adam