Why do so many of you hate Essilor?

[drk]

If patients want to buy online, why do I think they will buy online from me?

I mean, if they haven't been in to my office, they're not my patients.

If they have had optometric services and don't like my optical for whatever reason, why do I think they'll hit my website?

If they're online-customer-types, aren't they going to shop around for the best overall deal? Zenni? FramesDirect? **************? 39dollareyeglasses? Is my optical to somehow source this low-priced junk yet fulfill my legal professional obligations at that price?

I can really see myself being a complaint department for dog crap glasses that were ordered through my website, with no margins.

Has anyone at Essilor even thought this through? It's untenable! What's more, it alienates the majority of their market. Someone's head should roll. Yet they're going to push this through, anyway.

There's only one reason they're doing this: money. And there's only one reason they'd stop doing it: loss of money.

[labbrat]

Independent laboratories are the only way to avoid this type of product positioning. This has not happened overnight but noone noticed until it had a direct effect on them. With large lens companies buying up labs and "collecting" other manufacturers, things will only get worse. Support your independents if you want to be independent.

[jrctx]

This is quite an interesting thread. While I have my own opinion of Essilor I find it interesting that there are many posts opposed to the response given to the topic; "Why do so many of you hate Essilor." It seems to me that the topic calls for negativity. If you are reading this thread and don't hate Essilor then don't respond, period! The post was obviously not directed at you in the first place and I know that Essilor is a big enough boy to handle the negativity. I as many do appreciate Pete and feel it only appropriate that he defend his company.

With regards to the framesdirect project, lets take a look at the people who are buying eyewear online. In my opinion, the people who are not only buying eyewear online but any other product are not interested in service. The major driving factors for online purchasing is ease and price. Well, if I can get a deal online and it kinda works then I am happy.

How many of your patients will accept OK glasses? Personally, I do not want to have my name on OK glasses. Will I fix their problem when they come in with them? I am not sure but maybe with a price. If there is a problem with the PD or seg then they need to go through their online retailer for correction. Now, if my name is what they buy through online and there is a problem with the PD or seg (hopefully not a PD since I would have to provide it) then I am liable. It really doesn't matter what the terms are, if my name is attached and there is a problem then my business takes the hit.

I am also not in the business of throwing money at all of the middle men involved with online sales. Why should I give each party (essilor, framesdirect, google, etc.) a portion of a sale that I have had to already discount?

[Fezz]

See what you started Happylady!


;):cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[jrctx]

I wonder if she is all that happy or now just more widely known for starting trouble.

[bob_f_aboc]

See what you started Happylady!


;):cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

What would Eileen think?

[Happylady]

I wonder if she is all that happy or now just more widely known for starting trouble.

Hey!

[hipoptical]

Hey!

So, you are still there...
I have two thoughts for you.
1. My mother-in-law (lovingly) refers to me as a rabble-rouser. She said I start up trouble, but in a good way. After seeing what you've accomplished here, I now must consider referring to myself as an "Amateur Rabble-Rouser" instead of a professional. (I have sooo much to learn.)
2. This thread you started is sort-of the internet-equivalent of a "pipe-bomb". You tossed out an innocent-looking question that exploded in every direction. (I'm kinda scared of the Happylady...I once wondered if I knew you, now I'm afraid to find out) :D kidding, of course

[HarryChiling]

So, you are still there...
I have two thoughts for you.
1. My mother-in-law (lovingly) refers to me as a rabble-rouser. She said I start up trouble, but in a good way. After seeing what you've accomplished here, I now must consider referring to myself as an "Amateur Rabble-Rouser" instead of a professional. (I have sooo much to learn.)
2. This thread you started is sort-of the internet-equivalent of a "pipe-bomb". You tossed out an innocent-looking question that exploded in every direction. (I'm kinda scared of the Happylady...I once wondered if I knew you, now I'm afraid to find out) :D kidding, of course

I heard she's 10 ft tall and can string a semi with one finger. Rumor has it that if you say happylady three times in a dispensary mirror she'll pop out and grab the first complaining patient she see's. ;)

[bob_f_aboc]

I heard she's 10 ft tall and can string a semi with one finger. Rumor has it that if you say happylady three times in a dispensary mirror she'll pop out and grab the first complaining patient she see's. ;)

I just tried it and it didn't work. I hate urban legends!

This would have been a great one too!

[Happylady]

Why has this thread turned into a thread about ME? :(

[Uncle Fester]

This is quite an interesting thread. While I have my own opinion of Essilor I find it interesting that there are many posts opposed to the response given to the topic; "Why do so many of you hate Essilor." It seems to me that the topic calls for negativity. If you are reading this thread and don't hate Essilor then don't respond, period! The post was obviously not directed at you in the first place and I know that Essilor is a big enough boy to handle the negativity. I as many do appreciate Pete and feel it only appropriate that he defend his company.

An action was called for in the original thread which was deemed inappropriate for Optiboard and the thread removed.


I'm glad this thread is being allowed to continue. I do wish it could have been under another headline however.

Perhaps Happylady can request a moderator change it to a less provacative title. There's enough hate in this world.

I'll suggest "Why do ECP's feel threatened by Essilor".

[Johns]

Perhaps Happylady can request a moderator change it to a less provacative title. There's enough hate in this world.

I'll suggest "Why do ECP's feel threatened by Essilor".

Allow me to help:

"Why is Essilor throwing ECPs under the bus?":p

"Why doesn't Essilor love us anymore?"

"Essilor: The honeymoon's over":D

"Essilor's found a new partner...and it ain't you!":D

Just kidding, just kidding...

(Trying to lighten the thread up a little)

Here...have a few on me!:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[eyemanflying]

The facts are:

Essilor owns Transitions.

Essilor owns Nikon.

Essilor is attempting to purchase Signet Armorlite.

Essilor has false advertising on their Physio 360. They claim it is a 'true' front and back double surfaced free form lens. If that were true, how can they be available in Transitions when the front surface has to be embossed? Are they sending them one pair at atime as Rx uncuts to Transitions for the application process? I hardly think so, even with their money.

Their 'Definity' lens is the failure of Johnson & Johnson and they present it as a new, innovative product???

Essilor is very arrogant.

Essilor is the big bully on the block.

Essilor strong arms independant local labs that refuse their proposals to be purchased. If they refuse, Essilor then runs the prices so low in that market that the lab goes out of business.

Essilor has far surpassed the requirement where a company is classified as a monopoly and yet continues to simply 'buy' their market share.

When will the government step in and intervene?

BEWARE PROFESSIONALS!!!

[hcjilson]

My contraband post was merely Pete's argument with words substituted to illustrate that when his argument is applied to other controversial topics, it's ridiculousness becomes apparent. It was frankly unworthy of Pete, because I feel I know who Pete is. The gist was that when someone is doing something wrong, you don't join in to enable it or profit from it.

I think it was a rather clear rhetorical device.-DRK

Some of us were not too amused as I gather you have learned from an email you received this afternoon!

[hcjilson]

Eyemanflying, where are you getting your "facts" It is my understanding that Transitions was a joint venture between PPG and Essilor. Yes they have an ownership position, but what the heck, they put up half of the R&D money so why shouldn't they???Nobody was complaining about it when those R&D bucks went into the toilet developing the product. Concerning your other "claims of fact", I know at least one of them to be incorrect. DEFINITY was anything but a failure for J&J. Just find out how much Essilor paid for the spectacle lens division of J&J. Do you suppose Essilor would pay for a loosing product?? Don't be silly!

And your comment about where is the government is off the wall-that may work in Canada but here, Essilor is allowed a mid thirties percentage share befor the government gets involved. Further, there are exceptions to that rule as well. If you don't believe me, look up Ocean Spray's market share on the World cranberry market.

[Steve Machol]

Eyemanflying, where are you getting your "facts" It is my understanding that Transitions was a joint venture between PPG and Essilor.

Here's a little known fact. SOLA Optical also had the opportunity to become partners in the Transitions venture and they declined. In retrospect, that was not a good decision.

[Jeff Trail]

The facts are:

Essilor owns Transitions.

incorrect "fact" they own the minority share of transitions, majority is owned by PPG

Essilor owns Nikon.

Essilor is attempting to purchase Signet Armorlite.

Essilor has false advertising on their Physio 360. They claim it is a 'true' front and back double surfaced free form lens. If that were true, how can they be available in Transitions when the front surface has to be embossed? Are they sending them one pair at atime as Rx uncuts to Transitions for the application process? I hardly think so, even with their money. .

You can control the depth when imbibing the chemical, as well as through the total material, so who says they are running it the same way as any other Transitions?

Their 'Definity' lens is the failure of Johnson & Johnson and they present it as a new, innovative product???.

I don't get this as a "fact" as well, I remember when J&J was coming out with this product and it was "oh wow" among other things, but they could not work out the technical kinks and there price structures were way off the wall..If memory serves me, they started out over<wholesale prices removed.> I had my own lab at that time and thought, neat idea but it just never seemed to come together... Essilor solved those glitches, actually brought the prices way down from what J&J started at... still the same lens when it was J&J and everyone was buzzing about it but now that Essilor got it to work than it is not innovative just because it is Essilor and not J&J??

Essilor is very arrogant.

Essilor is the big bully on the block.

Essilor strong arms independant local labs that refuse their proposals to be purchased. If they refuse, Essilor then runs the prices so low in that market that the lab goes out of business..

where you got this fact from..you are going to have to really explain this one.. first ELOA (Essilor labs of America) is not part of the aquisitions group and since every GM that works for ELOA is not going to "run the prices down" and get fired over not meeting P&L goals..lordy you are so far off base on this one you have went past the outfield, over the fence..across the parking lot and two blocks past that...

Essilor has far surpassed the requirement where a company is classified as a monopoly and yet continues to simply 'buy' their market share...

You are not a monopoly if under the umbrella of essilor none of the divisions work in conjuntion and i know for a "fact" they are not: I pay for lens like any other lab : I pay for AR coating like any other lab even though it is "essilor" coating : In fact I get somethings from other vendors BECAUSE I can get it cheaper than buying from "Essilor" how about that fact;)

BTW I also work for Essilor I just hate to see people throw out "facts" and toss all of us under the proverbal bus
This is one of the main reasons I stopped contibuting on this board I would get insulting EM and even calls at the lab how I was not really in optics and working for the bad guys and on and on
Done with this thread as well just to tempting to correct the "facts"

Jeff "grind em edge em mount em" Trail

[eyemanflying]

Eyemanflying, where are you getting your "facts" It is my understanding that Transitions was a joint venture between PPG and Essilor. Yes they have an ownership position, but what the heck, they put up half of the R&D money so why shouldn't they???Nobody was complaining about it when those R&D bucks went into the toilet developing the product. Concerning your other "claims of fact", I know at least one of them to be incorrect. DEFINITY was anything but a failure for J&J. Just find out how much Essilor paid for the spectacle lens division of J&J. Do you suppose Essilor would pay for a loosing product?? Don't be silly!

And your comment about where is the government is off the wall-that may work in Canada but here, Essilor is allowed a mid thirties percentage share befor the government gets involved. Further, there are exceptions to that rule as well. If you don't believe me, look up Ocean Spray's market share on the World cranberry market.

They are well beyond their 78% market share here in Canada. And for the record, J&J ventured into the lens business and lost a boat load of money building a lens manufacturing plant.

They had excellent positioning with OD's and tried to leverage and carry that onto the spectacle lens side. Pure and simple, it failed and was purchased by Essilor at a bargain basement price. J&J licked their wounds and moved on. However, I do give J&J credit for at least trying. By the way, Essilor would never top market value for anything.

[hcjilson]

Oh! Now I get it! The worlds largest lens company wanted to help Johnson and Johnson out by purchasing a failed lens product and their entire Spectacle Lens division, move it lock stock and barrel in January a few year's back, from Roanoke VA to Dallas TX, incur a 90 day back order situation, just because they felt sorry for J&J. Can you possibly be serious??? You don't seem to understand business very well.
J&J had propriatary rights to DEFINITY, which, when introduced, went after the Varilux comfort specifically with a vastly (In my opinion) superior product with a wider field of view and softer periphery.Within 2 years of its introduction, Definity gained a market share which was increasing monthly.They were agressively marketed , and I believe Essilor heard "footsteps" as we used to say in football, and acted to bring them into the fold. It is a great fit, But they didn't do it because it was a loser. Far from it!

[eyemanflying]

Jeff, ownership whether it's minority or not is still ownership. It's minority for now. Tell me this...many lens companies manufacture their own brand of photochromic lenses, except for Essilor (for obvious reasons).

Of the very few competitor companies that offer Transitions on some of their lenses while at the same time offering their own, Transitions has to be front stage and centre and you can't promote or exceed sales of your own brand over Transitions, or a law suit will result.

Up here in the North, Essilor does run things quite differently than down in the U.S.

They are very arrogant and tell dispensers all the time, deal with us because we are the biggest. I have witnessed it first hand on many occasions. Big whoop deee dooo.

Certainly not the best catch hook in my opinion and if that's all they have to offer to potential clients, they should really include and work on improving their 'corporate image' as part of their marketing strategy.

[eyemanflying]

Oh! Now I get it! The worlds largest lens company wanted to help Johnson and Johnson out by purchasing a failed lens product and their entire Spectacle Lens division, move it lock stock and barrel in January a few year's back, from Roanoke VA to Dallas TX, incur a 90 day back order situation, just because they felt sorry for J&J. Can you possibly be serious??? You don't seem to understand business very well.
J&J had propriatary rights to DEFINITY, which, when introduced, went after the Varilux comfort specifically with a vastly (In my opinion) superior product with a wider field of view and softer periphery.Within 2 years of its introduction, Definity gained a market share which was increasing monthly.They were agressively marketed , and I believe Essilor heard "footsteps" as we used to say in football, and acted to bring them into the fold. It is a great fit, But they didn't do it because it was a loser. Far from it!

Thanks for the kind words and determining my business sense in just two posts...simply impressive Do you read palms or tarot card readings? Am I going to win the lottery this year?

[hcjilson]

Thanks for the kind words and determining my business sense in just two posts...simply impressive Do you read palms or tarot card readings? Am I going to win the lottery this year?

Actually I was trying to figure out how you came to the conclusions you did a few posts back. They certainly were not grounded in fact, or, for that matter, in sound business practices which was certainly obvious to me!Perhaps I mis read what you posted. Did you not say:

"Their[Essilor's] 'Definity' lens is the failure of Johnson & Johnson and they present it as a new, innovative product???"
Did you not say"
"They had excellent positioning with OD's and tried to leverage and carry that onto the spectacle lens side. Pure and simple, it failed and was purchased by Essilor at a bargain basement price. J&J licked their wounds and moved on. However, I do give J&J credit for at least trying. By the way, Essilor would never top market value for anything."

Please explain to me why Essilor would buy a "failed" lens design if it were no good. Regardless of bargain price...why would they pay anything at all??? Please share the business wisdom of
that.

PS If I have 50 shares of PPG, am I an owner too? You're origninal post was misleading. It was not factual and it soon became apparent to most. It's OK, happens to me too! Let's put this behind us and move on.

[hipoptical]

Done with this thread as well just to tempting to correct the "facts"

Jeff "grind em edge em mount em" Trail

If you're going to "correct" the facts, then please do so accurately.
1.You state that PPG has the majority, but can you cite sources to show that? If the majority is only by a percent or two, then we all know what that really means. It means they can't do anything without Empire $$, so "actual" percentages are irrelevant.
2.The 360 product (and I cannot believe I even have to say this) IS NOT a 100% double-sided digital product IN THE WAY THAT YOU THINK IT IS. The mold used to create the front surface was "digitally produced" and they cut the Rx on the backside with a digital generator instead of a traditional. Therefore, if you leave out important information, you can say that it is 100% digital on both sides. (Another example answering the question that started this thread). Shamir also started saying this about their products, but have since backed off- the smart thing to do. Anyway, since the product IS molded, you can still do Transitions.
3. The Empire did change the Definity product, so it is not the same lens. I say this (against all I feel about the Empire) TO THEIR CREDIT.
4. The Empire does "strong arm" labs and everyone knows it. Just look at your Varilux contract & your Crizal contract as examples. In summary they say: you can carry these products as long as you don't say anything else is better than, comparable to, like, or as good as our stuff.
5. Monopoly is monoploy regardless od company divisions. The Empire is safe because they make purchases in the US through Essilor of America sometimes, and Essilor of Canada sometimes. That makes it two companies, not just two divisions. That way they can also "act like" they are in competition with each other.

Anyway, thanks for trying. You pawns of the Empire are entertaining, but at least the question is being answered as to why we are not "Bosom Buddies." (See, I didn't say "hate")

[gemstone]

Independent laboratories are the only way to avoid this type of product positioning. This has not happened overnight but noone noticed until it had a direct effect on them. With large lens companies buying up labs and "collecting" other manufacturers, things will only get worse. Support your independents if you want to be independent.

What progressives do you offer?