Online Eyewear Story Must Read Consumers Beware

[HarryChiling]

This is a case that outlines all the devious tactics that have been employed by online vendors of eyewear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/bu...nted=1&_r=2&hp

I will bump the thread everyday throughout the holiday season to help prevent another victim.

[MikeAurelius]

Harry, Harry, Harry...blowing things WAY out of proportion, AGAIN. The story about about ONE bad apple, gaming the Google system, which, in followup stories, you will see that Google has already taken steps to get that guy off their search engine.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Are you saying we should ignore all the bad apples?

[Jana Lewis]

Harry, Harry, Harry...blowing things WAY out of proportion, AGAIN. The story about about ONE bad apple, gaming the Google system, which, in followup stories, you will see that Google has already taken steps to get that guy off their search engine.

Can you not agree that the story is atrocious?

[MikeAurelius]

Oh, I'm not saying that the guy isn't bad, I was appalled when I read the story a couple of days ago, but to cast ALL online operations in the same light is way beyond the pale IMO. Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.

[DragonLensmanWV]

I think you're putting word into Harry's mouth. His post says nothing at all about it being ALL onliners.

[AngeHamm]

It is atrocious. But it's not really about the fact that it's online eyewear. This guy would be every bit as much of a douchebag if he was selling watches, shoes, or handbags.

[finefocus]

Oh, I'm not saying that the guy isn't bad, I was appalled when I read the story a couple of days ago, but to cast ALL online operations in the same light is way beyond the pale IMO. Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.

If I act that way to a customer, they can find me, they can reach me. If they march up and down in front of my door with a sign telling their story, my customers will see it.

Not every online business is like this p****, but online commerce (and its access to secretive business practices) does add a new exclamation point to caveat emptor.

[MikeAurelius]

"and its access to secretive business practices"

What does that mean?

[MikeAurelius]

I think you're putting word into Harry's mouth. His post says nothing at all about it being ALL onliners.

Harry says this: "all the devious tactics that have been employed by online vendors of eyewear". He doesn't say "some" or "most". Doesn't qualify it at all, which, in critical reading, indicates "all".

[Wes]

Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.

I don't see where Harry said that.

[AngeHamm]

Actually, it reads "all the tactics," not "all the online vendors of eyewear."

That said, this is really a story about the dangerous of ALL online commerce. The fact that this guy is an eyewear vendor is entirely secondary.

[Wes]

Mike I don't even see why you're upset or why you identify yourself with mass online marketers. From what I've seen of your postings and website, you sell specialty products ONLINE to an informed consumer. To me, that's nowhere near the same as frames direct and others like them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[NCspecs]

That said, this is really a story about the dangerous of ALL online commerce. The fact that this guy is an eyewear vendor is entirely secondary.

Simply put, I agree.

[MikeAurelius]

Mike I don't even see why you're upset or why you identify yourself with mass online marketers. From what I've seen of your postings and website, you sell specialty products ONLINE to an informed consumer. To me, that's nowhere near the same as frames direct and others like them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are not wrong, I (personally) don't like these kind of fear tactics being used against consumers. Using one bad apple as an example to put fear into the consumer of the entire industry is just plain wrong in my personal opinion. Things like this can backfire horribly and everyone then pays the price.

Every industry that sells on-line has people like the russian, who care only about website rankings...but there is another side to that story too, if you read all the way to the end, you see where he's already starting to feel some negative pressure: he's been dropped (and probably blacklisted as well) by several of the credit card processors, Google (this is in another story posted yesterday) has already changed its engine dynamics to eliminate people like him and specifically him and his business. Note his comments and general attitude about the stacks of returned goods in his house. How is he paying his processing lab? He's been blacklisted on e-Bay and other places. He's facing legal charges on several fronts, and when its all said and done, he's probably going to go to jail if he doesn't flee the country first.

Using this story is fine as a 'heads up' about the dangers of buying on-line, but to use it to condemn the entire on-line optical industry is pointing the gun in the wrong direction. From what I've read here and elsewhere, the online optical industry by-and-large is honest and upfront about their products. They seem to handle returns legally and properly and promptly (at least I've not read about any problems in general).

And to a certain degree, I am sensitive about these kinds of posts because I do sell online as you noted, informed consumer or not. Posts such as this one are easily taken out of context by those who have some kind of agenda and used to tarnish anyone who doesn't think or believe the same way as them.

[HarryChiling]

Harry says this: "all the devious tactics that have been employed by online vendors of eyewear". He doesn't say "some" or "most". Doesn't qualify it at all, which, in critical reading, indicates "all".

I think critical reading skills are very important so when I read "your local optical shop provides PDs for FREE or NC" or "its part of the prescription according to Eyeglass II" I feel as though the B and M suffers the same black eye your post seems to complain about.

In Laymans terms, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Wes]

From what I've read here and elsewhere, the online optical industry by-and-large is honest and upfront about their products. They seem to handle returns legally and properly and promptly (at least I've not read about any problems in general).

I do disagree with this. Suggesting that pds are owed to consumers and that opticians must provide them free of charge, to suggest that opticians should adjust and repair onliner's glasses free of charge, to suggest that if pds are unknown to use 63, and to suggest that the onliners' foolproof formula for figuring segs is better than an opticians measurements is just plain wrong. There are the reasons we rail against the online glasses outlet. If you do not do this, differentiate yourself. If this isn't you, make it known. Instead, you react to the distaste we have for this type of business as if you're one of them. Defending unethical online businesses just because you happen to sell specialty lenses online paints you as no different. Show you're different if you are.

[MichaelP]

I read this a few days ago, and while it's an absolutely horrible story, I agree with others here that the fact one of his sites (notice the article says he runs many different websites) happened to sell brand name eyewear is besides the point. He could have done the same thing with any product that has a big "long tail" (see below). And as an online retailer seeking to gain the trust and acceptance of both the optical industry and consumers, I was doubly incensed about his actions.

That said, I'd argue that online actually helps beat businesses like this more than helps them though. This guy is truly an outlier. For an e-commerce site, its customer satisfaction and online reviews are extremely important. Anyone is one short google search away from reading the comments of any disgruntled customer who decides to post them. Heck, it's possible (not only possible, but easy) for competitors to create fake negative reviews! Anyone whose gone through this happening to them on Yelp knows what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, everyone's read the stories of terrible experiences and product from Lenscrafters (I'm not trying to say they're nearly as bad as the guy in the story - just using them as an example of a business that gets lots of negative reviews). While a spate of negative reviews can absolutely tank an e-commerce site, that's not the same for brick and mortar stores with big brand advertising spend. When someone visits our site, it takes them all of 30 seconds to look up our BBB rating. Can't do that when you're walking through the mall.

[Side note: this might be more information about search engines than people here are interested, but the reason this guy was able to pull off what he did is because he was selling specific brands and models. There's a concept called the "long tail" in search, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail What it means though, is it's very hard to rank for a term a lot of people search for, say "eyeglasses", but it's really easy to rank for a term that may be searched only once every 3 months, like "prada G2038 eyeglass frame large". If you rank for enough of those "long tail" terms, in aggregate it adds up. By selling specific brand names and models, people searching for those only would stumble upon his site, not read any reviews because they just wanted the specific model, and get scammed. This is also why he wouldn't carry any inventory and order them off of eBay - by doing this he could have a large virtual inventory that would pick up the long tail. I can say with 100% certainty that his site never ranked for any of the high traffic terms. Not only that, but his strategy of negative reviews helping him rank is a ****-poor search marketing strategy, not to mention completely unethical.]

[MikeAurelius]

I do disagree with this. Suggesting that pds are owed to consumers and that opticians must provide them free of charge, to suggest that opticians should adjust and repair onliner's glasses free of charge, to suggest that if pds are unknown to use 63, and to suggest that the onliners' foolproof formula for figuring segs is better than an opticians measurements is just plain wrong. There are the reasons we rail against the online glasses outlet. If you do not do this, differentiate yourself. If this isn't you, make it known. Instead, you react to the distaste we have for this type of business as if you're one of them. Defending unethical online businesses just because you happen to sell specialty lenses online paints you as no different. Show you're different if you are.

I do not believe I have EVER stated that PD's are "owed" to consumers or that the optician must provide them free of charge. To the contrary, I believe that the optician should either charge for the service rendered OR state clearly that they do not provide them. Personally speaking, I believe PD's should be part of the written prescription, but we've had that discussion before.

I've NEVER used a fudged or made-up PD. I do get orders in that are missing PD's and the patient is notified that a PD measurement is required before processing can begin, and that he/she should go back to the prescribing ECP and get it (and explain to the ECP the purpose for the eyewear). I've always stated that I PREFER working with an ECP, however, I have run across far too many ECP's that absolutely refuse to deal with glass lenses regardless of the fact that the needed filtration/protection can only be provided by glass lenses. I tell the patient that they should expect to pay for services rendered, and to do so happily.

I AM different, I DO do things differently, but at the same time, I also have a duty to speak up when I see a broad paint brush being used. The things you write about above ARE unethical IMO, and I don't/won't partake of them.

[Jana Lewis]

Oh, I'm not saying that the guy isn't bad, I was appalled when I read the story a couple of days ago, but to cast ALL online operations in the same light is way beyond the pale IMO. Harry wants us to believe that every online operates the same way, and that is absolutely not true.

I don't believe that all online retailers behave this way any normal person with some sort of a brain knows that. This guy was exceptional. I am not too sure if this is what Harry meant.

[finefocus]

"and its access to secretive business practices"

What does that mean?

It means that the seller can be veiled and anonymous. How do you know with whom you're doing business? How do you get redress if necessary? How do you know you're not getting a counterfeit product? How do you .....(lots more)? Onliners can hide a lot of stuff.

[Wes]

I do not believe I have EVER stated that PD's are "owed" to consumers or that the optician must provide them free of charge. To the contrary, I believe that the optician should either charge for the service rendered OR state clearly that they do not provide them. Personally speaking, I believe PD's should be part of the written prescription, but we've had that discussion before.

I've NEVER used a fudged or made-up PD. I do get orders in that are missing PD's and the patient is notified that a PD measurement is required before processing can begin, and that he/she should go back to the prescribing ECP and get it (and explain to the ECP the purpose for the eyewear). I've always stated that I PREFER working with an ECP, however, I have run across far too many ECP's that absolutely refuse to deal with glass lenses regardless of the fact that the needed filtration/protection can only be provided by glass lenses. I tell the patient that they should expect to pay for services rendered, and to do so happily.

I AM different, I DO do things differently, but at the same time, I also have a duty to speak up when I see a broad paint brush being used. The things you write about above ARE unethical IMO, and I don't/won't partake of them.

Read between the lines, Mike. I didn't say YOU do that, but that many online retailers do, contrary to your posting saying that most of them are ethical. It seems you're afraid to be seen as guilty by association, and rather than disassociate yourself, you defend the entire group of onliners. Stereotypically, I find them unethical. However, the pitfall of stereotyping is that not everyone in the group fits. See? Your business doesn't really fit with that group. I'm not sure why you keep putting yourself in with it, but it's the reason you keep getting so much flak. I don't have a problem with your business model as it is. I recognize you as an expert in glass manufacturing. I don't pay much attention when you start talking optics and opticianry. It is what it is. Chill just a little bit here, will ya?

PS: I sell glass on ocassion, as I've mentioned before. I find that the people who want it know EXACTLY what they want and why.

[MichaelP]

It means that the seller can be veiled and anonymous. How do you know with whom you're doing business? How do you get redress if necessary? How do you know you're not getting a counterfeit product? How do you .....(lots more)? Onliners can hide a lot of stuff.

So can any business owner. Tell me - go into your local bagel shop. Where do they get their ingredients? Who do they bank with? Who provides their merchant account? If you want a refund and they refuse to give it to you, what do you do? Contact your credit card company, same as with online. Who are the actual owners of the business? Any silent partners, or is the manager not actually the owner? Who owns the building they're located in? How about their equipment?

Another question: what's Google's phone number? You won't find it, unless you want to call their ad sales division. Same goes for even a customer support email. Are they any less reputable because you can't walk into their place of business?

With regards to online optical websites, I think the only reason most are not 100% putting themselves out there is because the law isn't settled and there has been no industry effort in that regard. If licensed states want to completely ban online sales of eyewear, or tightly regulate it like NC is proposing, then they should start making moves in that direction. Or maybe the FTC should look at it the same as contact lenses and provide a national regulation (the position I advocate)? Or at the very least, have the ABO or someone publish some voluntary guidelines for online retailers to follow. So far it seems the industry, for the most part, has decided to act like online retailers don't exist at all.

@Wes: you are right, most online retailers say those things, and they shouldn't. Just wanted to say, I completely agree with you.

[MikeAurelius]

Read between the lines, Mike. I didn't say YOU do that, but that many online retailers do, contrary to your posting saying that most of them are ethical. It seems you're afraid to be seen as guilty by association, and rather than disassociate yourself, you defend the entire group of onliners. Stereotypically, I find them unethical. However, the pitfall of stereotyping is that not everyone in the group fits. See? Your business doesn't really fit with that group. I'm not sure why you keep putting yourself in with it, but it's the reason you keep getting so much flak. I don't have a problem with your business model as it is. I recognize you as an expert in glass manufacturing. I don't pay much attention when you start talking optics and opticianry. It is what it is. Chill just a little bit here, will ya?

PS: I sell glass on ocassion, as I've mentioned before. I find that the people who want it know EXACTLY what they want and why.

I'd love to chill, if the constant attacks by one certain person would stop. Guilt by association, oh, HELL yes! How can I disassociate myself from "them" when one or two people on this board continually bring it up and keep thowing it in my face? Do you see the problem here? In another thread I was accused of being (of all things) a CONSUMER!!!

I don't defend them (the onliners) per se, just try to put across certain points that occasionally get overlooked. Catch flak for it? Oh yeah! But reason tends to take a holiday when this issue comes up, doesn't it? I can certainly understand why, but I'd like to see EVERYONE take a chill pill instead of getting riled up each time this issue comes up. The onliners have their place and they are certainly not going to go away, not matter how loudly certain people scream about them.

It is what it is, and my belief is that each of us (personally and corporately) have to decide how "we" are going to handle it/them. I guess it comes down to deciding if you are going to get ulcers over it, or move on and find something else to do with your time.

[MikeAurelius]

Or at the very least, have the ABO or someone publish some voluntary guidelines for online retailers to follow.

I'd dearly LOVE to see this happen. +1