Optician Guild/Union or what ever

[idispense]

1. Corneal Contact Lenses -Girard
2. The Ophthalmic Assistant -Stein, Stein, Freeman
3. System for Ophthalmic Dispensing -Brooks, Borish.

Yes, and yes.

But as wmcdonald says, they should be part of a formal education.

Trying to educate and legislate on a national level has not worked. You are trying to bring too many variables and interests together in mutual unison. I hear it said that you need a baseline to be a part of formal education. I agree that's desirable. I hear that only a pulse is required and things are polywhatsit dumbed down.

I hear it said that branding cant take place until there is a common link. Brands are built everyday by industry for products that didn't exist yesterday. Brands are also built everyday that take over from generics. A camera is a camera but then there is GOPRO. These brands go viral in short time and spread quickly.

You have the courses already set up and the educators such as McDonald, Wes, Harry, Barry, yourself and many others already in place. How many do you have that are of the same mind and agreement ?

Take those of the same existing mutual minds and using your present courses and texts set up your own standard par excellence. Make your own brand. Those that graduate from it will, as I hear you say, reap the rewards that knowledge brings. Your own brand will have a common baseline. Then pray that it spreads. Don't bother trying to convince the world, your grads success will do that for you.

Move ahead with only a like minded small group without the bickering, a dictatorship if necessary. Seek out and find a brand mentor. Seek out and find a social media mentor. It will grow. Charge for your service.

[tx11]

Whew! Thread back on track

[Uilleann]

Unlike some, I am not afraid of the ODs, and in fact, you might be surprised to know many of them support Opticians moving forward as well......unlike some here who support very little beyond their own front door.

Don't know that any here are afraid of OD's. (Most are relatively un-scary) But they have a dramatically larger war chest from which to draw upon...which did not come from paying a premium rate for premium optical talent across the country. And to completely ignore their extremely likely national push back should any group of dispensers try to move in on their traditional turf is nothing short of silly and shortsighted.

In short, there is no national plan for opticianry. Whatsoever. What does exist, is a continued fracturing of the trade, with this or that new group of the week bragging about how big their cohones are, and yet not offering any concrete, viable plan forward. Consistent education doesn't exist on a national scale. The only national competency exam has self reduced to a laughing stock. State by state licensure is a complete non-starter, and is possibly the most fractured system of the lot. And all the while, the interwebs continue to draw into question the necessity and value of the "old fashioned" dispenser with each passing year, and in every state.

There are a myriad of possible places to start in beginning to overhaul the system as it currently stands. But to date, all that's been presented are pie in the sky wishes and unobtainable benchmarks given the current state of everything. At the end of the day - no viable plans have been offered.

[Paul Smith LDO]

Whew! Thread back on track

Careful what you wish for. Act local converse global. Our best hope is to educate and legislate locally, the latter being the more difficult, if not leaning toward the absurd. The profession has been handled like a hot potato passed from one state to the next. If it's licenseship you want, move to a licensed state and fight for the continuation of it's existence. Otherwise the point is moot.

[Boldt]

There are a myriad of possible places to start in beginning to overhaul the system as it currently stands. But to date, all that's been presented are pie in the sky wishes and unobtainable benchmarks given the current state of everything. At the end of the day - no viable plans have been offered.

So lets have a starting point. Do we as a group start a fund to start branding our trade? Have commercials that explain what we do? If we can get the general public on our side the chances sky rocket.
That's why I thought a guild. It'd be non-profit and any and all funds would go to promote and lobby. Like I said if it happens it would take years.
As a start here is a suggestion: Get our top people to get together and come up with a good baseline for what we want our industry to mean. We start the group based on these guide lines, have tests like the ABO/NCLE only we don't dumb them down. Talk to local schools to get classes going and implement a system of graduated levels having optician being the top tear.
Obviously it's not a well flushed out plan to start, but it's something I have not seen on this thread, a start.
I see people have tried in the past and have no doubt about the effort put in, but some times it has to be a generational growth. The new builds on the the foundation laid by the more experienced.

[wmcdonald]

Your suggestions are very good, but certainly not new. This has been discussed to death here many times, and unfortunately not worked. I know some of my colleagues are stuck on branding, but you cannot brand something that has no common definition across the country. Each state may be able to do so, but not nationally.

ABO/NCLE needs to have a mandatory entry point. Either a formal education or a completed, true apprenticeship in which mandatory classes are required.

[Hayde]

So lets have a starting point. Do we as a group start a fund to start branding our trade? Have commercials that explain what we do? If we can get the general public on our side the chances sky rocket.
That's why I thought a guild. It'd be non-profit and any and all funds would go to promote and lobby. Like I said if it happens it would take years.
As a start here is a suggestion: Get our top people to get together and come up with a good baseline for what we want our industry to mean. We start the group based on these guide lines, have tests like the ABO/NCLE only we don't dumb them down. Talk to local schools to get classes going and implement a system of graduated levels having optician being the top tear.
Obviously it's not a well flushed out plan to start, but it's something I have not seen on this thread, a start.
I see people have tried in the past and have no doubt about the effort put in, but some times it has to be a generational growth. The new builds on the the foundation laid by the more experienced.

As a certificate holder, I wouldn't mind seeing the ABO doing more to advertise itself (and me along with it.) Maybe that's the best agreeable focal point of directing resources? Issues remain, but perhaps one of the few feasible starting points.

Could certificatants be asked to contribute to an advertising budget? Or is that already too much cat-herding ?

[Boldt]

wmcdonald,
I agree on the education completely. For national standards I'd add in no grandfathering in though so it would be a constant standard for everyone. I know it would people like me at the very bottom, but even with close to 8 years in the industry I'm still learning all kinds of new things that I see most of the people here see as basic.
I'd say the branding is an important part, not the most important, but with today's world Name has become a huge thing. If the standards are set and the name recognition earned I think I would end up working.

Hayde,
I think that would work, or use part of the fees to do that.

[wmcdonald]

That is not the job of the ABO/NCLE. They are an independent certifying body. That is their only role and they should not be participating in any marketing in any way. The professional associations (OAA/NAO) provide those kinds of services. Both do that now.

As a certificate holder, I wouldn't mind seeing the ABO doing more to advertise itself (and me along with it.) Maybe that's the best agreeable focal point of directing resources? Issues remain, but perhaps one of the few feasible starting points.

Could certificatants be asked to contribute to an advertising budget? Or is that already too much cat-herding ?

[wmcdonald]

You cannot brand until the product is standardized. If a Big Mac was different from state to state, it would be tough to brand that.

wmcdonald,
I agree on the education completely. For national standards I'd add in no grandfathering in though so it would be a constant standard for everyone. I know it would people like me at the very bottom, but even with close to 8 years in the industry I'm still learning all kinds of new things that I see most of the people here see as basic.
I'd say the branding is an important part, not the most important, but with today's world Name has become a huge thing. If the standards are set and the name recognition earned I think I would end up working.

Hayde,
I think that would work, or use part of the fees to do that.

[idispense]

see post 126

[Hayde]

That is not the job of the ABO/NCLE. They are an independent certifying body. That is their only role and they should not be participating in any marketing in any way. The professional associations (OAA/NAO) provide those kinds of services. Both do that now.

The NAO certainly markets TO me. For me? That's another question.

Love the NAO and my $75 study-free letters. Love me some cheap CEs. It's a nice newsletter. They love me and my reading habit, too.
But does it (or the OAA) really market opticianry? If I have to ask the question, doesn't that answer the question?

I don't see a conflict of interest for the ABO to represent itself and its own importance to the field. I agree with post 126...we could bicker all day about chicken and the egg, but to get a ball rolling "Certification" is a pretty servicable banner--or shall I say 'brand.' By advertising itself to the field and consumers, it could improve voluntary demand for its test. Then the discussion of test standards would be far more meaningful. I'm fine with the NAO stepping up if it can, but either way the organizations we're talking about need some serious transmission work.

I don't see a perfect mousetrap being conceived and constructed to solve everyone's pet gripe in one fell swoop. But if some attention and promotion to more competency in the field earlier is a beneficial step in the right direction...then maybe it's the best place to start.

[wmcdonald]

I am not sure what your background is, but as one with a solid academic background who has studied this material at length, I can tell you that to brand something like we have is just not possible with the limited resources available. I have read 126, and it is quite frankly wrong. He mentions branding of a product, and that can be done. The products are the same. We are not. Second, for ABO to do the jobs of the professional organizations is clearly a conflict to those who understand the bylaws and purpose of the organization. It will not, and should not be their role. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to check with board members of the organization, and they will tell you the same.

[Hayde]

I am not sure what your background is, but as one with a solid academic background who has studied this material at length, I can tell you that to brand something like we have is just not possible with the limited resources available. I have read 126, and it is quite frankly wrong. He mentions branding of a product, and that can be done. The products are the same. We are not. Second, for ABO to do the jobs of the professional organizations is clearly a conflict to those who understand the bylaws and purpose of the organization. It will not, and should not be their role. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to check with board members of the organization, and they will tell you the same.

You should be very proud of your academic accomplishments!

You focus on a point I already rhetorically conceded--I'm aware the ABO shed its larger mandate and eventually let the other association sell books. Perhaps it's unpersuadable to any other endeavor than test-making, regardless of the potiential welfare of the test. As I said, if another organization is up to the promotional task, fine. I doubt there's any argument any agenda would require more resources than are currently 'available.' What resources would be required? Is acquiring them possible? Do you have a suggestion of a viable tact requring fewer resources?

[Paul Smith LDO]

You should be very proud of your academic accomplishments!

You focus on a point I already rhetorically conceded--I'm aware the ABO shed its larger mandate and eventually let the other association sell books. Perhaps it's unpersuadable to any other endeavor than test-making, regardless of the potiential welfare of the test. As I said, if another organization is up to the promotional task, fine. I doubt there's any argument any agenda would require more resources than are currently 'available.' What resources would be required? Is acquiring them possible? Do you have a suggestion of a viable tact requring fewer resources?

Simply put, opticianry (small O) does not cross state borders. For the most part the role we play are regulated by each state, as is the area of our scope of practice. We have no formal educational guide lines there are no national standards. Some play by the ABO/NCLE others do not. As to reading material Systems of Ophthalmic Dispensing, Fitting Guide Lines for Soft and Hard Contact Lenses, Ocular Anatomy and Physiology, basic physics text books, to name a few. To answer your last question, I will put one to you. Why do you think the current state of Opticianry is where it is? Hint: you'll need more then a few resources.

[idispense]

[QUOTE=wmcdonald;494863]I am not sure what your background is, but as one with a solid academic background who has studied this material at length, I can tell you that to brand something like we have is just not possible with the limited resources available. I have read 126, and it is quite frankly wrong. He mentions branding of a product, and that can be done. The products are the same. We are not. Second, for ABO to do the jobs of the professional organizations is clearly a conflict to those who understand the bylaws and purpose of the organization. It will not, and should not be their role. Sorry if you do not agree, but you are welcome to check with board members of the organization, and they will tell you the same]


We can learn from how the megabrands market. McDonald's does not sell hamburgers; McDonald's sells "McDonald's."

You can brand " The McDonald Optician " because each of your grads would be educated by your standards,,,which would be the highest standard in the industry. You are already well known.

[idispense]

You cannot brand until the product is standardized. If a Big Mac was different from state to state, it would be tough to brand that.

McDonald's does not focus on selling hamburgers; McDonald's focuses on selling the brand "McDonald's."

You can brand " The McDonald Optician " because each of your grads would be educated by your standards,,,which would be the highest standard in the industry. You are already well known.

At the moment, "opticians" are generic and like facial tissue not all are the same, however Kleenex became the standard brand to ask for. Likewise you can create and brand the "STANDARD SETTING OPTICIAN". The " WMcDonald Optician"

[wmcdonald]

I am sorry, I have a number of folks who I have trained over the years, and others I did not who had similar beliefs to yours. For example, I eventually won over the late great Harry Jilson at a conference when he sat for a couple of hours with Dr. Ferguson and me. I do not wish to have an independent brand, but want the field to be better before I am gone! It is not really about the folks here now, either, but the future. We have done a great disservice to the future Optician (I use large O to make a statement, thank you very much) and should better prepare them to enter the field.

Now to selling McDonalds versus hamburgers.......you are correct, but what you do not get is the fact that each McDonalds looks and feels the same. It is just not the case here. Sorry, but you really need to study the subject a bit further, and if you are objective you will soon understand I am right. I asked experts in branding at Harvard, where I did a post-doc about the branding of the American Optician, and they agree with me completely. Unfortunately some here do not, and will not. But I keep trying to help. I am really not against you.......I wish folks knew that sometimes.

[idispense]

I do get that all McDonald's look and feel the same, however McDonalds wasn't born a brand and hamburgers existed before McDonald's did. McDonald's still created a brand where none existed. They did it globally.

I am not against you either.

I would like to read your post doc about branding of the American Optician. I'd also be curious to read more of the Harvard experts on branding, their biographies and portfolio of branding cases which they executed.

I understand it is said that if national standards existed, then branding could occur. I suspect that an experienced and well educated person could define these standards and put pen to them in a afternoon. If that's the case then would you agree that a lack of standards and defining those is not so much the stumbling block to branding, as a lack of persuasive communication to motivate the acceptance of those standards ? Is the real problem not standards but rather salesmanship ?

Would you agree that if you did want to create an independent brand that indeed you could create " the McDonalds Optician - the Standard Setting Optician with 100 percent required to pass" ?

[wmcdonald]

Google is your friend on branding. You do not read post-docs.......it is not a book, but an experience. You can read my views on the American Optician in Eye Care Professional magazine, or you can search it here. It was discussed at much length, and if I remember you disagreed then, and have not changed. I published a 7-part series in the topic and it is a free publication. Contact them and they will get them to you, or review it here on Optiboard.

As to branding......I am experienced and very well educated. I have developed a well published plan for the advancement of the American Optician as a part of in-depth research. I have a vision for this profession that few can see. but those who finally take the time to do more than disagree usually become proponents, like Harry was before he left us. What you seem to finally be hearing is that to brand any entity, it must be at least similar. McDonalds, and the brothers who bought it from the McDonalds had a plan to develop a standard hamburger and hotdog experience from coast to coast for low prices. It took them many years and millions. In Opticianry we are so diverse there is no potential for branding. We must have a consistent product to accomplish that. Read the research,, and it will become clear. Opinions are like rear ends, we all have one. I have based mine in a solid understanding as a tenured full professor now writing my third book on the marketing of health services, which includes a discussion of branding. I want you to get this information and understand it. I am not trying to shut you down.......hell, if we could band ourselves and make things better, I would be all for it. BUT.....in our current state, what would we brand? An ABO certificate that takes an IQ of 30 to pass? Look back at my writing here. You will see I proposed the Society mentioned in my tag line. A part of that was to recognize folks with academic credentials, and let them market themselves as a cut above. Much like the CPA. Anyone can call themselves and accountant, but a CPA has to pass rigorous training and education and a tough examination. We could do the same if we had some consistency, and then branding could take place. That was my approach, and you mention something similar in this thread. It will work.......if we gain consistent products (products in this case meaning us)across the country, and only then.

[m0002a]

McDonalds had a plan to develop a standard hamburger and hotdog experience from coast to coast for low prices.

McDonald's has hot dogs?

But seriously, being an optician is not really like being a CPA. There are some objective principles in opticianary, but a lot of it these days involves suggesting the best lens design, material, and frame to provide the best possible vision, and trying to balance that against what the customer can afford (or what their insurance will pay). Many opticians are constrained by management or company policy on what products they can use. Then the optician has to have some skill in being able to fit the frame/lens properly, and exhibit a sense of fashion in some cases. These are hard things to quantify and hard to test people on. If you think you know the answers, please let us know what the best progressive lens design is, because a lot of people would like to know that (even allowing for the fact that there are different "bests" depending on the Rx).

The industry itself makes things even harder, since it is very difficult, and sometime impossible, to figure out the pros and cons of various lens designs from information provided by manufacturers even within their own product line, much less across lens manufacturers. Just over last few years I have found less and less technical information on lens manufacturer websites about their products, and more attempts by manufacturers to automate the dispensing process. Then one has to deal with local lab quality, which can influence which lens manufacturer one ends up getting. For example, Zeiss has some excellent progressive lens designs, but some local Zeiss labs have had such quality problems recently that opticians have had to use other manufacturers instead. Fortunately, Zeiss seems to be working a solution for this.

I am not trying to suggest that there are no technical optical principles that matter to the profession of being an Optician, and I agree that they should be tested/certified on these things. But I am not sure these things come into play for most patients, compared to the knowledge required of the products and the benefits of each, and the ability to find cost effective solutions and to correctly fit a live patient.

[idispense]

Google is your friend on branding. You do not read post-docs.......it is not a book, but an experience. You can read my views on the American Optician in Eye Care Professional magazine, or you can search it here. It was discussed at much length, and if I remember you disagreed then, and have not changed. I published a 7-part series in the topic and it is a free publication. Contact them and they will get them to you, or review it here on Optiboard.

As to branding......I am experienced and very well educated. I have developed a well published plan for the advancement of the American Optician as a part of in-depth research. I have a vision for this profession that few can see. but those who finally take the time to do more than disagree usually become proponents, like Harry was before he left us. What you seem to finally be hearing is that to brand any entity, it must be at least similar. McDonalds, and the brothers who bought it from the McDonalds had a plan to develop a standard hamburger and hotdog experience from coast to coast for low prices. It took them many years and millions. In Opticianry we are so diverse there is no potential for branding. We must have a consistent product to accomplish that. Read the research,, and it will become clear. Opinions are like rear ends, we all have one. I have based mine in a solid understanding as a tenured full professor now writing my third book on the marketing of health services, which includes a discussion of branding. I want you to get this information and understand it. I am not trying to shut you down.......hell, if we could band ourselves and make things better, I would be all for it. BUT.....in our current state, what would we brand? An ABO certificate that takes an IQ of 30 to pass? Look back at my writing here. You will see I proposed the Society mentioned in my tag line. A part of that was to recognize folks with academic credentials, and let them market themselves as a cut above. Much like the CPA. Anyone can call themselves and accountant, but a CPA has to pass rigorous training and education and a tough examination. We could do the same if we had some consistency, and then branding could take place. That was my approach, and you mention something similar in this thread. It will work.......if we gain consistent products (products in this case meaning us)across the country, and only then.

Warren:

Thank you for your time to answer.

Could you please address the matter of academics vs the ability to sell the academia. Could you verify that you heard the two thoughts below:

1) the problem in branding is not the ability to develop and define standards, it's the ability to sell those standards
2) should you care to develop an independent brand of optician, accountable to the highest of standards, then you could do that

I have read the first of your series The American Optician - where do we go from here

[tx11]

Our situation is this...we are viewed as some one who produces a product NOT someone who performs a service or sells knowledge. Our product (at least in the publics eye) is eyewear NOT eyewear expertise and advising. Anybody can sell eyewear...We should probably investigate how the registered pharmacist came into being. They retail drugs . Its also interesting that most (if not all) MDs do not dispense the drugs they prescribe. Our industry is not that way.

[Boldt]

What about this:
Start a group that has a minimum of ABO certification to join. (I leave out NCLE because there are shops that don't dispense contacts and would still be a good fit)
Make it like a buying group, only requiring more than a monthly payment to stay in. Such as only employing certified opticians, keeping up to date on advances in the field, and standards that go beyond ansi, and continuing to advance in not certifications, but real world knowledge, eventually have our own certifications, and a way to keep the group up to date as a whole.
Have incentives to train new opticians such as lab discounts help with schooling. We could work with local labs to get better pricing for members. Offer quarterly classes or even Moocs to expand our knowledge.
If we get offices to join slowly the name and brand will expand as will our reputation.
It would have to be non-profit, have by laws on how much the people who run it make (Ex: CEO no more than x% of the annual income or 150k which ever is lower. obviously needing work but a gross example) annually and safe guards to keep it honest.
Hell to be honest the big lens companies may even help sponsor it if only to get their names out to the public more. (I know this could be bad but again an idea, maybe just exclude Essilor ;^) )

I see plumbers, electricians, and construction workers organized better than us, and yet glasses are no less important.
Start small, plant the seeds. Make the industry take note of a union/guild that we make. Remember without us, the opticians, the industry as a whole fails. We do have the power and clout we need, we just need to realize it.
(Sorry Reread that and it came off as preachy.)

[wmcdonald]

When they started, yes they sold only 3 products. A hamburger, cheeseburger and hotdogs. And they only came one way. And by the way, it is spelled Opticianry. You should learn to spell the name of your own profession if you wish to debate the issues. Most really have no idea of the best lens design, because they have little understanding of optics to start with. The CPA example was used to affect branding. Of course we are not like CPAs.....that was not the point.

To respond to your concerns will take little effort, really. You are exactly right, as it exists there are many roadblocks in the way. There are there because we have allowed it. Pharmacists, Nurses and many other allied health fields have headed that off by making themselves more significant, while we continue to measure PDs and take seg heights......little else. Until we improve ourselves and expand what it is we do (much like the ODs, Nurses, Dental Hygienists, and others did in this country, and continue today) we will remain irrelevant. When we can stand on our own, we will again be significant players. I want to see that happen. Rather than shooting at it others, why not contribute something to help.

McDonald's has hot dogs?

But seriously, being an optician is not really like being a CPA. There are some objective principles in opticianary, but a lot of it these days involves suggesting the best lens design, material, and frame to provide the best possible vision, and trying to balance that against what the customer can afford (or what their insurance will pay). Many opticians are constrained by management or company policy on what products they can use. Then the optician has to have some skill in being able to fit the frame/lens properly, and exhibit a sense of fashion in some cases. These are hard things to quantify and hard to test people on. If you think you know the answers, please let us know what the best progressive lens design is, because a lot of people would like to know that (even allowing for the fact that there are different "bests" depending on the Rx).

The industry itself makes things even harder, since it is very difficult, and sometime impossible, to figure out the pros and cons of various lens designs from information provided by manufacturers even within their own product line, much less across lens manufacturers. Just over last few years I have found less and less technical information on lens manufacturer websites about their products, and more attempts by manufacturers to automate the dispensing process. Then one has to deal with local lab quality, which can influence which lens manufacturer one ends up getting. For example, Zeiss has some excellent progressive lens designs, but some local Zeiss labs have had such quality problems recently that opticians have had to use other manufacturers instead. Fortunately, Zeiss seems to be working a solution for this.

I am not trying to suggest that there are no technical optical principles that matter to the profession of being an Optician, and I agree that they should be tested/certified on these things. But I am not sure these things come into play for most patients, compared to the knowledge required of the products and the benefits of each, and the ability to find cost effective solutions and to correctly fit a live patient.