Can professionals have an on-line store?

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

The topic of on-line sales/promotions/advertising seems to be frowned on by some on this forum, maybe by the forum itself.

Am I reading that correctly, or not?

The reason I ask is that I've toyed with the idea of doing it, because the internet is here to stay and because some players in the industry are nudging me in that direction. For example, VSP, which is a huge part of my practice, has been encouraging me to promote my practice using Eyefinity tools to develop my web site and even to offer direct internet "sales" via their Iconic brand.

I've pretty much decided to not offer direct optometric services on the internet in order to keep the sales tax burden at bay. I don't think it's possible to "sell" glasses or contacts without any associated services (adjustments, followup care, etc) unless one charges sales tax for the materials, at least in or from California.

Any thoughts on this?

[Chris Ryser]

The topic of on-line sales/promotions/advertising seems to be frowned on by some on this forum, maybe by the forum itself.

Am I reading that correctly, or not?

The reason I ask is that I've toyed with the idea of doing it, because the internet is here to stay and because some players in the industry are nudging me in that direction.

I have been watching the success rate of optical websites for many years and have it even published on my own site. I made a listing of close to a thousand optical sites and their rankings on my own website at: http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm

The success rate is measured by the amount of visitors to a site on a daily basis. The more visitors you can attract the more chances you have to make a sale. The most popular rating site today is http://alexa.com .

There is nothing in this world where there is not somebody frowning at. Usually the more successful ones on the internet keep quite.

If you go for a website within the frame work of another one you will never know how successful your own part will be.

[Joe Zewe]

I have been watching the success rate of optical websites for many years and have it even published on my own site. I made a listing of close to a thousand optical sites and their rankings on my own website at: http://optochemicals.com/web_listing.htm

The success rate is measured by the amount of visitors to a site on a daily basis. The more visitors you can attract the more chances you have to make a sale. The most popular rating site today is http://alexa.com .

There is nothing in this world where there is not somebody frowning at. Usually the more successful ones on the internet keep quite.

If you go for a website within the frame work of another one you will never know how successful your own part will be.

Chris, I continually see your many posts touting Alexa.

Alexa rankings often do not reflect the success of a site. In fact, Alexa rankings mean very little for start-up websites or even established websites in optical. Read this from Alexa's own website:

"There are limits to statistics based on the data available. Sites with relatively low measured traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa. We do not receive enough data from our sources to make rankings beyond 100,000 statistically meaningful. (However, on the flip side of that, the closer a site gets to #1, the more reliable its rank.) This means that, for example, the difference in traffic between a site ranked 1,000,000 and a site ranked 2,000,000 has low statistical significance. Sites ranked 100,000+ may be subject to large ranking swings due to the scarcity of data for those sites. It is not unusual for such sites to decline to “No data” Traffic Ranks, or to improve suddenly."

In other words, almost all of the websites you list on your site according to their Alexa rankings are in the words of Alexa, "will not be accurately ranked by Alexa". What drives Alexa rankings is people visiting your site that have the Alexa toolbar installed on their browser. A relatively small % of people install this on their computer as it allows you to be tracked while surfing the web. Most people are hesitant to add toolbars/adware to their browsers.

[rbaker]

The topic of on-line sales/promotions/advertising seems to be frowned on by some on this forum, maybe by the forum itself.

Am I reading that correctly, or not?

I guess that all depends on whether you are selling glasses on line like the dreaded "Costal" or marketing your own practice.

[MikeAurelius]

In other words, almost all of the websites you list on your site according to their Alexa rankings are in the words of Alexa, "not be accurately ranked by Alexa". What drives Alexa rankings is people visiting your site that have the Alexa toolbar installed on their browser. A relatively small % of people install this on their computer as it allows you to be tracked while surfing the web. Most people are hesitant to add toolbars/adware to their browsers.

Like most statistics, those gathered by Alexa are junque and questionable junque at that.

[Chris Ryser]

Like most statistics, those gathered by Alexa are junque and questionable junque at that.

On April 16, 2008, many users reported dramatic shifts in their Alexa rankings. Alexa confirmed this later in the day with an announcement that they had released an updated ranking system, claiming that they would now take into account more sources of data "beyond Alexa Toolbar users".


And then you also have the Google-Yahoo and Bing ratings to consider.

[braheem24]

If VSP is encouraging you, I would run.

[MikeAurelius]

On April 16, 2008, many users reported dramatic shifts in their Alexa rankings. Alexa confirmed this later in the day with an announcement that they had released an updated ranking system, claiming that they would now take into account more sources of data "beyond Alexa Toolbar users".


And then you also have the Google-Yahoo and Bing ratings to consider.

I would "trust" hit ratings from Google/Yahoo/Bing far more than Alexa.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I guess that all depends on whether you are selling glasses on line like the dreaded "Costal" or marketing your own practice.

I think your statement answers my question. If I do open a site that "sells" glasses, it will not be a part of my optometry practice because I don't "sell" glasses in my office, but provide them as part of a service. In the office, I'm the purchaser of the materials and have to pay the sales tax on the wholesale cost (of course passed to the patient/payor) but don't charge sales taxes to patients.

If I do a "store" on line, I'll be selling glasses there for sure and recommending possible locations for adjustment of those glasses. Of course in that case, I'll disclose the likelihood of a fee being charged for that.

So thanks, I'll keep it separate businesses, if I do actually do it.

[rbaker]

Hits on a web site are nice but if they don't result in sales . . .

[Richie]

Some contact distributors will have Marketing solutions that build your own website the way you want it. Unless you buy straight from the manufacturer, I would look into that.

[Chris Ryser]

Hits on a web site are nice but if they don't result in sales . . .

Very correct Dick.

However there is also the law of average.

The more hits you get the more are the chances of making a sale. That is why we all fight for more hits and views on a website.

[MikeAurelius]

Counting hits as some kind of "point system" towards getting a sale is not the smartest way to go about getting business. You first have to be sure that the people looking for your products are qualified purchasers, meaning that they *want* what you are selling. Just broadcasting your website to 50 bazillion computers around the world isn't going to get you a sale. That's the main problem with using Alexa (and a couple of other ranking sites). Sure, say you get 100,000 hits. How many of them are actually wanting to buy what you've got? One? Two? That's just throwing money in the trash can.

[MakeOptics]

Counting hits as some kind of "point system" towards getting a sale is not the smartest way to go about getting business. You first have to be sure that the people looking for your products are qualified purchasers, meaning that they *want* what you are selling. Just broadcasting your website to 50 bazillion computers around the world isn't going to get you a sale. That's the main problem with using Alexa (and a couple of other ranking sites). Sure, say you get 100,000 hits. How many of them are actually wanting to buy what you've got? One? Two? That's just throwing money in the trash can.

Qualified leads! +1, great response.

Currently google indexes over 30 trillion websites. The goal is not to get hit's but the right hits, anyone can keyword spam, and use blackhat SEO to generate more hits. If I wanted to I could write a small script that would hit your site a hundred times a minute or more (DOS Attack).

The search engines people use are the ones that curate the content carefully and provide sites that are relevant. On my servers I see the most hits coming from Google, still with Bing climbing the charts.

I also get a lot of hits from social media sites, combined they are running neck and neck with bing. My simple SEO approach is aim to get high on Google locally for a small optical business, then make sure you focus on social media presence. Those simple two objectives will provide the 80% to your site, the remaining 20% is CONTENT. The more unique content the better. I also make sure I have my site meeting current standards with valid code (very difficult to maintain, but ranks high with search engines). Placement of content is important as well, the higher in the page the more relevant.

[Chris Ryser]

How many of them are actually wanting to buy what you've got? One? Two? That's just throwing money in the trash can.

Most of them that go on my website know what they are looking for, because they find what they want on GOOGLE, YAHOO and BING, because I take good care that my pages come up pretty good and fast on the major search engines.

My Google ranking is = About 8,040 results (0.61 seconds)
On Yahoo ranking is = 21,000 results
On Bing ranking is = 38,000 results

That are results that are about within 5 minutes of printing this message
so they are fairly recent.



all above compared to
Auralens.net

Google ranking is = About 605 results (0.60 seconds)
On Yahoo ranking is = 2 Results
On Bing ranking is = 2 results



and

Qualified leads! +1, great response.
Currently google indexes over 30 trillion websites. The goal is not to get hit's but the right hits, anyone can keyword spam, and use blackhat SEO to generate more hits.

while http://www.opticians.cc

Google ranking is = no ranking available
Yahoo Ranking = no ranking available
On Bing ranking is = no ranking available


So we can all talk with authority but show none or barely any results on our own sites.

[MikeAurelius]

all above compared to
Auralens.net

Google ranking is = About 605 results (0.60 seconds)
On Yahoo ranking is = 2 Results
On Bing ranking is = 2 results

Chris, I don't understand why, every time this discussion shows up, you try to compare your website (where you offer link exchanges, btw) to mine. You are comparing apples to coffee. My customer base is very small, perhaps 100K across the United States, however, my conversion rate is close to 80%. People looking for me find me and buy from me. Your rankings also don't take into account social media, where my conversion rate is closer to 98%. And your results for Yahoo and Bing do not match what my website statistic engine shows, which means they are worthless.

Your numbers are meaningless, yet you continue to throw them out with impunity. You continue to use a paradigm of the internet that is out-of-date, out-of-fashion, and just plain worthless. People have gotten smarter about "link concentrators" and most of the IT professionals I work with root them out with unholy glee and block them. People looking for a product to buy will go to one of the first couple of links on Google/Yahoo/Bing and look for what they want. If they find the website to be a "link concentrator", they go on to the next company. The "link concentrator" paradigm is obsolete and a goodly number of people searching the internet hate them.

[Chris Ryser]

Your rankings also don't take into account social media, where my conversion rate is closer to 98%. And your results for Yahoo and Bing do not match what my website statistic engine shows, which means they are worthless.

Your numbers are meaningless, yet you continue to throw them out with impunity. You continue to use a paradigm of the internet that is out-of-date, out-of-fashion, and just plain worthless. People have gotten smarter about "link concentrators" and most of the IT professionals I work with root them out with unholy glee and block them. People looking for a product to buy will go to one of the first couple of links on Google/Yahoo/Bing and look for what they want. If they find the website to be a "link concentrator", they go on to the next company. The "link concentrator" paradigm is obsolete and a goodly number of people searching the internet hate them.

So now we said it .

You believe in this and you believe in that. I practice this and you do it the other way.

However I have no statistics machine, I get the results directly from each Google-Yahoo and Bing when wanted or needed..

[MikeAurelius]

Then you should look at the statistics generated on your website. Most every host offers this, unless you are hosting yourself. If you are, I'd look around for a statistics generator. Pay particular attention to the statistics for how long the "visitor" stays on your website. If the percentage of visitors that stay less than 30 seconds is greater than about 30%, you don't even have lookey loo's, you've got "not interested". Mine's at 14%, which is about right for bookmarking for later browsing.

Google/Yahoo/Bing do not tell even 5% of the story.

[MikeAurelius]

Also, check out Google Analytics. They have a free version, as well as one for mobile based websites, and a tag manager.

[MakeOptics]

while http://www.opticians.cc

Google ranking is = no ranking available
Yahoo Ranking = no ranking available
On Bing ranking is = no ranking available


So we can all talk with authority but show none or barely any results on our own sites.

A few years back I took down technicalopticians.org, before I did you wouldn't dare question authority and I had mentioned some suggestions then, to you. opticians.cc is a private site with a url forwarder, it will not be SEO optimized, if I am successful it will not be available through a search engine at all. Intent is key here, you can always look at my robots.txt file which does not allow crawling. I provide a free site with tools and resources, it is my creative expression. When my other site was up it regularly performed better than your site as well as Zeiss.com which I thought was surprising, at a certain point the costs were starting to get astronomical. I did not intend to spend $150 a month on hosting and entertain an international audience so I took it down. I even got a few offers from optiboarders to purchase the domains which had significant relevant traffic.

If memory serves me correctly your site was designed by a professional years back and then you have hacked at it over the years to create the maze you have. You display a mark on your front page that your code is valid, yet I find over 200+ errors, your meta data shows on the top of your page, and their is no consistent color, font, or size.

[MakeOptics]

Then you should look at the statistics generated on your website. Most every host offers this, unless you are hosting yourself. If you are, I'd look around for a statistics generator. Pay particular attention to the statistics for how long the "visitor" stays on your website. If the percentage of visitors that stay less than 30 seconds is greater than about 30%, you don't even have lookey loo's, you've got "not interested". Mine's at 14%, which is about right for bookmarking for later browsing.

Google/Yahoo/Bing do not tell even 5% of the story.

I am at 44.7 if we don't count the unknown, my site's 3 months old and I already have 244 unique visitors this month. Thank you optiboarders, I plan on continuing to provide relevant and great tools for you all. I even have a large following of visitors that stay longer than an hour, wow those are my people I like to call us opti-nerds. My stat's also tell me a story, like Mondays when we like to check our favorite sites, and 10:00 am to 11:00 am EST is the time we get to catch our breath in a dispensary and check our favorite watering holes. The USA is where my audience comes from, but Panama is second but definately not last "Thanks for visiting from your favorite gringo". Chrome and Firefox sit at the top of the browser charts, and the operating system of choice is windows by far.

[MakeOptics]

Chris,

I would like to see your old page from pre 2000 come back.

[MakeOptics]

Mike,

I love your new updated site, it has come a long way and I would be proud of it. Clean, well laid out, a consistent feel throughout it's no wonder people stay.

[MakeOptics]

And as a plug, I have a few android apps available as well. One of them is linked in the downloads directory here and is really in homage to a friend and mentor who passed. I made sure to put a link in the app to his families page.

[MakeOptics]

Sorry for junking up the thread, but I personally hand code my sites. I have a CMS system in the background, but 100% of the tools, calculators, and additional features to the site are hand coded and the CMS is a version that is more hand coding than hand holding + I had to go through the code and fix it so it validates 100% with no errors. The refering site www.opticians.cc does show three errors by way of a frame set, but I don't have control over the forwarder. I take great pride in a great site and the design is always reflecting my audience.