pressuring patients

[Tallboy]

I see colors so much sharper out of my AR lenses than with uncoated spectacles. My brother and his giant slobbery dogs - well he decided against it last time.

As long as you don't work with construction dust or extreme heat, I always reccomend it. Some people honestly think it is just an "upsell" thankfully we don't have a lot of those people coming to my place. We also only use the best coatings possible, and often people remark how much better our AR is than what they had gotten before.

I only try to educate and reccomend, I rarely discount anything but will remove features of the reccomended lens to fit the budget of the client. I hate the hard sell, I spent years in corporate retail and I despise it.

PS. Slim I definitely mention the AR on expensive scopes often lol. Trivex is used on Apache Helicopter windshields, stuff like that goes over well with the right crowds.

Crown glass is nice too, but most people don't remember or don't know how heavy it can be. I will absolutely do it for people though.

[mervinek]

Impressive!

[lensmanmd]

OK, I'll bite.

This is not about pressuring or sales tactics. Of course, we all want to improve our bottom lines. That said, AR is not for everyone, but should be for many in today's wheelhouse.

AR for kids....ludicrous. They will destroy them. Yes they will, and non coated lenses as well. Kids are kids. But how about this? AR coated lenses don't reflect much light, therefore, the glasses look better, and the added bonus, along with better vision is that they won't get teased as much. Four eyes go away and now, the frame is highlighted. What a concept! As for the parents who fear that their kids will destroy them, there is always a warranty, right? It's all about how the product is presented, without pressure, without gimmicks. Just the facts and a quick demonstration.

My beef is selling the highest tier PAL. Really? Is there such a difference from OEM to the Individual2 for the average uuser? If the optician does not take the proper POW, then the best of the best will be worthless. Better to be in an average FF PAL, than a poorly fitted premium. The average eyeglass wearer really won't be able to see an appreciable difference to justify double the spend.

As opticians, we are here to listen to the patient's needs and recommend products that are best suited for their needs. Lifestyle questions, anyone? Over or under selling should be a crime. Fitting for fashion instead of acuity should also be a crime. Selling for $ instead of need, well, I won't go there. The best opticians know how to balance form and function. The rest work for LensCrafters, where average $ sale is king.

Let the trolling begin!

[Tallboy]

My beef is selling the highest tier PAL. Really? Is there such a difference from OEM to the Individual2 for the average uuser? If the optician does not take the proper POW, then the best of the best will be worthless. Better to be in an average FF PAL, than a poorly fitted premium. The average eyeglass wearer really won't be able to see an appreciable difference to justify double the spend.

There is no doubt there is a point of diminishing returns on investment per dollar spent in the high end pals. Especially if it comes at the cost of crappier lens substrates and coatings that those dollars could have been invested in! Just like expensive wine high end lens designs are often not worth more to the customer than the bottle they come in.

Unfortunately the "average" free form lens isn't very good, it is just a way to make cheaper PALs on singlevision blanks and then call them HD. IOT designs well fit and produced by a lab that adheres to VERY strict processing standards with great equipment - well for many if not most patients they will stand up just fine in my experience.

Fitting, Processing, Coating, Edging, Base Design, they all are just as important as the others.

[smallworld]

I'm reminded of the last time we bought a car at a dealership and how glad I was to be a trained salesperson. They tried to do the trick of filling out lots of forms and then suddenly the $200 a month payment I told them was our limit was $300 a month. After two hours of paperwork, they must have thought I would back down. I said thank you and I'm going somewhere else. After some frantic conversation I got my $200 a month payments.

At hour three we were forced to sit and talk to a man about car warranty packages they sold. I told him the minute we sat down that $200 a month was my limit, and he sneered at me, looking down his nose and let me know that he HAD to do his job now, which was giving me the gift of warranty packages. He tried every sales trick in the book, from trying to let us know how stupid we were to not buy the warranty, to talking up benefits..blah blah blah. I told him he could talk to himself and I stood up, put on my coat, and said "we are done". I thought he would kill me, but I didn't care.

I left the dealership with a great used car, minus some bells and whistles, and stayed in budget. We never had any issues with the car in the three years we had it.

Salespeople drive me nuts.

[Pete Hanlin]

Easiest way to sell no-glare is to allow the patient to discover it themselves (called "merchandising"). I once tried this in a practice by creating a poster that was placed in the exam room. The poster had a pic of a phoropter at the top and said in large letters "Do you see better in this room than you do with your glasses?" (because I've heard that exact observation numerous times). The poster then went on to explain (in regular sized print) that one of the reasons you see so well in the exam room is the equipment you're looking through has no-glare coating. In fact, you probably have no-glare coating on just about every optical device you own- binoculars, cameras, telescopes... The only optical device most people own that does NOT have no-glare is their eyeglasses. Then I had a pic of the typical "night time glare on the road" scene with an explanation that the reason you see this way at night is due to reflections on the lens. Followed by a "night time viewed through no-glare" picture that explained that no-glare coating will improve your vision at night. Finally, it was followed up with some pics of a person wearing glasses with no-glare and without no-glare, with a bit of verbiage explaining how glasses with no-glare simply look better.

The beautiful thing is, when a patient is waiting in an exam room (or really, when they are waiting anywhere) they will read just about anything put in front of them (tell me you haven't studied the muscular or bone identification charts in your physician's office at one time or another). So, they'll read all about no-glare and- surprise- most people who read about it WANT it. So, they come out into the dispensary asking "Can that stuff that helps me see better at night be made in my Rx?" Not "Is it covered by insurance?" or even "How much is it?" just, "How do I get it?"

As for AR on children, a good AR is going to be harder to scratch than a regular scratch coated lens- because a good AR will have a thermally cured hard coating underneath the stack (pretty much any AR by Hoya or any Crizal product). My kids wore AR through grade school, and- although we had to replace some broken frames- the lenses always fared pretty well.

People often don't feel a need for something they've never had. That's why yeah- AR penetration for consumers is under 40% in the US (but it's pretty much 100% for eye care providers who wear glasses, hmm). Rather than trying to convince them in the dispensary, figure out how to let the patient "discover" the benefits of no-glare during their 45 minute journey through the practice. All that said, if I make a recommendation for no-glare (which I'll usually base on their response to my questions about their vision at night) and they say "no," I think I'd consider it a seed planted for next time around and move on. Just my $0.02.

[AngeHamm]

The practices I've worked in with the highest rates of AR lenses are all ones where the doctors recommend it to patients in the exam room. In my practice where doctors wrote "AR recommended" on the RX routinely had 92% AR dispenses.

[Hayde]

AR for kids....ludicrous. They will destroy them. Yes they will, and non coated lenses as well....Let the trolling begin!

[while practicing most ferocious troll look in the mirror...giving up, straightening tie...] I have to respectfully disagree with such a broad brush coloring all kids. They manifest a wide variety of activity levels (and potential need) at even a young age. Are there rambunctious boys and girls I wouldn't bother with an Anti-Glare? Absolutely. But there are plenty who no worse than adults...and plenty with potential need. Say, the ones who spend even a fraction of the time in front of computer screens as I did as a kid....

True, school is school, and things happen to specs even if wasn't the kid's fault. Kids do need a Good AR, nothing short of the two year warranty kind. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. But plenty of parents appreciate a quality product with a supportive warranty to justify the investment.

[AngeHamm]

[while practicing most ferocious troll look in the mirror...giving up, straightening tie...] I have to respectfully disagree with such a broad brush coloring all kids. They manifest a wide variety of activity levels (and potential need) at even a young age. Are there rambunctious boys and girls I wouldn't bother with an Anti-Glare? Absolutely. But there are plenty who no worse than adults...and plenty with potential need. Say, the ones who spend even a fraction of the time in front of computer screens as I did as a kid....

True, school is school, and things happen to specs even if wasn't the kid's fault. Kids do need a Good AR, nothing short of the two year warranty kind. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. But plenty of parents appreciate a quality product with a supportive warranty to justify the investment.

+1. I was a very bookish kid who took very good care of my glasses. I sure could have used AR.

[harry888]

The lenses in the phoropter are AR coated.

If you want to see as well as in the exam room........

[Uilleann]

In fairness, the lenses in the photopter are also glass. One big reason they are A/R treated is that they are often stacked one on top of the other. Without A/R, the reflections from all those surfaces would be maddening. But that doesn't take away from the benefit of an A/R lens for EVERY patient otherwise. :)

[optical24/7]

What other device that uses powered lenses do you have a choice of AR or no AR? There's a reason for that.

[Chris Ryser]

This study proposed to better quantify the perceived effect of antireflective coatings on various daily activities, concentrating on tasks such as driving, computer use, and usage of handheld devices. It also measured contrast sensitivity thru AR coated and non-AR coated lenses to determine how significant of an effect was measurable at different acuity levels. Additionally, contrast sensitivity was measured under glare conditions while subjects wore both AR coated and non-AR coated lenses.

It may also help to read the whole study by the Vision Council at: ============>

https://www.thevisioncouncil.org/sit...erformance.pdf

[drk]

This is the central reason prescribers should not be fulfillers

You are singling out one professional for unethical behavior but not another professional. Real fair.

[Lelarep]

I'm a strong believer in the "You provide them with the best information and let them decide" philosophy. I don't believe in "selling" anything. If the product, and the information provided is good enough the product should "sell itself".

[mervinek]

I'm a strong believer in the "You provide them with the best information and let them decide" philosophy. I don't believe in "selling" anything. If the product, and the information provided is good enough the product should "sell itself".

agree! +1

[AngeHamm]

I'm a strong believer in the "You provide them with the best information and let them decide" philosophy. I don't believe in "selling" anything. If the product, and the information provided is good enough the product should "sell itself".

+2.