Darryl, I'm baaaack............................

**drk** · 06-13-2004, 02:04 PM

My favorite forum! The hardcore stuff.

Why did the Vizio flop commercially?
1. It did not flop commercially, bonehead.
2. Lab owners, Opticians and OD's are too boneheaded to understand it's benefits.
3. Our bonehead marketing department barely understands it, ourselves.
4. A bonehead choice of material limited its success.

I'm finally, through your help, understanding the potential that atoricity provides. I need to understand why there has been so little buzz about it. I would also like a PRACTICAL cylinder power threshold at which I should be thinking about it. My guess is 1.50 to 2.00.

Please help me help Sola sell some lenses.
How about that 1.66, anyway? Is it Optima's? You can't drill that, right?

**Darryl Meister** · 06-21-2004, 01:37 PM

Hi DRK,

Sorry about not answering this sooner; I inadvertently overlooked it.

Obviously, I wouldn't call ViZio a "commercial flop," but I would guess that, given its slightly higher premium price point (as a result of the UTMC coating and atoric design) over commodity 1.67 products, its success in the marketplace would be constrained by product knowledge. ECPs who do not fully understand the benefits of atoric designs and premium coatings, for instance, may not want to invest in more premium lens designs, and would simply request "1.67 high-index" from their laboratories. Consequently, those who do not understand the technology will not understand the wearer benefits, which always hurts the "value" proposition for higher-priced lenses.

And keep in mind that the market for these high-index materials is not that large to begin with, given the epidemiological distribution of high myopia, use of contact lenses, and the rather large refractive surgery industry.

ViZio is strictly a SOLA product; Optima has nothing to do with it.

ViZio is the kind of product you could recommend to anyone who would benefit from thinner, lighter lenses with better optics, not just wearers with a certain amount of cylinder power.

Best regards,
Darryl

**mrba** · 06-25-2004, 02:03 AM

Just a question... Is UTMC still considered a premium coating?

**P Doble** · 06-25-2004, 11:18 AM

I believe so. Because it's a SOLA thing. It's their "Premium" hard coat. We consider it premium because only SOLA can do it.

**Darryl Meister** · 06-25-2004, 05:57 PM

Is UTMC still considered a premium coating?

I certainly consider it a premium coating. Though Teflon is a notch up in several ways.

Best regards,
Darryl

**For-Life** · 06-25-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by mrba

Just a question... Is UTMC still considered a premium coating?

Depends. Do premium coatings scare customers away from every using the product again, because of crazing and smearing?

**Darryl Meister** · 06-25-2004, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by For-Life

Depends. Do premium coatings scare customers away from every using the product again, because of crazing and smearing?

In another thread, you had indicated that you had regularly experienced high crazing with over half-a-dozen different AR vendors... Perhaps there is something in your process that is contributing to the issue?

Best regards,
Darryl

**For-Life** · 06-25-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Darryl Meister

In another thread, you had indicated that you had regularly experienced high crazing with over half-a-dozen different AR vendors... Perhaps there is something in your process that is contributing to the issue?

Best regards,
Darryl

I had about one craze a month with UTMC. After about 3 years with UTMC I found that customers glasses were pretty crazed. I find that some coatings are worse than the UTMC like CHC or RF. But my customers really hated it because it would never clean up for them. This also includes customers from other stores. I found with Crizal I had one craze a year and customers unsatisfied with the cleaning was a much lower ratio.

**Darryl Meister** · 06-26-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by For-Life

After about 3 years with UTMC I found that customers glasses were pretty crazed.

In all fairness, 3 years is a pretty lengthy amount of time for an AR coating. If, however, you feel that your UTMC coatings crazed more frequently after 3 years than other brands, it would certainly be something for us to look into further.

I find that some coatings are worse than the UTMC like CHC or RF. But my customers really hated it because it would never clean up for them. This also includes customers from other stores. I found with Crizal I had one craze a year and customers unsatisfied with the cleaning was a much lower ratio.

I imagine that a more reasonable comparison would be Teflon to Crizal. If you ever try Teflon, please let me know how it works for you.

Best regards,
Darryl

**For-Life** · 06-26-2004, 01:07 PM

I have and from why I have seen the Teflon coating is a very good coating. It, in my opinion, is not the best, but one of the best on the market. I use the Alize on pretty much all sales now, but if I do a Sola lens I will use Teflon (I did a pair of Access this week). I have gotten to the point that I will not sell the lens with AR if I do not like the coating, and with the Zeiss, Super-Hi (the older Hoya coating I had troubles with), Alize, Crizal, Teflon, and Nikon I am happy.

**mrba** · 06-28-2004, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Darryl Meister

In another thread, you had indicated that you had regularly experienced high crazing with over half-a-dozen different AR vendors... Perhaps there is something in your process that is contributing to the issue?
Best regards,
Darryl

We have found the coating (utmc) to be terrible... for years. Peeling, scratching. Doesn't compare to anything on the market at all.

**Darryl Meister** · 06-28-2004, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by mrba

We have found the coating (utmc) to be terrible... for years. Peeling, scratching. Doesn't compare to anything on the market at all.

I find that statement rather remarkable, not to mention unprecedented. UTMC must meet strict performance standards for its qualification, and has tested very well against other popular AR coatings in terms of both adhesion and abrasion resistance.

Personally, this remark strikes me as little more than unfounded bashing of SOLA and its products in a manner that doesn't even attempt to belie objectivity.

Best regards,
Darryl

**For-Life** · 06-28-2004, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Darryl Meister

Personally, this remark strikes me as little more than unfounded bashing of SOLA and its products in a manner that doesn't even attempt to belie objectivity.

Best regards,
Darryl

???

I used a lot of UTMC in the past, and I had troubles with it. I have no problem with Sola. Their VIP lens is a great lens, I said earlier that the Teflon Coating is a good coating, I am always using the Access (which is a way better lens that the Essilor Interview). I come to this board to trade opinions and I felt that I must speak my opinion on the UTMC. I am sorry if you do not agree with me.

**Darryl Meister** · 06-28-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by For-Life

I am sorry if you do not agree with me.

I was actually referring to mrba's response. Your response was both reasonable and well-qualified, and addressed the fact that many popular brands of AR experienced failures, particularly after an extended period of time.

Best regards,
Darryl

**For-Life** · 06-28-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Darryl Meister

I was actually referring to mrba's response. Your response was both reasonable and well-qualified, and addressed the fact that many popular brands of AR experienced failures, particularly after an extended period of time.

Best regards,
Darryl

Okay, sorry. I thought it was directed at both of us.