Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By Barry Santini |
I'm so with you on this one, Andy. As you pointed out, on so many optical discussion boards, members emphatically advocate getting rid of any Big/Major companies products in the practices, and sticking soley to those vendors who don't play in the big consumer arena or online.
Kinda reminds me of any of those fad diets, where one restricts their consumption to one or two food groups.
And i think their practices will eventually see similar *reducing* effects.
Sure, these industry changes are akin to new handicaps being placed on our businesses. But that ongoing evolution will never cease changing. So it's up to "us" to forge out a clear, value-driven message to our clients.
Mine is absolutely top shelf quality in all respects. Other approaches are equally valid.
I think the majority of sourgrapes we're hearing may come from the expectation that, as many friends have often remarked, "people will always *need* glasses.
And unless we ECPs wake up soon, they just won't need them from us.
Barry |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By HarryChiling |
There are now a plethora of quality products on the market, and the mergers of companies lately have not lead to more innovation or new products they have lead to lower quality and less options. Many corporate labs are streamlining their products offerings to just what their company makes. This is similar to when M$ (microsoft) was purchaseing competition and stiffling innovation.
It's easy to pick a big manufacturer and become another me too optical with the same product offerings as the majority. It is actually very difficult to find replacements to all the major manufacturers products and find labs that carry enough of a variety to offer a truly custom fit and experiences to a patient based on their needs. I hope that in the future these mergers will slow and ECPs will be more likely to try products outside of their comfort zones without the need to qualify the product based on manufacturer. This to me is truly the utopia I woudl envision.
The monopoly on the quality of lens design is over, many manufacturers now have great designs available. I believe that this is the onus for ECPs looking beyond just what's good for my patient and now focusing on the secondary and tertiary objectives for lens choice which are how does it effect my bottom line and does it fit my business's philosophy and in some cases how does it effect our industry. We now have the luxury of picking a good design and one that isn't sold direct to patients online. That's powerful and I think ECPs should excercise that power to the fullest.
Nice topic Andrew as always you column requires thought and keeps us sharp. |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By Ron Fleming |
| I think the "polarization" as you call it is more of a sense the market is becoming more controlled - people are worried about monopolizing technology and price fixing - Big Brother stuff. I believe some questioning is justified. |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By Stewart Gooderman |
| "Polarization" is a nice way to say: monopolization, and therefore antitrust, which, I predict, the attorneys general will begin looking at pretty soon. |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By John Bonizio |
There's a reverse side to all of this. Take Essilor for example. The success of their brands is not just because they are superior products; their success comes from the gatekeeper ECP's who recommend these products to a trusting consumer base. But what happens when the giant Essilor ship can't turn-about quickly enough to keep pace with technology (as we're seeing now with digital progressives), or when their centralized coating labs begin to turn out inferior products?
Essilor would like us all to believe that their products are superior because they have the brand name people trust. They compare their brands to names such as Bayer asprin and Apple Computer. The difference is that lenses require the intervention of a lab. Bayer and Apple go from the manufacturing stage to the consumer without third party intervention. Before they bought up most of the labs, competition kept the labs on their toes. If you had a bad experience with Lab-A, you simply went to Lab-B, where you could get the same product fabricated by a better system. But now that they own most of the big labs and have centralized the majority their coating operation, there is no more competitive edge.
In the end, the ECP can simply adopt another brand or "go digital" with a smaller lab and really do what's best for the patient. After all, it's our recommendations that people respect...not the brand names. We will only be polarized if we let ourselves be led by the hype. |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization "..emphasize thier support for independent eyecare ..." !?!?!?!?!?!?
By Howie Sherman |
Dear Andy,
What planet do you live on? Vertical monopolies gobble up and spit out independent everything they can no, lab, optical or professional. No matter how much lip service they would pay ($) to a professional association they don't care as much about the patient as they do about 'their' customer who buys their product. If they think thier product is superior the market place would support thier bottom line well and they would not need to monopolize. They are either affraid, which is sad, or overcome by avarice which is evil, either way they are turning to the 'dark side' to use a current metaphor. If we don't protest. If we don't fight the juggernaut it will run us over. No product is that good or unique for long, nothing is irreplacable. Evey thing has its plusses and minuses, tht s iwhere a free market lets teh market place decide. Iif they won't play fair then we must call them on it and not let them play in our yard. History is full of robber barons, conquistadors and jihadists. They are not just exercising their civil rights they are pretending to be civil when in fact they are playing dirty and trying to control everyone else.
Lets call a spade a spade.
Don't blame the victim for crying foul and fighting back for self preservation.
"If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. "
Howie |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By Bill Gregory |
My experience with Essilor goes 'way back - all the way back to the Varilux II. I distinctly remember when the Comfort was introduced - it was a true revolution in progressive lenses. I can't begin to count the number I fit, with at least a 95% adapt rate.
Fast forward to the years when Lenscrafters arrived on the scene, and everyone was predicting the end of independent optometrists. All these years later, being an independent OD is still a viable - if shrinking - option.
Fast forward to Luxottica buying Lenscrafters. Suddenly there was another paradigm shift in looking at the way the optical world was ordered. And then the chains started selling Essilor lenses, and other lens companies starting touting the fact that "our" patients could get a product from us that was different than the chains.
Press the FF button again, and Costco comes into the market, selling Essilor lenses and the same designer lines the independent carries, blurring boundaries even more, with prices the independent can't touch due to their purchasing power.
Fast forward some more, and the major lens manufacturers started buying up local, independent optical laboratories, and the world changed again.
I'm not saying these changes are good or bad - it's just the way it is. And now Shamir - a small lens design and manufacturing company with some truly unique designs, whose market differentiation was "We're not Essilor" - is acquired by Essilor. This is not a major game changer like the ones sited above, but ... it makes me wonder what the future of our industry will look like in five and ten years. Successful independents have had to change, change and change again to keep a shrinking percentage of the pie, and will continue to have to be innovative to remain relevant as the market evolves. We will have natural allies in this process, and others who, in a natural capitalistic way, will try and grow their market share at others expense in a mature market. |
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By CA402CE4-1A39-4464-B412-0E07DF2281E6 |
“Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization” missed the mark. Independent providers need not compromise their businesses to provide quality products and services to their patients. Supplier mergers and acquisitions only pose a threat to independent providers if those suppliers choose to directly compete with providers for retail sales or healthcare delivery. Why a provider would continue to purchase supplies or participate in a third party arrangement with an entity that directly competes with them in the market place is beyond my understanding. Doing so provides direct access to patient demographics, product sales history, and pricing. This coveted information can be used to gain competitive advantage through target marketing, internet sales, and placement of bricks and mortar commercial sales outlets. Fortunately there are exceptional manufacturers and third party payers that choose to partner with practitioners instead of compete with them. That will change however if independent providers do not hold suppliers accountable for entering into competition with them.
Christopher J. Colburn, O.D., F.A.A.O.
Spectrum Eyecare
|
|
Re: Reducing the ‘Effects’ of Polarization
By Barry santini |
Further thoughts:
At the end of the day, i don't think the ecps whose businesses will survive the coming changes will ge competing on price, product selection, brands or promotions. It seems to me that there is little difference between another skilled ecp competing with one directly in a local community, or a large, multinational corp stepping down to enter the online track.
Its the *extras* that are now being unbundled by online vending that will be the differentiator in predicting survival in the future. I think that children will continue to smash and kill their eyewear, and how receptive any ecp will be toward making the convenience of their practice's location available to *anyone* who steps in for help, will determine where the public decides the "better" is for their eyecare/eyewear dollar.
"The bitterness of poor quailty remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten"
Worked before. Applies more than ever today.
B |
|