Slashdot Mirror


How Badly Are We Being Ripped Off On Eyewear? Former Industry Execs Tell All (latimes.com)

LA Times reports: Charles Dahan knows from firsthand experience how badly people get ripped off when buying eyeglasses. He was once one of the leading suppliers of frames to LensCrafters, before the company was purchased by optical behemoth Luxottica. He also built machines that improved the lens-manufacturing process. In other words, Dahan, 70, knows the eyewear business from start to finish. And he doesn't like what's happened. "There is no competition in the industry, not anymore," he told me. "Luxottica bought everyone. They set whatever prices they please."

Both Butler and Dahan (former executives with LensCrafters) acknowledged what most consumers have long suspected: that the prices we pay for eyewear in no way reflect the actual cost of making frames and lenses. When he was in the business, in the 1980s and '90s, Dahan said it cost him between $10 and $16 to manufacture a pair of quality plastic or metal frames. Lenses, he said, might cost about $5 a pair to produce. With fancy coatings, that could boost the price all the way to $15.

He said LensCrafters would turn around and charge $99 for completed glasses that cost $20 or $30 to make -- and this was well below what many independent opticians charged. Nowadays, he said, those same glasses at LensCrafters might cost hundreds of dollars. Butler said he recently visited factories in China where many glasses for the U.S. market are manufactured. Improved technology has made prices even lower than what Dahan recalled. "You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8," Butler said. "For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what you'd get from Prada."

50 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. Considering the fact that by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Funny

    LASIK is down to about $200 per eye, if you can afford a pair of glasses, you could probably afford to never buy them again.

    The last time I got new astigmatic contacts, I discovered their focal length was further out than my arms could hold something I was trying to read. The brilliant solution of my optometrist was to try to sell me reading glasses...

    1. Re:Considering the fact that by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No stinking thanks to having my eyes permanently altered by the lowest bidder.

    2. Re:Considering the fact that by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only reason I haven't got lasik is that even the best procedures have a significant risk of reducing night vision. Mine is already bad, and I can't imagine having it worse.

    3. Re:Considering the fact that by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LASIK is down to about $200 per eye

      Citation needed, I keep checking prices and the bargain basement back alley LASIK is still $1k.

    4. Re:Considering the fact that by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Another risk in laser eye surgery is extreme dryness. My eyes are already on the dry side - damned if I'm going to gamble on having to depend on drops for the rest of my life, in addition to the posibility of poor night vision, or worse if the procedure goes sideways.

      I can't even wear contacts - even when I ignore the irritation, all the ones I've tried cause my eyes to get gummy and blurry. I've resigned myself to wearing glasses, (and getting hosed because of it), for the rest of my life.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    5. Re:Considering the fact that by demon+driver · · Score: 2

      Vision can change over time – that still is true after LASIK. Even if nothing went wrong, it can happen easily that two or three years later your eyes have changed again and you'll need glasses again even though you had them lasered.

    6. Re: Considering the fact that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    7. Re:Considering the fact that by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't say "turning off cells", but your eyes tend to flatten over time, so most people get more farsighted as they age. Getting lasik now means you will become farsighted later -- it's a trade-off, not a perfect solution.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:Considering the fact that by anegg · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll be sure to avoid anything Luxottica.

      The problem is that practically nothing in the Luxottica empire is named Luxottica. They bought up numerous US eyeglass retailers, but kept the original names. They own a big vision insurance company, but not with their name. They own numerous "brands" of actual eyeglasses, but practically none with their own name.

      Unless you read the articles carefully and note all of the names for the vision plan(s), eyeglass "brands", and eyeglass stores that together give the illusion of competition but in reality are all one giant singular entity, you won't see the forest for the trees.

      As far as LASIK goes, I had it done about 18 years ago for something like $1800 per eye. Economically, it's been a big win, and practically it has been a big win as well. I was nearsighted enough to need glasses for everything but reading, and I enjoyed many years being eyeglass free. Once I got into my upper 40s and presbyopia set in I began to need reading glasses (first in low light, then generally). My optometrist tells me that would have happened anyway. When I had my LASIK procedure done, I hedged my bets and paid big $$$ to have a very experienced doctor perform the surgery (he was well-known for doing the eyes of some sports figures, including Tiger Woods). Even so, during the recovery period I kept asking myself what the flock I was thinking... fortunately it all worked out ok.

    9. Re:Considering the fact that by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      1% is not low.

      If it is counted per eye, it would mean one of 50 people has one eye treated badly. If it is per person than obviously one out of 100 ...

      No idea why people think %1 is a low risk ... it is not. 1% might be a low number if we talk about inflation or interest.

      You have to walk a 100 yard way, on one yard is a mine: would you walk it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Considering the fact that by Immerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, lasik burns off parts of your lens, at the front of the eye, in order to reshape it so that it properly focuses light on the back of the eye - the retina.

      If it were burning off the back of the eye it would simply make you blind.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:Considering the fact that by fatwilbur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Logged in just to comment here on something I actually have experience with. I wore glasses since early grade 2, I had horrible near-sightedness, pretty much to the point of being blind without my thick glasses. Since I had lived my entire life (into my mid-30s) wearing glasses, I didn't actually think they were that big of a deal.

      All I can say, is that without any hyperbole at all, the decision to get laser eye surgery was the best money I have ever spent in my life. You have no idea the freedom and "HD" vision that comes as a result. The slight inconveniences are way more than worth it. I just can't tell you enough how awesome it has been - do not discount it.

      If you're interested, what finally made me look and take the dive was the fact I started skiing a lot, and the glasses fogging up under my goggles was highly annoying. I likewise could not use contacts for various reasons.

    12. Re:Considering the fact that by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      You could look into lens implantation. I had the Visian ICL one done and it is amazing.
      It is more expensive than any of the laser surgeries, but it is reversible and there is a significantly lower chance of complications (no dryness issues etc.).

      The only actual 'complication' is seeing ringlike lens flares from the edges of the 'aquaport' (a little hole in the center of the lens), which I'm told your brain adjusts to over a longer period of time (I'm 2.5 months in). They're not problematic in any way already, just noticeable at night (I am absolutely fine with driving at night).

      ICLs surgery is very similar to cataract surgery, but instead of actually replacing your biological lens, they just add a lens between your own and your iris.

    13. Re:Considering the fact that by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Italy's Luxottica [...] "That's how they gained control of so many brands" Dahan said. "If you don't do what they want, they cut you off"

      Dat's a nice eyeglass store youse got dere. Be a shame if your arms was to be cut off from your torso. I'm sure Guido and Luigi can work out an offer you can't refuse...

  2. It's the fitting that I pay for by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I agree with this I will point out that depending on your vision the service you get in getting the glasses rightly fitted is the hard part that may be worth paying for. FOr simple single vision lenses that's only weakly important. But for bifocals and even more critically progressives, the fitting is everything. I usually have to get two and sometimes 3 sets of glasses made before I'm happy. I've done tests where I have my vision measures four times in a row. They never agree. But some optics shops have a little leeway on progressives to tilt the degree of maginification in the center one way or the other. And that really helps when they get it right. It sucks when they don't.

    So I don't mind paying for the service even though I know the glasses are not worth the price in materials.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:It's the fitting that I pay for by jhobbs · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the cost of the frame and lenses is completely separate from the cost of the exam and fitting for me.

  3. Why would they? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFS says:

    Both Butler and Dahan (former executives with LensCrafters) acknowledged what most consumers have long suspected: that the prices we pay for eyewear in no way reflect the actual cost of making frames and lenses.

    Absent people who took no or a single econ class, why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay? Hell, Apple/Google get 30% of all app payments for credit card processing and hosting a static website. Corporate profits in general are at record highs.

    And Luxottica is particularly horrible. They bought Oakley by refusing to stock them (they own LensCrafters, Pearl Vision, Sunglass Hut, Walmart Optical, Target Optical, and more). Then, when the stock cratered, they bought the company, started stocking it, and raked in the bucks.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Why would they? by quantumghost · · Score: 2

      Video about all this. Hardly new "news",

    2. Re:Why would they? by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      The entire justification of market economies hinges on the central premise that competition drives the retail price towards the marginal cost of production. If that is untrue, the market has failed and intervention is necessary if the economy is to remain market based.

      I think they understand that just fine.

    3. Re:Why would they? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay?

      Wrong question. Why would anyone assume that if something was being sold with a very large profit margin there would not be new entrants to the market undercutting the incumbents?

      In many places you can buy glasses at much closer to the cost price, often online but sometimes in shops as well. Personally I like JINS. I find them more comfortable than designer frames and the last pair I bought was $30 (admittedly on sale but I think only $50 normally).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Why would they? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If medical equipment traded competitively, prices would be "just." The problem is that the medical market is a cartelized system that refuses to even let us know what the price of anything is.

    5. Re:Why would they? by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For commodities.

      If you look, you can find no name glasses at commodite price.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Why would they? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Luxor has a monopoly position on manufacturing glasses, therefore market pressures do not drive the price down, and they can charge excessive markups... isn't that what the article says?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Why would they? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      First of all: the web sites are not static. They include rating of apps etc. and you are usually logged in.
      Secondly: Apple does not only host the apps and reviews and processes credit cards, they analyze every app for security risks etc. I doubt they earn more than 15% (half of the 30% they charge).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Why would they? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay?

      Because there is.

      I'm curious about if the prices above are gross or net costs. Basically, what's the profit margin?

      Luxottica's net profit margin is about 15.8%, meaning that for every $1 of revenue they keep about 16 cents of profit. This is similar to Apple, Microsoft, and Google (20%-22%), and dissimilar from Comcast (11%-13%, depending on year), Adidas (8%), and Walmart (3%). Large pharmaceutical companies pull fluctuating profits generally holding around 12% for a 5-year average.

      I generally describe 8% as a fair net profit margin. It's somewhat arbitrary, but viable, and is derived from common numbers. Farmers believe their correct profit margin is 20%, and agricultural business literature often states that farmers should draw a 20% profit margin but tend to struggle to hold 10%--a similarly-arbitrary statement, and one that forms the foundation for agricultural industry welfare (not that welfare under our food source is a bad thing). Generally, modern regulations actually hold the profit margin of farmers down, rather than subsidizing it up (the farm subsidies basically set a price limit and offset it with a government payment).

      We can surmise, then, that the 15.8% net profit margin is not as egregious as considered--a $350 pair of glasses would be roughly $302 of net costs and $50 of revenues if sold direct from a single company, although the reality is a lot of small profit margins along the way--yet it is quite egregious compared to standard 8%-10% profit margins in durable goods industries, and even exceeds the 12% margins of some industries with more control of the market consumer.

      In short: the situation is not as bad as presented; but it does demonstrate market power abuse.

    9. Re:Why would they? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      https://www.zennioptical.com/

      $50 is their top of the line stuff. I get the $15 glasses that the doctor tried to sell me for $400. I've bought enough pairs that I spread them around the house and in my car so that I don't have to look for them.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    10. Re:Why would they? by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Alternately, just ask the eye doctor for your prescription. You don't have to explain yourself.

    11. Re:Why would they? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      The roadblock is insurance and laziness.

      You go to the eye doctor (paid for by the insurance). Many people won't even know what the real charges are. You're examined, then ushered out to the eye glass sales side of the business. The doctor uses her air of authority to make it seem that buying the glasses there is the right thing to do...and besides, the insurance says you get one pair per year. You shop for style instead of price.

      What woke me up to this dynamic? Being our of insurance and having to pay my own way. When quoted $400 I just told the guy, "I'm not interested in paying that for reading glasses." You'd have thought I'd hit him over the head with the chair I was sitting in. It was like he had never heard that before. I walked out without glasses, and searched for cheaper solution. Found Zenni, and now I'm doing just fine.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    12. Re:Why would they? by nmb3000 · · Score: 2

      For commodities.

      If you look, you can find no name glasses at commodite price.

      The problem is the "medical device" and "prescription" lables associated with glasses. For absolutely no reason at all, people have to see a doctor to get a prescription every few years, and this makes it feel like you need to buy this specialty vision device at the doctor's office. Very few optometrists will just hand you a paper with your prescription on it and suggest a few inexpensive options for buying glasses. They all push their stock very heavily because the margins are obscene.

      Of course you can get the prescription and buy glasses from anywhere, but most people just don't know this, and have no reason to assume it's true. They aren't expecting to be price gouged to high-fucking-heaven on something like glasses.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    13. Re:Why would they? by surfdaddy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've been buying from Zenni for about 5 years. Many pairs of glasses. Some of them are sort of cheap and others were really nice. But at those prices, who cares? I buy multiple pairs just to have variety and some fashion and I still save hundreds of dollars. And I've never had an optical formula problem with any of them, around 20 pairs.

    14. Re:Why would they? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      Zenni and numerous others. I am wearing glasses that cost $6.95 total. I have terrible vision but got these as a prank - regular lenses, no coatings, cheapest frames on the site. I love them and they work great. I bought a few more to have some spares, and they are all in good condition 3 years later after heavy abuse.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  4. The best eyewear supplier I've found. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America's Best Contacts & Eyeglasses "2 Pairs Of Eyeglasses For $69.95".

  5. most of the us health care system is an ripoff. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    most of the us health care system is an ripoff.

    With
    hidden fees
    networks that are hard to stay 100% in.
    any out of network person can drive by and bill you 100K with no control over stopping them.
    each person can bill on there own.
    if an place miss bills then you can be on the hook for the full rate
    there are like 3-4 different rates for the same thing.
    the mark up makes the apple app store look good

    1. Re:most of the us health care system is an ripoff. by hierofalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not quite. We just need one insurer that pays for everything. They can have two or three policies with defined levels of care with limits on the ability to move between plans. Everyone picks one. Everyone pays the premium to cover the costs for that plan (parents pay for kids to age 18). Roll up all the various insurance and government medical programs into this one insurer. Pick an unannounced date to price the stock on all private companies at one time and buy them out (or the fraction of their business that is medical out) and transfer the backing assets to the single insurer. Transfer the assets on account at the government (state and federal) and unions and corporations and everything else health related into that one insurer. Then each year adjust the premiums based on the costs seen and projected for the next year to keep the program 100% solvent. Add limits on tort actions. Make that insurer the only payer so every medical doctor or facility will know exactly what will be paid out for anyone based on which of the two or three policy levels they have selected. No in or out of network - every facility and doctor is by definition in network. Make the pharmacies use the same insurer for payment. Adjust reimbursed costs based on cost of living by location and adjust reimbursements paid from then on based on cost of living changes at each location. There would be some quirks to be worked out, but just go to single payer that covers everybody from birth to death and adjust premiums as needed and call it good. Let capitalism then work out how many MRI machines every local doctor really needs access to and the like. People are covered wherever they are in the country. Temporary visitors to the country could be charged a fee for accident type injuries during their stay here. Full time non-citizens living here could pick a plan just like anybody else. Big disruption in "the way we do things". Yes. But what we have now isn't working and isn't sustainable. Everyone actually "needs" good coverage regardless of age. When you are young, orthodontics are pricey. Glasses are pricey. Broken bones are always pricey. Pregnancy is pricey. Cover everybody. Adjust the tiers till things are workable - no reason to pay for pregnancy premiums when you aren't female or are but aren't in the childbearing years for example. Adjust a long term care rider based on your age. But other than a few things like that, keep the differences between the policies limited (think adding a pregnancy rider for example to a basic level of care policy). Simpler for everybody. You could even adjust the payouts based on the doctors and facilities overall success rate on the procedure to give experience a boost. Lots of possibilities, but it all starts with getting rid of the patchwork of insurance companies, massively overlapping facilities and equipment, and all of the in and out of network garbage there is.

  6. Invisible hand of the market hard at work... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    There's a joke about that in there somewhere... just can't put my finger on it right now.

    Might be I finally need glasses...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Invisible hand of the market hard at work... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a joke about that in there somewhere... just can't put my finger on it right now.

      Might be I finally need glasses...

      Here you go!

      A place to get cheap glasses

      coupons to make them even cheaper

      Oops, looks like the invisible hand is working after all!

  7. Here's the competition... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Cohen's Optical exists in NY and surrounding area -- they do exam + glasses for $100 and have a decent range of frames for that price.

    It's even cheaper to order directly from China, and I doubt that US Customs really gives a fuck about ordering Rx glasses without a prescription when they have bigger fish to fry...

    https://hackernoon.com/how-to-...

  8. 7$ vs 300$ sunglasses by MindPrison · · Score: 2

    There was a consumer test program done by our national television station, they tested various sunglasses and what got you the most for your money.
    Interestingly enough, some of the fashion brands where actually protecting you less against the dangerous UV rays from the sun, than the 7$ dollar ones they got at our version of the dollar stores. So in fact, in this case - you where better off buying the off-brand rather than the mainstream fashion brands.

    Kind of reminds of a certain PC vs Another brand war that still today is on-going, you purchase a lifestyle, the product, well ...comes second.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  9. Re:Cheap by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative
  10. The invisible hand of capitalism by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the invisible hand of unregulated capitalism.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:The invisible hand of capitalism by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except the invisible hand already created Zenni, and I got my glasses from them for like $60.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  11. Buy online, not in store by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With places like Zenni Optical (http://zennioptical.com) available, where a complete set of glasses with all kinds of coatings and options and extras comes out to under $50 US, why are people still buying at their optometrist's office?

    There's several different places like Zenni online. Even with shipping and currency conversion, it's a lot less expensive to buy online than any eye wear places here in Canada.

    And the quality is quite good, comparable to $200+ US frames and lenses. Even if the quality isn't as good as the uber-expensive ones, you can always just buy 2 or 3 pairs each year and still come out ahead. :D

  12. zennioptical.com by lcall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The prices in the summary are why some of our family have started using https://www.zennioptical.com/ (no connection except as customer). One family member got very basic lenses & frames for $9 if memory serves (could be off but it wasn't even $40 with shipping), Mine were more but had more features. It was worth getting the account and submitting photos to "try on" glasses, but one order I placed would have been better if I had paid attention to the posted length of the temple and actual frame & lens dimensions: next one I did better and it is good now.

    (My one complaint is that their customer service gave info that was overconfident -- they didn't really know. And their site EULA had terms I didn't like, and nobody was willing to discuss it, either at the posted contact info or the customer service. But the site FAQs etc were helpful for other things, and I was able to adjust frames myself, etc.)

    --
    A Free, fast personal organizer for touch typists: onemodel
  13. Re:Zenni by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not affiliated, but I can get my lenses and frames from Zenni for about $30 a piece and I have terrible eyesight.

    Same with me. I buy my glasses from zennioptical.com for $19.95.

    If you are paying $99.95 at LensCrafters, it is not because of some vast capitalist conspiracy. It is because you are an idiot.

  14. Price gouging by an eyewear monopolist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I did not see that coming.

  15. Re: most of the us health care system is an ripoff by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    They also lie they cannot update the lenses in your current $400 frames even though the machines can run the inside of the frame for sizing.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  16. Lasik has a lot of side effects by Hrrrg · · Score: 3, Informative

    People are posting that Lasik only rarely had adverse effects. Actually the rate of complications is very high. Below are a couple of excerpts from a recent NYTimes article:

    "A recent clinical trial by the F.D.A. suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez are not uncommon.
    Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found. Nearly one-third developed dry eyes, a complication that can cause serious discomfort, for the first time."

    and

    "Yet few studies have followed patients for more than a few months or a year, and many are authored by surgeons with financial ties to manufacturers that make the lasers.
    One such study, written by the global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider, reported high satisfaction rates among patients five years after Lasik.
    But the study also found that even after all those years, nearly half had dry eyes at least some of the time. Twenty percent had painful or sore eyes, 40 percent were sensitive to light, and one-third had difficulty driving at night or doing work that required seeing well up close."

    I was thinking about Lasik until I read this. No thanks.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

  17. Re:Zenni by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    If you are paying $99.95 at LensCrafters, it is not because of some vast capitalist conspiracy. It is because you are an idiot.

    You'd have to be, since they don't sell them that cheap and it implies you shopped at the swap meet.

  18. Re:Another happy zennioptical.com customer by jafiwam · · Score: 2

    Take a ruler and look in a mirror. Or get your SO to measure it.

    Amazon sells little plastic tools that are basically a specialized ruler for this measurement for around $12.

  19. Lenscrafter no longer does on-site glasses by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 2

    There's no longer a lab in your local Lenscrafters - so "about an hour" is now "within 2 weeks". Actual turn-around is about 3 business days.

    So Zenni's delay doesn't seem so bad anymore.