|
Just ask any woman if she would rather have bigger feet,
and you'll get my point. When we think of things that we
assume are obvious, we may do it in a way that reinforces
our false assumption. Several of the false assumptions that
permeate the optical industry are based on the same
"bigger is better" thinking that has men still
focused on what they thought "size" was
referencing, while the women stuff their feet into
uncomfortable shoes.
There is vulnerability created simply by being very big,
in the very mentality that seeks to use an increase in
volume alone to define success. By focusing so intently on
volume, attention has been diverted from what I believe is
the key to long-term viability as well as the historical
advantage held in the relationship between the local optical
shop and the consumer: Quality.
ANSI standards are employed by most retailers in an
inequitable and misleading way. Some big retailers argue
that the consumer is getting the same quality because they
use the same ANSI standards that everyone else uses. So they
use ANSI as marketing tool. But ANSI standards are used by
many independent labs to establish minimum standards in
their products, and there is a big difference. I know of
companies using only a select number of the standards.
Usually they are the ones that are the most obvious to the
wearer (power, axis and the like) which are after all the
easiest to maintain and the least tolerated if dispensed out
of range.
You and I know that there can be a significant difference
in quality between the typical big discount retailer and the
independent optical shops and doctor's offices. By not
pointing out the quality difference, independents are
tacitly endorsing the big box retailer as an equal in
quality; clearly not even the truth, let alone a smart move.
The internet is littered with commentary from consumers who
have consistently had their quality expectations unmet and
employees who candidly talk about how the "numbers
drive the quality." The most important quality
difference, however, is not found in a side-by-side
comparison of adherence to ANSI standards - no matter how
clear that difference is. It is found in the range of
products not available at the large retailer because the
maintenance of ANSI standards taxes their system.
A large retailer processing thousands of jobs a day does
not have the flexibility to introduce the number of
variations to their process required to be competitive with
higher-skilled/lower-volume manufacturers. Process engineers
have replaced the apprenticeship of opticians with an easily
duplicatable process with a finite number of steps. The
problem with that approach is that anything that is not the
same (read that as common and easy) is not well-assimilated
into that process. We have just identified one self-imposed
limitation in a system created expressly for the ease of
fabrication of the average.
By eliminating from the process work that requires more
stringent adherence to tolerances, big retailers create an
artificial ceiling on the quality possible within the
system. The higher levels of quality that would be achieved
by embracing more sophisticated designs benefits the body of
work produced by the lab. I know a local lab that rejects
lenses that are well within ANSI standards because they were
not as good as they could have been. Edge thickness in a
plus lens is a good example of what I view as a quality
continuum. If ten pair of drill-mounted glasses made by a
large discount retailer and ten pair made by your local lab
were set on a table together, few people reading this
article would have any trouble figuring out who made which
just by looking at the edge thickness. Even though all of
the work would meet ANSI standards, there would be a clear
difference in quality. Other common examples would include
groove depth, bevel placement and center thickness.
Another inescapable conflict creating further
disadvantage for the big retailer results from its ownership
of the processing facility. The attempt is to reduce the
cost of goods produced, but it is in dangerous and
unavoidable conflict with the loss of the natural checks and
balances created by competition. An internal conflict
necessarily results when the labs concerns with productivity
and volume have the market's natural checks and balances to
quality removed by means of this exclusivity. This handicaps
the lab's ability to improve. After all the store level
employee must do business with the company lab, relieving
the lab of some of its natural incentive to quality. The
store accepts an unfair penalty for lab errors which weakens
a critical layer of protection for the consumer.
The large discount retailer seems hallmarked with a few
significant and self-imposed handicaps. Limits on achievable
quality are necessitated and proportionate to a focus biased
on volume. These limits result in an inability to offer some
of the more expensive eyewear because of the higher quality
standards required for the more sophisticated designs.
Internal conflicts are created by the removal of natural
market forces on manufacturing quality and weaken one of the
natural layers of protection for the consumer. In turn this
would suggest at least an increased likelihood of consumer
dissatisfaction. I was amazed at how much consumer feedback
I found on the internet.
There is a strong desire to copy the advantages of the
"other side," but it is a much more pursued
objective of the large retailer who would love to exploit
the advantages of the local lab and optical shop. The large
retailer has always longed to have the highly-skilled work
force, the security and trust of a business transaction
executed on the basis of strong personal relationships, the
ability to offer wider selections of frame design and lens
material combinations, and more direct accountability of
market forces on quality, all to get the loyal independent
optical shop customer who shops based on quality not price.
The quality advantage still resides with the local
independent optical shop. Capitalize on it. I would temper
any optimism of the current big retail model with the
knowledge that once they have saturated the market, they
will shift gears and focus on quality. If the difference in
the consumer's mind is not clear by then, we could all well
be meeting at the time clock. |
