Bad D&A!

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

You've just reinforced my argument. Three months at £25 minimum gross profit virtually covers the fitting costs!

quote]

Well the fact that you have somehow arrived at the conclusion that I have reinforced your argument only serves to prove to me that the rest of your quotes are equally inaccurate.


I completely concur with Olly300's points regarding D & A and pricing. He is absolutely correct, D & A are rubbish for contacts.

nedmundo

My quotes are factually based - your's are based on a hunch without any proper understanding. I can qualify my comments, because I'm in the industry. If you have better information and sources - lets have them! Otherwise, just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't stop it from being true.

Companies operate to make a profit - that's a fact of life. Practice overheads are much higher than online retailers for reasons already explained. Therefore, to make any profit, contact lenses are by definition going to be more expensive from a practice than online - it doesn't automatically make them a rip off!

At the end of the day, all I'm trying to do is explain that the financial reality is sometimes different to how the consumer perceives and bring some balance to this thread.

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

My quotes are factually based - your's are based on a hunch without any proper understanding. I can qualify my comments, because I'm in the industry. If you have better information and sources - lets have them! Otherwise, just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't stop it from being true.

Companies operate to make a profit - that's a fact of life. Practice overheads are much higher than online retailers for reasons already explained. Therefore, to make any profit, contact lenses are by definition going to be more expensive from a practice than online - it doesn't automatically make them a rip off!

At the end of the day, all I'm trying to do is explain that the financial reality is sometimes different to how the consumer perceives and bring some balance to this thread.

No, you are being patronising. I am not merely basing my comments on a hunch - a university friend is an optician who specialises in contact lens fitting - interestingly, he concurs with my view on this topic.

As an aside, what about the "Financial reality" of the fact that we can be charged up to 1000% more for spectacles than it costs to produce them. I am confident that you will produce "figures" to justify this also. However, permit me to remain the eternal cynic when I insist on believing that the British public is being well and truly ripped off here (as usual!)

nedmundo

So what are his overheads per test/contact lens consultation then? - if he's such a good friend, then no doubt he'll divulge those to you. Or is he operating at a loss?

Sorry if you thought I was being patronising, but the fact is that overheads need to be covered.

I note that you also have made no comment as to our right to ensure contact lenses are suitable over a period of time before issuing a specification. Surely you would want to do the same?

I think you've been reading a bit too much of a certain online retailers website or a certain negative tabloid. Such mark-ups are very wide of the mark.

wishiwasarichgirl

I have to say as an optician, i agree with nedmundo, the public do not seem to realise how much it costs to run an opticians' practice. The fee for sight tests (private or NHS) comes nowhere near the true cost of providing that service, hence the fact that most places have to charge so much for spectacles, otherwise they would go out of business. Spectacle sales subsidise the eye examination fee.

this is also true of contact lenses, where profit margins are already low.
However, this is not the reason you have to wait 3 months for a contact lens specification, that is just to make sure the lenses are suitable for you, as the prescribing optician is liable if they are not. (And not all places will charge you £90 for 3 months supply - shop around :rolleyes:)

The big issue at the moment is, if everyone starts to buy online, opticians will have to start charging the true fee for the eye examination (£30-£50ish) and if the government refuses to increase the NHS fee then many opticians may stop offering NHS tests (like the dentists did).

I am all for this arrangement, as many people seem to think that optometrists are just salesmen on comission, rather than professionals who have trained for a minimum of 4 years.

gregg1

wishiwasarichgirl wrote: »

)

The big issue at the moment is, if everyone starts to buy online, opticians will have to start charging the true fee for the eye examination (£30-£50ish) and if the government refuses to increase the NHS fee then many opticians may stop offering NHS tests (like the dentists did).

I would be more than happy to pay £30-£50 for the eye examination - I wish they would do this as it would save me money in the long run.

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

I note that you also have made no comment as to our right to ensure contact lenses are suitable over a period of time before issuing a specification. Surely you would want to do the same?

Iquote]


I am sure the industry would prefer the public to believe that these "mark-up" reports are "very wide off the mark" but to plagarise a famous quote "well they would say that, would'nt they"!

I would not imagine for one moment that my friend operated at a loss - he has built up a successful business over the years. But thank you for your concern.

Incidentally, on the subject of suitability of contact lenses. I have always known within days of putting in new contact lenses whether they were suitable or not (and actually never had a problem) - it has certainly never taken 3 months to ascertain this!

nedmundo

I have spent too much time picking up the pieces from outside patients, wearing unsuitable lenses, incorrectly to become complacent enough to decide whether lenses are suitable or not after just a few days.

You might think you can tell if lenses are fine after just a few days but it's only after a few months you can tell if the cornea is reacting adversely to oxygen starvation or abrasion, which effectively, as plastic (or silicone) foreign bodies, what contact lenses do. Most of the time, the changes are microscopic and need to be dealt with promptly, before progressing to the point where lens wear is no longer possible. Of course, you would know that already as you seem to know everything else on the subject well enough to brand withholding a specification for 3 months as profiteering.

I'm sure your friend doesn't operate at loss either, but that doesn't answer the question as to what his overheads are and how he covers them. Ask him and come back to us.

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

I have spent too much time picking up the pieces from outside patients, wearing unsuitable lenses, incorrectly to become complacent enough to decide whether lenses are suitable or not after just a few days.

You might think you can tell if lenses are fine after just a few days but it's only after a few months you can tell if the cornea is reacting adversely to oxygen starvation or abrasion, which effectively, as plastic (or silicone) foreign bodies, what contact lenses do. Most of the time, the changes are microscopic and need to be dealt with promptly, before progressing to the point where lens wear is no longer possible. Of course, you would know that already as you seem to know everything else on the subject well enough to brand withholding a specification for 3 months as profiteering.

I'm sure your friend doesn't operate at loss either, but that doesn't answer the question as to what his overheads are and how he covers them. Ask him and come back to us.

I have certainly not laid claim to the fact that "I know everything else on the subject". However, I do speak from the experience of having worn lenses for over 20 years which does, I feel, give me the right voice my opinion which is that we are being ripped off with these contracts and charges.

Incidentally, I would certainly not be so rude as to ask my friend questions re his overheads and profits merely to "report back to you" - it is not my business and certainly no-one else's! I have already informed you of his opinion on this matter - you will have to be content with that.

Enough now.

nedmundo

Fair enough - lets draw a line under the subject and agree to disagree.

I wasn't expecting you to post confidential stuff on the web. The idea was that you might then see that the overheads are a lot higher than one might think. My suspicion was that he probably charges a correct fee for services - which is of course the correct way of doing things.

Kind regards,

Nedmundo.