Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

businessoffashion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#61

Post by walterbell »

swyx wrote: post #56
09bjb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is getting tons of downvotes. Warby Parker's profitability per retail square foot is one of the highest in all of retail mostly because there's such a distance between what their frames cost to make and what they sell them for. Limited choice (Trader Joe's style) and a good sense for the products their target market wants seem to be their secret sauces to pulling off crazy margins on said products.

>profitability per retail square foot is one of the highest are these numbers public? source?

https://www.fastcompany.com/3041334/warby-parker-sees-the-fu...

"...the company is still averaging about $3,000 per square foot of retail space, a figure that’s in the same breath as Tiffany’s estimated $3,043 ... stores are not profit centers as much as marketing collateral, giant advertisements for Warby Parker’s website. “They’re synergistic,” he says, noting that 85% of Warby retail buyers have already browsed online."

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#62

Post by derefr »

sowbug wrote: post #39
lighthazard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of good designs for non-Luxottica brand frames is appalling. I use a third party eye glass company to order frames + lenses for < $100 and get good quality stuff (but not the best styles). Why are they not able to compete on style and fashion?

Same question for men's ties (though it's been a while since I've been in the market for one). Expensive ties have attractive patterns, and cheap ones have horrifying ones. But the pattern is effectively software. Is a nice tie pattern truly that hard to create?

My hypothesis was always that all the simple, nice tie patterns are "taken" as symbols for various old boys' clubs (Universities et al), leaving only ugly designs "meaningless" enough for general use.

The same thing is true, IIRC, of Scottish tartans. All the nice plaid represents some clan or another.

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#63

Post by rtpg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
rgbrenner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luxottica offered to buy Oakley, and Oakley refused.. said it was never going to happen. So Luxottica stopped distributing Oakley's products in Sunglass Hut, etc.. which deprived Oakley of the majority of it's revenue, causing their stock to crash. Oakley then accepted a buyout offer from Luxottica. So to answer your question, why are there not better Luxottica competitors.. because when someone produces a good produ…

> If Luxottica controls the distribution channel One could have argued similarly for Gillette. Then Dollar Shave Club went direct to consumers. Likewise, I referenced an independent distributor who stocked non-Luxottica frames. Margins in this business are wide enough that economies of scale, alone, are an insufficient explanation.

Gillette doesn't own Walgreens. That's the big difference here.

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#64

Post by rtpg »

sowbug wrote: post #39
lighthazard wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of good designs for non-Luxottica brand frames is appalling. I use a third party eye glass company to order frames + lenses for < $100 and get good quality stuff (but not the best styles). Why are they not able to compete on style and fashion?

Same question for men's ties (though it's been a while since I've been in the market for one). Expensive ties have attractive patterns, and cheap ones have horrifying ones. But the pattern is effectively software. Is a nice tie pattern truly that hard to create?

My theory is that ugly ties are there to sell the nice (simple) ties.

I've had similar experiences with dress shirts as well. Plain nice shirts end up costing more than elaborate designs because that's the one people actually want

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#65

Post by rtpg »

hkmurakami wrote: post #20

If you're ever in Japan or Taiwan, have some glasses made there. JINS in Japan is ~$120 including lenses, lenses ready in 3 hours. Pick up same day. I heard there's a company in Taiwan with a similar business model as well. They're set up to handle tourists, and will handle duty free as well.

To add to this, I have a strong prescription requiring kinda special lenses to not be crazy thick, and even with that I got a really expensive frame with the special treatment for ~$150.

In France, the "not 2-inch thick" lenses alone end up costing that, with me ending up paying over $300 + the habitual 2 month waiting period just to go to the optometrist...

So even if you have some special needs, they'll often be able to accommodate (though sometimes you need to wait a day so it won't be same day)

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#66

Post by rtpg »

09bjb wrote: post #19
whathaschanged wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, their business model is based on pretending like they are saving you money when they are just ripping off the customer for marginally less with fancy branding like dollar shave club. Look at Zenni Optical and tell me I'm wrong.

Not sure why this is getting tons of downvotes. Warby Parker's profitability per retail square foot is one of the highest in all of retail mostly because there's such a distance between what their frames cost to make and what they sell them for. Limited choice (Trader Joe's style) and a good sense for the products their target market wants seem to be their secret sauces to pulling off crazy margins on said products.

Don't they make most of their money online?

If Google opened up a retail shop I'm sure their profit per square foot will be quite high....

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#67

Post by sooheon »

rtpg wrote: post #63
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Luxottica controls the distribution channel One could have argued similarly for Gillette. Then Dollar Shave Club went direct to consumers. Likewise, I referenced an independent distributor who stocked non-Luxottica frames. Margins in this business are wide enough that economies of scale, alone, are an insufficient explanation.

Gillette doesn't own Walgreens. That's the big difference here.

Does luxottica own Walgreens?

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#68

Post by ec109685 »

richard___ wrote: post #24

I'm interested in making frames for a niche market. And then we can grow to become mainstream. If you're a skilled frames designer, send me a PM, I can finance the project and "handle the business side" (serious).

How do you pm someone here?

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#69

Post by dba7dba »

petilon wrote: post #8

The reason glasses cost so much is because one company owns: (1) nearly all brand name frames including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Prada eyewear, Armani eyewear and so on, (2) nearly all retail stores such as LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical and (3) EyeMed, one of the largest vision insurance companies. Luxottica retail brands: http://www.luxottica.com/en/retail-brands Luxottica eyewear brands: htt…

Another monopoly that needs to be broken up...

Can you imagine Comcast owning most of the media production companies, all of college/professional sports broadcast rights, internet access for home/business, AND forcing you to rent all personal computers you can use at home?

This is exactly what's happening with the eyewear industry.

Re: A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

#70

Post by bagels »

ec109685 wrote: post #68
richard___ wrote: post #24

I'm interested in making frames for a niche market. And then we can grow to become mainstream. If you're a skilled frames designer, send me a PM, I can finance the project and "handle the business side" (serious).

How do you pm someone here?

You can't... Typically people put their email address in their profile (if they want to be contacted), though obviously not everyone does it.
Post reply on HN