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

The Problem With "Warby Parker for X"

jamiequint.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: The Problem With "Warby Parker for X"

#11

Post by jamiequint »

antr wrote: post #10

There is a bigger trend that the article omits: the internet has become mainstream enough for "anyone" to open an online store, and best thing is, this is great for consumers. Not every internet business needs to have an "innovative business model", but these businesses can still be highly profitable just by selling a product/service that people want. Take German bicycle manufacturer Canyon (www.canyon.com). They are…

Author here, the article is not meant to come out against starting a business. The point is that the for physical products (at least apparel) there is not much leverage to be gained from being online rather than offline so your differentiator has to be something other than "its X but online!"

Re: The Problem With "Warby Parker for X"

#12

Post by abossy »

thetrumanshow wrote: post #7
jgrahamc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need so many socks that a sock delivery service is necessary? I imagine I buy socks about once a year (max).

{A wild potential partner appears} :) My good sir, you know that retailers strive to maximize dollar-per-square-foot. As such, the inventory changes to squeeze more money from folks like me who come back a year later and can't figure out why the hell the Puritan socks they had last year are no longer on the shelf. I just want someone to offer me a product that I like and deliver that same great product to me for 20 y…

If you're returning for the same socks year after year, why not simply buy 20 years worth of socks?

Re: The Problem With "Warby Parker for X"

#13

Post by thetrumanshow »

abossy wrote: post #12
thetrumanshow wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

{A wild potential partner appears} :) My good sir, you know that retailers strive to maximize dollar-per-square-foot. As such, the inventory changes to squeeze more money from folks like me who come back a year later and can't figure out why the hell the Puritan socks they had last year are no longer on the shelf. I just want someone to offer me a product that I like and deliver that same great product to me for 20 y…

If you're returning for the same socks year after year, why not simply buy 20 years worth of socks?

Cash poor, cash-flow rich.

Edit: Strictly speaking, I have a liquidity preference. I tend to think that others do too.

Re: The Problem With "Warby Parker for X"

#14

Post by Frisette »

There were a number of online eyewear stores that sold online only direct-to-consumer glasses before Warby Parker in the “upscale” price range of $100 GlassesUSA.com (2007), ~ 45% of SKUs are private label Glassesshop.com (2004), ~ 90% SKUs are private label

and many more online stores that sold even cheaper private label RX eyewear: zennioptical.com (2007), 100% SKUs PL, price range $6-45 Eyebuydirect.com (2005), 90% SKUs PL, price range $6-45 39dollarglasses.com (2000), 100% SKUs PL, price $39-109

So, at least part of your argument is unjustified. The guys at Warby Parker created a very unique product perceived at the edge of cool/”retro-intellectual” / boutique-quality / affordable / with a noble mission. That was unique.

Re: The Problem With "Warby Parker for X"

#15

Post by jmover »

Frisette wrote: post #14

There were a number of online eyewear stores that sold online only direct-to-consumer glasses before Warby Parker in the “upscale” price range of $100 GlassesUSA.com (2007), ~ 45% of SKUs are private label Glassesshop.com (2004), ~ 90% SKUs are private label and many more online stores that sold even cheaper private label RX eyewear: zennioptical.com (2007), 100% SKUs PL, price range $6-45 Eyebuydirect.com (2005), 90…

For ecommerce, you can't just create a product that solves a problem (Low cost glasses), you also have to create a successful brand. Stand for something more than just a product (or what you're selling). That's why Warby Parker is so successful, because they carefully cultivated a brand while solving a huge problem in a market. That brand affinity is a piece of what they are selling you and what consumers are latching on to (in addition to the fact that they are saving you hundreds of dollars on your eye glass purchases).

Product alone isn't sustainable for the future of ecommerce. This is why I don't think niche ecommerce businesses like Dollar Shave Club / Harry's (shaving) and HelloFlo (Tampons) are sustainable and scalable in the long run. Is it really that big of a problem they are solving and can you really build a brand around it?

Post reply on HN