The era of virtual dispensing?

The only surprise that a new venture is 'dispensing' spectacles over the internet at a retail price of just £15 is that the net is not awash with such sites already. This is the view of one practitioner on reading optician's story last week (News, August 20, 'Online entrepreneur offers specs for £15') about the launch of cut-price spectacles provider Glassesdirect.co.uk. With editorial coverage in Britain's best-selling broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, and prices for the frame, lenses, case, delivery and guarantee starting at £15 for the basic range, £25 for rimless and £35 for memory metals, high street practitioners Ð especially those targeting the budget end of the market Ð have every reason to be concerned. Last week's profile in The Daily Telegraph (August 18), followed by a short article the next day in The Sun, fired a warning shot to the profession. Glasses Direct managing director James Murray Wells explained how when he was researching the cost of spectacles he was met by a 'wall of silence' from optical manufacturers. He described how 'high street shops' maintain retail prices 10 to 20 times cost price and estimated that the average pair of spectacles is made for less than £7. 'I charge just over double. Even with advertising and overheads, I still make a profit,' he told the newspaper. Glasses Direct's overheads of course will not compare to those of high-street opticians. Not just because it operates from Murray Wells' parents' formerly-disused stable block as opposed to 'prime retail sites with chic fittings' as the article describes optical practices, but because of the profession's long-treasured business model whereby payment for much of the optometrist's services is bundled into the cost of the patient's spectacles. While Murray Wells appears to be the cheapest on the web he is not the first; Worcester-based BargainSpecs.com has been operating for over a year offering prices from £29.90 for complete spectacles. An extra £20 is charged for bifocals, but it does not offer progressive lenses, whereas Glasses Direct charges just £5 extra for bifocals and £10 for progressives. So how is it possible to dispense a pair of spectacles over the internet or telephone? This is a question that the GOC will be pondering in its evaluation of whether Glasses Direct's operation is within the law. According to the first clause of Section 27 of the Opticians Act, the sale of the optical appliance must be 'effected by or under the supervision of' a registered medical practitioner or registered optician. And accordingly, Glasses Direct says it employs the services of a GOC-registered dispensing optician 'who supervises the dispensing of all our glasses'. Other web ventures such as specky4eyes.co.uk have avoided this by specialising in 'excluded sales' only, ie reading glasses commonly available in supermarkets and chemists. BargainSpecs and Glasses Direct, however, only exclude children, the blind and partially sighted from their target market Ð showing their intricate understanding of the regulatory maze in which they operate. Unless informed otherwise, Glasses Direct assumes an average pupillary distance of 63mm, regardless of the patient's gender. Clearly if the optical centres don't quite line up with the patient's pupils it doesn't matter too much. With simple low-powered single-vision prescriptions, an inaccurate PD will probably be tolerated. For higher-dioptre patients and with the various measurements required for bifocals and varifocals, however, Glasses Direct might struggle to keep some of its customers happy. Nevertheless, if they can return their specs and get their money back, surely nothing is lost. The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians' professional service newsletter published this week (August 25) Ð after optician's comment (page 15) criticising the lack of response from the profession went to press Ð censured Glasses Direct's suggestion that should a patient require a minor adjustment to their frames, 'most optical stores will do it for free'. FODO professional adviser Professor Steve Taylor said he was unaware of any obligation to take measurements (other than the back vertex distance if required), nor of any requirement to adjust a patient's frame. If it helps the likes of Glasses Direct, practices will have to reconsider their genial policy to adjust a passer-by's specs for free in the hope of converting them into a patient in future. But their change of approach may have to go much further than that. Online supply of contact lenses has been one of the catalysts that has led to some practitioners modifying their business model to charge for their contact lens services rather than making their money from the margins on their products. If the demand for Glasses Direct's cut-price spectacles is maintained and similar ventures spring up, it may have similar implications for spectacles and ultimately on the price of an eye examination. If the GOC finds no illegality in the mode of supply, Glasses Direct's new found fame and budget prices will ensure this steady stream of bargain-hunting customers continues to flow. Murray Wells' challenge will be to manage demand to ensure this stream does not become a discontented torrent. Whether Glasses Direct will be successful in its attempt, as Murray Wells predicts, to 'revolutionise the way Britons buy their glasses' remains to be seen, but the ramifications for the profession could be enormous. rob.mossrbi.co.uk