I couldn't make it past the 2nd graf of this story and I knew I was in for something indecipherable when the caption described how Warby Parker "has distilled knowledge-class branding to its essence."
18
Odd to read these comments complaining about the price of eyeglasses. I wear glasses 16 hours a day everyday, a pair lasts for several years and they give the gift of sight! The fashion section highlights far more frivolous purchases (in my mind), such as thousand dollar stiletto heels or the "peacock dinner jacket" featured today. My smallish face is a hard one to fit and WP doesn't came close to having a pair that flatters or feels comfortable. I can't speak to the quality of their lenses, but it seems that products with precision ground glass (such as a camera lens) come with a high price tag. This is one of the few purchases I'm not looking to cut corners on.
16
What a waste of time story. I bought a pair of glasses at one of those "venerable" old chains for almost $500 nothing fancy mind you, run of the mill eyeglasses. I was ordering my second pair when I stopped in to the WArby store in soho. The same prescription and equally as good frames, price $140. Rather than ask how they can do it you talk about extraneous things for many of us.. I had the prescription checked by another optometrist and it was perfect. On top of that my experience at the store was one of those that make you want to return and spend more money. No wonder they are successful.
12
Glasses have been so ridiculously overpriced for so long, hundreds of dollars fro frames that cost 5 cents to make, that tit is hard to feel bad for any of the retail outlets that have been ripping us off for generations.
13
After squinting for years after Lasik that wasn't quite perfect (but good enough for 16 years), I bought my Oakleys for $100 from Costco. I have severe astigmatism in one eye, and have paid $400 for eyeglasses in the past. My $100 pair is comfortable, and very well-made (and my husband says they are smokin' hot).
There is NO REASON a good pair of glasses should cost more than $100.
There is NO REASON a good pair of glasses should cost more than $100.
13
It is clear that anyone who goes to Warby Parker is a snob because they like to read books. There can be no other reason that WP would have the gall to decorate a glasses shop like a library. And the poor third generation monopolists at Cohen's et al. are deserving of our pity business (like yellow cabs are) despite their 100 years of bad service.
13
Optical 88 on Hester and Mott Streets in Chinatown! Best place ever!!! Ask for Sandy or really anyone there.
4
I've received better customer service at Costco than Warby Parker.
6
Anybody who equates Warby and their Chinese knockoff junk to Moscot or any other quality handmade product is either naive, delusional or a paid Warby shill. Maybe all 3. Cheap glasses aren't a new invention. You still get what you pay for.
5
The price of glasses has gotten ridiculous over the last decade, with bifocals easily in the $700-$800 range.
Thank goodness Warby Parker has entered the market to challenge such greed!
Thank goodness Warby Parker has entered the market to challenge such greed!
7
Who are Mr. and Mrs. Luxottica? How did they acquire the monopoly? Or are all the Italian brand owners all cousins? That would be an interesting article! How did such a necessity as eyeglasses reach such high prices? Yes, the lenses are very very expensive. How did that happen? Why doesn't insurance cover eyeglasses? Why isn't there a National Health Service version of basic eye glasses, as there was in Great Britain? There is more to the story of eyeglasses than how the reporter feels in a WP store!
15
I am far older than the demographic she sees as the WP target customer, and love Warby Parker--and I was by no means the oldest customer in the shop. I have bought several progressive pairs from them. Nothing has ever broken, felt cheap, or substandard. I get compliments daily on the frames. I have always found the service wonderful. Once a pair didn't suit me, and when I wore them back into the shop they took one look, said "Oh no," and found me a better frame on the spot. At no charge. With constant email updates. The Soho shop is always packed, which says a lot about their appeal. At these prices you can own more pairs, and change your look. Gone are the days when you bought one pair and wore them exclusively, forever.
7
As a practicing optometrist for the last 19 years, I can say that you get what you pay for. Consumer Reports rated independent optical as the best in service and quality. I have seen poor results for Cohens,Lenscrafters,Pearl,and Costco,BJs,Walmart,etc. When you visit a quality independent optical, the frame and lens choices will always be better. You can present your insurance and receive a complete eye exam by a licensed optometrist. You then select among quality frames to fit your face properly. Finally, you select the lenses that fit your prescription. I have digital progressive bifocals,thin hi-Index lenses,Crizal glare free coating,and transition lenses which get dark in the sun. A pair like that will cost around $500- $800 depending on the frame choice. It something that is used every day so it makes sense to spend a little more
7
I've been going to stand-alone opticians because there were no other options. Lenses for high index progressives with astigmatism run $800-1000, and all the frames sub $300 were fashion monstrosities. This is absurd. I work with optics. It's not rocket science. You punch the prescription numbers into a milling machine, and finished lenses pop out in just minutes. There is no kindly older immigrant gentleman hand carving them from a block of glass like some modern Michelangelo.
As a result of this pricing model, I stuck with traditional lenses for nearly a decade after I was advised I would benefit from progressives.
When a friend mentioned Warby Parker, it was a godsend. The entire package was less than $300. The price was straightforward, requiring none of the higher mathematics required with insurance purchases. The selection of frames was decent and the service was excellent, with a low pressure sales approach. The glasses are well fitted and well made. If Warby Parker can make a profit at this price point, the other vendors can lump it.
One more thing. Based on my travels in Europe, we should be able to get much nicer frames for much less money. Let's have other European vendors sell in the States, and bring down prices into the $100s, so that no one goes without a proper set of glasses.
Or, God forbid, let's have a US company make them here. Obviously, there's a market for it.
As a result of this pricing model, I stuck with traditional lenses for nearly a decade after I was advised I would benefit from progressives.
When a friend mentioned Warby Parker, it was a godsend. The entire package was less than $300. The price was straightforward, requiring none of the higher mathematics required with insurance purchases. The selection of frames was decent and the service was excellent, with a low pressure sales approach. The glasses are well fitted and well made. If Warby Parker can make a profit at this price point, the other vendors can lump it.
One more thing. Based on my travels in Europe, we should be able to get much nicer frames for much less money. Let's have other European vendors sell in the States, and bring down prices into the $100s, so that no one goes without a proper set of glasses.
Or, God forbid, let's have a US company make them here. Obviously, there's a market for it.
16
I'm 69. Live int the southeast. Many years ago I was glad to have another entry into eye glass frames that were a fair price. Warby Parker began to drive a bus across the United States and I was more than pleased to see larger, classic, plastic frames that weren't bite sized rectangles. As of a few years ago I could't buy from W.P because they didn't sell progressives. I'm purchasing from Zennioptical.com - a fraction of the cost of stand alone stores.
3
I started buying my glasses at Cohen's i 1963 and bought a pair at their Borrklyn branch recently from an Azerbaijani-Jewish-Turkish-American. I asked at the place on Bowery why their prices were lower than those at their Upper East Side branch. "Because they are uptown, that's why!"
3
I don't even really understand the thesis of this piece. And how can you have an article on this subject completely bereft of any sort of economic analysis? I've been wearing glasses for more than 20 years and have always bought cheap frames, because every place I shopped always told me I had ridiculously expensive lenses. So I've paid out the nose - 300 - 400 dollars - for all that time. How do you write this article without asking how wArby was able to provide these totally serviceable frames, with any sort of lenses, for a fixed price and under 100? And how no one else figured out how to do this for decades? And I'm really supposed to feel bad for some "mom and pop" retailer selling Gucci and Tom Ford? Please.
10
WP will not fill prescription on frames other than their own, last time I checked. The optical chains will, but you don't get much of a discount even with insurance.
Costco usually has very good service in their optical departments. If there is a defect or something you don't like, they will do it over. However, their designer or fashion frames are limited. Usually one of their stores in a metropolitan area has a greater selection.
However, if you bring an outsider frame to Costco, sometimes they cannot fill the prescription with their lab. For example, I have a combination metal/plastic frame, and Costco would not touch it.
Also, Costco will adjust you glasses, and put in new screws and nose pads gratis - even if you did not purchase your glasses there. Service on your glasses at Costco justifies the membership. However, there are some limitations.
Costco usually has very good service in their optical departments. If there is a defect or something you don't like, they will do it over. However, their designer or fashion frames are limited. Usually one of their stores in a metropolitan area has a greater selection.
However, if you bring an outsider frame to Costco, sometimes they cannot fill the prescription with their lab. For example, I have a combination metal/plastic frame, and Costco would not touch it.
Also, Costco will adjust you glasses, and put in new screws and nose pads gratis - even if you did not purchase your glasses there. Service on your glasses at Costco justifies the membership. However, there are some limitations.
5
Aren't all glass frames made in Italy by the same company? And I mean all, although I'm not sure about Moscot. They may be designed by the individual hawking them but because they are all made at the same factory in Italy the prices are artificially high. We aren't talking about lenses, we are talking about frames, which Warby Parker, like Harry's razors and blades, has smartly got around by making their own frames. They deserve their success because they are eradicating the middle man .
8
You can buy quality lenses and frames for $50 complete online. The manufacturing cost of even the most sturdy designer frames is a few bucks. Warby Parker is the first step to the complete demise of opticians. "Never!" you say? Remember travel agents? Bookstores?
1
Read this story with great interest as I'm an AARP age person interested in finding eyewear with style and quality at a reasonable price and also in supporting upstart wippersnappers. While in NY a few years ago was able to visit an actual WP store out of curiosity and came away with exactly the impression so wonderfully detailed in this excellent article. I didn't feel excluded at WP but I was entertained and certainly would consider a purchase. Now after reading the article and the many detailed comments, I'm going to search out Cohen and Moscot. Everything in NY, even something as mundane as selecting eyewear, becomes a rich experience full of history and leaves me wanting my eyeglass choice to be a part of that!
2
The markup on frames is a downright ripoff!! I hope that Warby parker puts them out of business!!
4
I feel like Cohen's comment on WP is as bluntly self serving as a politician at her own rally. By speaking for WP, he carefully ushering the ivy-league studying, Uber riding millennial to WP, whilst crafting, through his words the rest of the market.
Well, Cohen does not have to define the market for us. It comes down to what the market wants. Is it based on volume or margins for his company? As a consumer, I only care about the bottom line for a competitive product. If Cohen wants to do business by sticking to high margins - 'the way it had always been', then I'd rather pay less and allow the market lean towards the 'pretentious yoga millennial thrive in e-commerce. Tradition and style is not a bad thing, but even this slight yet potent 'old school' avarice will need temperance in this new market economy.
Well, Cohen does not have to define the market for us. It comes down to what the market wants. Is it based on volume or margins for his company? As a consumer, I only care about the bottom line for a competitive product. If Cohen wants to do business by sticking to high margins - 'the way it had always been', then I'd rather pay less and allow the market lean towards the 'pretentious yoga millennial thrive in e-commerce. Tradition and style is not a bad thing, but even this slight yet potent 'old school' avarice will need temperance in this new market economy.
1
The only time I feel like a loser is when I overpay for something like glasses on the basis of nostalgia for overpriced retailers.
5
I bought glasses online from Zenni's(China) because they are cheap I was astonished when I put them on and discovered their visual quality (sharpness) put all others to shame.
Another reason to Dump Trump.
Another reason to Dump Trump.
3
Good grief, what pearl-clutching snobbery. Glasses are atrociously expensive, and they are not optional for people who need them. Fantastic if people can now get inexpensive eyeglasses, hipster motif or no. Too darn bad if the author feels alienated by anti fashion- whatever that is even supposed to mean.
The reality is that many of us who can afford them will continue to seek out higher quality places. Quality matters a lot in glasses, especially if you have very poor vision, as I do. But not everyone can afford that quality, so three cheers that there are better options for inexpensive pairs. For me, I have one pair of high quality and have ordered a cheapo back-up pair from Zenni. The two are in no way equivalent, but I'm extremely happy to have a backup, which I wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
The reality is that many of us who can afford them will continue to seek out higher quality places. Quality matters a lot in glasses, especially if you have very poor vision, as I do. But not everyone can afford that quality, so three cheers that there are better options for inexpensive pairs. For me, I have one pair of high quality and have ordered a cheapo back-up pair from Zenni. The two are in no way equivalent, but I'm extremely happy to have a backup, which I wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
5
Virtually all the eyewear frames sold in either the ma and pa optical shops and the big chains is made by manufacturer - Luxottica. The vaious name and "designer" brands are just licensed and slapped onto Luxottica frames Ridiculous prices are charged because there is a virtual monopoly. Good for Warby Parker for challenging that monopoly.
8
I've read through most comments but not all. For the most part, people seem pleased to shop at WP, and don't think (or care to) of possible harm caused by it.
Our disposable society , who has come to desire 20 cheap things instead of 1 good quality one. It's cheap, what's the harm, right? But there is a cost to it all, that goes beyond your $6.95.
I'm an optometrist and just opened a small optical shop about a year ago.
We sell brands that have more of a meaning - wether recycled materials (Modo), handmade craftsman (ic! Berlin, woow), nonprofit involvement (141, Sama) etc. A story and reason for each frame we carry. We work to be involved in the community, to donate our time/money for causes, etc.
Coolest so far is our State line - handmade luxury frames made here in the USA - in Chicago!! We were so excited to support this line and factory.
We only sell high quality digital lenses. We fit them perfectly to our patients needs and stand behind our products with a 2 yr warranty.
So where does all this leave us? Everyone is so enamoured with WP.
I know I'm just a lowly optometrist, trying to support my family and have a positive impact in our community and world, but reading through some of these comments really opened my eyes (!) as to what our society has become and it's quite discouraging to me that so many people don't consider the real cost of cheap goods.
Our disposable society , who has come to desire 20 cheap things instead of 1 good quality one. It's cheap, what's the harm, right? But there is a cost to it all, that goes beyond your $6.95.
I'm an optometrist and just opened a small optical shop about a year ago.
We sell brands that have more of a meaning - wether recycled materials (Modo), handmade craftsman (ic! Berlin, woow), nonprofit involvement (141, Sama) etc. A story and reason for each frame we carry. We work to be involved in the community, to donate our time/money for causes, etc.
Coolest so far is our State line - handmade luxury frames made here in the USA - in Chicago!! We were so excited to support this line and factory.
We only sell high quality digital lenses. We fit them perfectly to our patients needs and stand behind our products with a 2 yr warranty.
So where does all this leave us? Everyone is so enamoured with WP.
I know I'm just a lowly optometrist, trying to support my family and have a positive impact in our community and world, but reading through some of these comments really opened my eyes (!) as to what our society has become and it's quite discouraging to me that so many people don't consider the real cost of cheap goods.
14
I contacted Warby Parker to ask the brand of progressive lenses they use. They said that it was not Varilux, but they had been asked not to release the brand name of their progressive lenses. Progressive lenses are expensive and the differences in brands are important given your eyeight. Even Costco releases the brand of their progressives! I am not impressed with Warby Parker.
ou can get more info from Costco!
ou can get more info from Costco!
2
I'm a long time Cohen's customer, and I am sorry to have found myself unable to rationally take my business there. But Warby Parker's days are numbered too. Today I took a contact lens exam online in my kitchen, and ordered glasses from Zenni Optical for $60 that would have cost $200 in Cohen's. Like all other brick and mortar retailers, optical stores will find it very hard to beat the price and convenience of the Internet.
This article is similar to many a few years ago that lamented the loss of independent booksellers who could not compete with Amazon. The last time I checked, Warby Parker is filling a dire need in the market -- a need for affordable glasses that Cohens and Moscots refused to cater to. The company should be applauded for expanding consumer choice, not derided for undercutting overpriced brand-name cookie-cutter products that all come from the same company anyway (Luxottica). In any case, is there anything more gaudy than having a supposed "luxury" brand stamped on the side of your glasses? Talk about overcompensating for a lack of self-esteem....
8
Warby Parker sells Chinese frames and medium quality lenses. 'Normal' eyeglass stores sell absurdly overpriced Luxottica frames made under designer license.
There exists a 3rd option that requires some legwork. Buy European or Japanese non-brand frames on ebay (it's possible to get MSRP $350 frames for $50 - I like German Freudenhaus titaniums). Then send them away to an online lens service like eyeglasslensexpress or lensrx, choosing appropriately fancy lenses.
Total cost is under 1/2 of fancy eyeglasses, and you get better quality glasses than WB.
This won't work for progressive lenses, where you probably want to the lenses put in locally by an independent optometrist.
There exists a 3rd option that requires some legwork. Buy European or Japanese non-brand frames on ebay (it's possible to get MSRP $350 frames for $50 - I like German Freudenhaus titaniums). Then send them away to an online lens service like eyeglasslensexpress or lensrx, choosing appropriately fancy lenses.
Total cost is under 1/2 of fancy eyeglasses, and you get better quality glasses than WB.
This won't work for progressive lenses, where you probably want to the lenses put in locally by an independent optometrist.
1
Consumer Reports has consistently rated optical shops at COSTCO as reliable and reasonably priced. It may also be possible to order glasses there without a membership card as it is with the pharmacy. Incidentally, frame quality has little to do with price. Most are manufactured by a plant in Italy for many brand name labels.
2
Give me a break. You are putting down a fashionable, less expensive product - while somehow twisting logic - so we might feel sorry for the much more expensive "established" stores. I thought competition was the cornerstone of American capitalism. Personally I just bought a pair of prescription RAYBAN glasses form FRAMESDIRECT. $220 less than buying from my eye doctor.
3
My son, a millennial, recently purchased glasses from WP and had to return them. Apparently, at least for him, comfort was severely compromised. So perhaps you do get what you pay for.
10
Moscot's glasses are well made, but from my humble perspective, they ain't cheap, and I've stopped in their stores many times to scope out glasses only to realize I couldn't afford them, instead choosing other options.
7
You go to Moscot if you have bad eyesight and need glasses and you want really, really good glasses with handmade lenses that really fit your eyes, in any permutation of lens you choose--bifocal, progressive, thin, ultra thin, thick, etc. And you get expert advice and expert frame adjustment once the glasses have arrived. Warby Parker is great for a quick, cheap semi-fashionable fix, but you take your own measurements on the computer (or, if you're lucky, you can get someone who's a little more expert than you to do it in the store). And when I got my computer glasses there, they only did single-vision lenses, not bifocals. Cohen, the last time I went there, was somewhere in the middle. The first time I had Moscot adjust my Cohen glasses, I decided I would spend $150 more to get my glasses made there the next time. I have never regretted it. Even my optometrist, who would love to get my business, admits he could never get lenses anywhere near as good. They're fashionable, too. But being able to see beats fashion any time. And isn't that the real purpose of glasses?
40
I agree with the other Times commenters. NYT missed the boat. 90% of what people take in from the world is visually-based so eyeglasses are a necessity. There was a ground-breaking study just a few years ago that showed, how in one poor school district in the US, providing eye care and simple eye glasses was enough to raise the grades of many students significantly. I should know: my mother suffered a year as a child when her family couldn't afford glasses and she had to struggle through classes.
Warby Parker deserves their success. Although their glasses don't really work for me, the price point and variety are excellent. In our circle, people have been going to Asia (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) for years to get stylish frames and cutting-edge lenses for much less $$ than in the US. Not surprised to hear that there is a monopoly.
Warby Parker deserves their success. Although their glasses don't really work for me, the price point and variety are excellent. In our circle, people have been going to Asia (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) for years to get stylish frames and cutting-edge lenses for much less $$ than in the US. Not surprised to hear that there is a monopoly.
22
It doesn't matter what the product is, glasses, clothing, the Internet and globalization have destroyed retail, in particular the smaller boutique stores, many fields have been cannabilized actually and I'm not sure that we have a better world as the "clever" people figure out how to make themselves wealthy at everyone else's expense. Cheap glasses, volume stores have been around for decades, W.P. Sounds like its just has another marketing pitch, I like many commenters find it hard to align a Wharton student with someone who can't afford glasses. I was very disappointed recently when told my Anglo American frames are no longer actually made in England, having made a conscious effort to support not only my local (soon to be gone) optician but manufacturing not from Asia. My first glasses from this company were British and vastly superior. They now have apparently adopted the Nautica Schtick "designed in Paris" (made in China) approach to scamming the customers. Having said that it was a better place when we had small merchants who gave great service, provided an attractive place to shop and made a good living for themselves and their families. We now have investment bankers, Chinese manufacturers and a few clever marketing people such as Mr. Blumenthal and friends(Warby Parker) making enormous amounts of money like the generation before them including Ralph Lipshitz(Ralph Lauren) and Don Fisher(Gap)and millions of minimum wage jobs for everyone else. A race to the bottom.
40
Oh Ozzie, do you remember the good old days when shopping was personal and merchants treated us like family?
Yes, Harriet, I do!
Yes, Harriet, I do!
1
So even Warby Parker now has to be understood through a racial and socio-economic lens? What a pity that in a world where real issues are ubiquitous we waste valuable space in the Times on articles like this.
31
Went to visit friends in San Francisco and walked by a Warby Parker. Even to us 50-plus, slightly pudgy folk, the young hip sales person was kind, knowledgeable and friendly. I walked out of there with 2 pairs of glasses for less than $300. I didn't like the progressive lenses; WP sent me a refund and a new pair of glasses. If this is antifashion, sign me up.
28
Those who are cowed by the books at Warby Parker need to take note: no one has read the books at Warby Parker.
This is not the GMAT, this is bidness.
This is not the GMAT, this is bidness.
18
Warby Parker is the Starbucks of the optical world. Their marketing is excellent, and it's no wonder they've left older brands in the dust. Obviously, they took a look at Sol Moscot and began their quest. But, even with the formula, the product feels cheap if you've ever worn a pair of very well-made glasses.
I'm a long-time customer of Sol Moscot here, since 1982. I like the fact that there was a real person named Sol Moscot, and not some cute invented backstory. But mainly, of course, I just like their glasses. They make quality frames, and have great customer service. They're a true original, and if you've worn their glasses, you can tell how well-crafted they are.
I'm a long-time customer of Sol Moscot here, since 1982. I like the fact that there was a real person named Sol Moscot, and not some cute invented backstory. But mainly, of course, I just like their glasses. They make quality frames, and have great customer service. They're a true original, and if you've worn their glasses, you can tell how well-crafted they are.
19
The biggest part of the bill when I buy glasses isn't the frames; it's the lenses, which typically cost 2-3 times the price of the frames.
21
Warby Parker disrupted an industry that was way overcharging its customers for decades. In my experience, Warby Parker embraces its customers, including the 62 year old writer of this comment.
53
I'm confused by your statement. Many chain optical shops single sell attractive vision glasses for prices lower than Warby Parker's. Warby Parker sells only single vision glasses, how is that embracing customers in the optical market? Until recently, it did not even have shops to properly measure or adjust glasses. Other than an implied hipness factor, what's the appeal?
1
Writing and reading this now with my $12.95, medium-index -4.5 prescription lenses and frames from Zenni Optical.
12
You know the saying, you get what you pay for? Warby Parker has cheap frames, that, well, look and feel...cheap. I'll pass. Plus, I'd much rather have all the service that goes along with buying from a brick and mortar store. Lastly, I always prefer to shop local and help support those in my community. I'll pass on the Warby Parkers and Wal-Marts of the world. Next.
20
To the Oliver Peoples, Morgenthal Frederics and Warby Parkers of the world, I have only this to say: I see right through you, aided by my perfectly adequate, eminently functional (even hip, in their own down-market/ironic/outré way) specs from Berkley & Jensen. (Available in a three-pack for your convenience.) You wanna talk antifashion, Pal?
20
'Zacly.
10
Doesn't work that way for nearsighted folk.
1
We're talking prescription glasses here, not off-the-shelf readers.
2
I love that glasses have become more affordable and that the monopoly of Luxoteca, which produces frames for numerous designers, with atrocious price gauging along the way, has been cut into. I order from Coastal.com and have gotten really stylish, solidly made glasses there for a fraction of the cost of most stores. I've also ordered from Warby Parker and got excellent service there. While I regret that some older glasses businesses are having trouble keeping up, as someone who has worn glasses for many years, it has been a great relief to see the prices go down.
33
Warby Parker loses where it counts most: the optical quality of the lenses.
25
Warby Parker is for people who want to feel exclusive but can't afford it.
The same type that can't afford higher than Target but are too good for a Walmart.
The same type that can't afford higher than Target but are too good for a Walmart.
12
Boy, aren't you snobby....what do you care how people spend their money as long as it isn't harming you directly? Here's news for you: even rich people enjoy good deals. (In fact, it's how they stay rich.) Our family can afford to shop at high-end retailers but we don't choose to do it because we find that the cost of an item doesn't always equate with its quality.
26
Hmmm. You do understand people like you who feel important looking down at people with less money exist up the income chain . . . I am quite sure whatever "exclusive" shop you frequent - there is some wealthier person out there mocking your thinking it is "all that." Grow up my friend. Life is too short for this kind of pettiness.
2
While my last few pairs of glasses were Warby Parkers, I decided earlier this year to make use of my company's vision insurance and went to Pearl Vision. The price with insurance was $185, more than the $175 for non-insurance eye exam & great frames at Warby Parker. And to even get that price I had to shop off Pearl Vision's discounty rack with unattractive choices. Never again. Warby Parker should be celebrated for breaking the Luxottica cartel that has gouged consumers for years.
85
I went to Warby's retail store in its HQ on Sixth Avenue near Canal to have previously bought glasses adjusted. Had to pee really really badly. I was curtly told by a 22 year old putz that "we don't have customer facing bathrooms". Yeah, I know this is a bit off topic, but that really turned me off to company and brand.
50
That's very common. Feel free to hold a grudge, but I wouldn't if in your shoes.
4
That experience could describe most Manhattan retailers when you have to pee.
4
This person is a putz? Why couldn't you pee elsewhere, it's a retail store not a bar.
4
In Massachusetts you have to be a licensed optician to dispense glasses. This is the same over half of the county. I you buy your glasses over the Internet who is the optician? The mail man?
13
Very simply (and without the snark)....you have to provide your (no older than 12 months) prescription - from your licensed optician.
What's your point, that because they are licensed they are above price gouging of the Luottica cartel? Self-deception is comforting to the deceived.
1
Oh no, we're back to references to Republican President(ial hopefuls) in articles that have nothing to do with politics. Back to the days when W was President and every Times article , no matter the topic, sports, cooking, gallery openings, eye glasses, had a negative comment about the Bush presidency embedded in it. New York Times, rise above yourselves, forgodsake!
14
I'm still waiting for an apology from everyone who gave us eight years of George W. Bush.
2
and thank you NY Times, for calling attention to a president and his criminal cohorts who caused thousands of young men to die needlessly and a hundred thousand plus to have to live their lives in continual pain.
My clear plastic Haskell glasses from Warby Parker with progressive lenses cost $300 out the door. I think I paid that much just or one lense in the last pair I bought from a traditional boutique. Add to that the routine compliments I've received when wearing my WP specs and you have a customer for life.
31
I was a Moscot customer for decades. I'd walk into the Orchard Street store, and Frank and Miriam always greeted me warmly and by name. Things started to change when the store got a marketing director, shed frames that weren't their own, and started branding the store as a hipster magnet.
As someone who's worn and shopped for glasses for a long time, I knew about Luxottica and I also knew I didn't want any of their brands. So I bought two outrageously expensive European frames at 20/20 Optics and got tons of compliments on them. My $700 Francis Klein cat-eyes from Paris are still to die for.
I felt like I was cheating when I bought my first pair (prescription sunglasses) at WP. They weren't standout, but they are serviceable.
Then I needed bifocals. The lenses alone were $500 at Moscot. At WP, they were $295 with the frames. They're nothing special, but they fit perfectly.
I miss Frank and Miriam, though.
As someone who's worn and shopped for glasses for a long time, I knew about Luxottica and I also knew I didn't want any of their brands. So I bought two outrageously expensive European frames at 20/20 Optics and got tons of compliments on them. My $700 Francis Klein cat-eyes from Paris are still to die for.
I felt like I was cheating when I bought my first pair (prescription sunglasses) at WP. They weren't standout, but they are serviceable.
Then I needed bifocals. The lenses alone were $500 at Moscot. At WP, they were $295 with the frames. They're nothing special, but they fit perfectly.
I miss Frank and Miriam, though.
19
When Cohens charges me $400 for a simple pair of reading glasses I feel like a loser.
41
Try CVS.
1
I don't know what's more annoying -- the brand or this article about the brand.
58
+1 for the pun in "ever more polarized retail culture."
28
What a bizarre article. As other commenters note, there is not much discussion of the price gouging in the eyeglass businesses. In addition, not much discussion about the "sense of exclusion" inherent in glasses frames by Prada, Tom Ford, etc. etc. And zero discussion about all the actually snobby glasses stores in the world, like Oliver Peoples, Morgenthal Frederics, and independent boutiques more than happy to separate the rich from their dollars. I buy most of my glasses from Warby Parker but I also admit going to Lens Crafters for a great sale. The always seem perfectly nice and non-snobby. Ginia must have had a singularly bad experience there!
85
I agree. And this was just a maudlin, hackneyed weird article. "Occupy eyewear" as shorthand for something supposedly appealing to young people? Please.
1
I have a very high-power prescription and need trifocals and reading glasses. My glasses, at a private optometry office, typically cost over $800. You got that. $800. I don't think I owe any small storefront my loyalty when I have been so thoroughly ripped off for so long.
I can get a great pair at Costco for $250. They have my loyalty.
I can get a great pair at Costco for $250. They have my loyalty.
88
What kind of tears does Bellafante want us to weep for older brands and retail stores that didn't see the change coming along? Someone at WP who was more technically savvy and younger and attuned to style flipped the eyeglass shopping paradigm and took market share from these NYC eyeglass retail fixtures. Welcome to NYC.
49
Yeah, seriously. Being forced to compete with someone selling cheaper products of comparable quality? Boo hoo, retailers.
17
I don't know about you, but looking at a $300 price tag on a pair of frames can certainly make one feel like a loser.
56
just went to the website --- not sure who would find those 'styles" appealing? They look like glasses for 6-9 year olds - rugged, durable and clunky!
8
The reason glasses are so expensive in this country is because essentially all glasses sales are controlled by a single Italian company, Luxottica.
Luxottica owns the brands Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, Arnette, Eye Safety Systems (ESS), Persol, Sferoflex, and Vogue Eyewear.
They also control the production for Armani, Brooks Brothers, Bulgari, Burberry, Chanel, Coach, Dolce & Gabbana, DKNY, Michael Kors, Miu Miu, Polo Ralph Lauren, Paul Smith Spectacles, Prada, Ralph Lauren, Starck Eyes, Tiffany & Co., Tory Burch, and Versace.
They also own the retail locations including Sunglass Hut, Lenscrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears and Target Optical, OPSM, ILORI, EyeMed Vision Care, Oliver Peoples, GMO, Alain Mikli, Oakley, David Clulow, and Laubman & Pank.
These lists are not exhaustive. Warby Parker sells slightly cheaper glasses, but people don't realize how cheap and easy quality glasses are to produce. The most recent pair I got online from Zenni cost me 12 dollars, and are far superior to the ones I had from Target, which had very poor optical performance. I complained to the Target Optical optometrist, who said there was nothing that could be done. This was false. I should know, since I design and build astronomical optical instruments for NASA.
Luxottica owns the brands Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, Arnette, Eye Safety Systems (ESS), Persol, Sferoflex, and Vogue Eyewear.
They also control the production for Armani, Brooks Brothers, Bulgari, Burberry, Chanel, Coach, Dolce & Gabbana, DKNY, Michael Kors, Miu Miu, Polo Ralph Lauren, Paul Smith Spectacles, Prada, Ralph Lauren, Starck Eyes, Tiffany & Co., Tory Burch, and Versace.
They also own the retail locations including Sunglass Hut, Lenscrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears and Target Optical, OPSM, ILORI, EyeMed Vision Care, Oliver Peoples, GMO, Alain Mikli, Oakley, David Clulow, and Laubman & Pank.
These lists are not exhaustive. Warby Parker sells slightly cheaper glasses, but people don't realize how cheap and easy quality glasses are to produce. The most recent pair I got online from Zenni cost me 12 dollars, and are far superior to the ones I had from Target, which had very poor optical performance. I complained to the Target Optical optometrist, who said there was nothing that could be done. This was false. I should know, since I design and build astronomical optical instruments for NASA.
225
Thank you for your comment. It is nice to get a comment from someone who knows a thing or two about optical glass.
8
Safilo group did 1.5 billion in sales last year. Thousands of shops carry no Luxottica..it is simply not factual that Lux is a monopoly.
7
Furthermore, with such a large market share of the world of glasses owned by an Italian based company... Why is Italy's economy so in the dumps?
Monopolies seem to hurt everyone.
Monopolies seem to hurt everyone.
2
This article is absurd on its face — and it screams advertorial. Clearly, these New York "institutions" have developed plenty of friends at The Times over the years.
It's easy to poke fun at marketing trends like origin stories and curio decor; but First Principles thinking earns money, and snappy, jealous critique earns much less.
Warby Parker is making the world a better place. There's nothing wrong with Cohen's and I've enjoyed Moscot very much over the years, but tearing down intelligent solutions for the sake of your own backward point is, since you've brought it up, about as Trumpian as it gets.
It's easy to poke fun at marketing trends like origin stories and curio decor; but First Principles thinking earns money, and snappy, jealous critique earns much less.
Warby Parker is making the world a better place. There's nothing wrong with Cohen's and I've enjoyed Moscot very much over the years, but tearing down intelligent solutions for the sake of your own backward point is, since you've brought it up, about as Trumpian as it gets.
71
For the records, I had awful experiences at Cohen, which I now call "Cohen's Fashion Obstacle." At two different stores, it felt as though the service seemed ok until I got the glasses, and then I was ignored. In other words, sale done, bye bye. I've had much better experiences with Coastal.
3
I'm old, but I buy my glasses at WP. Crazy to pay more.
However, the books there are definitely chosen for the color of their bindings, not their content, so if you are intimidated by the selection, maybe you need a new prescription!
However, the books there are definitely chosen for the color of their bindings, not their content, so if you are intimidated by the selection, maybe you need a new prescription!
40
The writer arrives at this piece with the writer arrives with a lot of baggage. I see a quality product at a low price. Knowledge class branding sounds very clever, all I know is I've enjoyed a great product at a great price. Oh, and when I call customer service, I get great customer service. Why are we knowingly sneering at this?
20
This article is absurd, as several of the letters point out. Who would prefer to spend several hundred dollars more for their glasses when WP provides a superior shopping experience either in-store or on line at a fraction of the price? And by the way, I'm 73, & don't know anyone who is considering voting for Trump.
81
This WP wearing gal lives in the burbs and sadly knows a couple of Trump supporters.
2
Time keeps on slippin slippin, into the future. The yearning for nostalgia is getting sickening. This is called creative destruction, try to follow along.
11
Ginia, you are so much fun to read. Any topic, always.
6
Does the NYT not understand how a free market economy works or are they pandering? Both are unacceptable.
40
I get the best of both worlds. I get my frames though Warby Parker in Back Bay and visit my local optician for the lenses. Everybody is happy!
14
I had shipped for glasses at Cohens and other eye glass shops for years spending over $300 each time, easily. If you wanted something that didn't look like your grandpa's pair then it would be even more. Each time I walked in I felt like they were trying to up-sell me on everything - scratch resistant coating, anti-glare, etc... Taking insurance is always iffy at best.
WP is straight forward. You get what you want and no one is trying to up-sell you on things you don't need. If these places want to compete against WP, lose the used car dealership model.
WP is straight forward. You get what you want and no one is trying to up-sell you on things you don't need. If these places want to compete against WP, lose the used car dealership model.
48
I totally agree.
6
I like WP because their glasses do not have logo's on them. Finding logo-free apparel is tough.
WP's website is smooth but not slick, and their service is really good.
WP's website is smooth but not slick, and their service is really good.
34
"Each pair of glasses seems to say, “I don’t know anyone who has ever met anyone who has ever thought about voting for Donald Trump.”
It's nice to see that NYT writers can shoehorn rebarbative liberalism into an article on glasses.
It's nice to see that NYT writers can shoehorn rebarbative liberalism into an article on glasses.
33
Um, no. Actually the Times' comment is mocking privileged liberals who are anti-Trump while allegedly being trendy consumerists proud of both their political sentiments and WP glasses. The exact opposite of that you were expecting and what you are complaining about.
I probably don't fit WB's target audience at all: almost over-middle-aged, might even consider Trump as a candidate (thank-you NY Times for being most exclusionary at every opportunity), but I found Warby Parker to be very welcoming and quite refreshing. I bought a pair of glasses in their downtown location and am about to return for a second pair. In comparison, I found shopping at Cohen's to be uninspiring and Moscot to be over-the-top expensive.
22
It's amazing, the comments posted after this article have now totally swayed me towards Warby Parker. I plan to look them up and start shopping!
57
It's the economy, stupid!
21
Last time I looked, Warby Parker's online store didn't do bifocals. That's a dealbreaker for me.
6
I bought my first pair of progressive glasses at WP, they were $300. ......so not inexpensive, but ½ what I was finding anywhere else.
5
they do progressive glasses. more than regular glasses but still cheaper
2
Why does the times drink this Kool Aid. Luxoticca group a monopoly when there are thousands of stores that don't carry any. A company with competitors that have 1.5 billion dollars in sales.
Wharton and Dalton grads who couldn't afford glasses? Is that even possible?
And do they make a profit?????? Why is that never asked?
Wharton and Dalton grads who couldn't afford glasses? Is that even possible?
And do they make a profit?????? Why is that never asked?
7
The WP narrative is beyond not believable, Wharton grads that went to Dalton High couldn't afford glasses. Please. Sourcing a pair of glasses in India (what do you think the cost of that). The narrative goes unchallanged.
Instead I hear Luxottica group is a monopoly...except there are thousands of eyewear retailers who do not have a Lux frame in there boutiques, Safilo Group did 1.2 billion euros in sales last year...yup that is some monopoly!
The product they use looks good, it is of fair to ok quality, the lenses are generic and Chinese made as are all of their frames. Their progressive are generic lenses, proprietary branded. Any smart optical can match their price on progressives,trust me theirs are not$. The materials are far inferior to true high quality eyewear or even midrange offerings like Ray-Ban to true great eyewear like the type you may see in a high end shop.
That said I think WP fills a niche, like Uniqlo or H&M clothing . Nice looking stuff generally not of the same quality of better retailers.
WP price point is great. . But I would say that there is a good chance they are not profitable has a lot to do with it.
The narrative that all Eyewear is a ripoff is false. You get what you pay for and some people prefer true quality eyewear fit by professionals. If you knew the discounts forced upon me and the fact that I routinely get paid 40 dollars for an eye exam by insurers you might stop drinking the Kool Aid that we are the greedy middleman.
Instead I hear Luxottica group is a monopoly...except there are thousands of eyewear retailers who do not have a Lux frame in there boutiques, Safilo Group did 1.2 billion euros in sales last year...yup that is some monopoly!
The product they use looks good, it is of fair to ok quality, the lenses are generic and Chinese made as are all of their frames. Their progressive are generic lenses, proprietary branded. Any smart optical can match their price on progressives,trust me theirs are not$. The materials are far inferior to true high quality eyewear or even midrange offerings like Ray-Ban to true great eyewear like the type you may see in a high end shop.
That said I think WP fills a niche, like Uniqlo or H&M clothing . Nice looking stuff generally not of the same quality of better retailers.
WP price point is great. . But I would say that there is a good chance they are not profitable has a lot to do with it.
The narrative that all Eyewear is a ripoff is false. You get what you pay for and some people prefer true quality eyewear fit by professionals. If you knew the discounts forced upon me and the fact that I routinely get paid 40 dollars for an eye exam by insurers you might stop drinking the Kool Aid that we are the greedy middleman.
13
And yet Costco manages to sell Oakley, Rayban, etc. for only a bit more than its house brand; with high quality progressive bifocal lenses, the total price is around $250 per pair, and they do make a profit. The service is good, too.
6
To be clear, Warby Parker glasses are cheap Chinese made facimiles of designer glasses that fall apart in a few months. That's why they're cheaper than real designer glasses.
12
Where do you think Luxottica (they make every designer brand you can imagine) is making all that eyewear? They have manufacturing facilities in China and India. Those "real" designer glasses are all made by the same global monopoly.
1
I've got Oliver Peoples frames that are going on their third prescription. The Warbys I have don't feel as good but they're not bad. I think the Warby lenses are slightly inferior, especially for bifocals.
But overall the quality is really good for how cheap they are .
But overall the quality is really good for how cheap they are .
3
Unfortunately, many of the designer frames that cost $200 are made in China, too.
5
When you shop, be thankful for what you have now.
If you have ever wandered through a shopping mall in a developing country, you were probably struck by the lack of merchandise with even modest quality. This is America's future.
As income goes to the very rich and the middle class dissolves, retailers rush to stay ahead of the trend. The result is a choice between the very expensive and very poor quality. And with every choice we make, income inequality is bolstered. So are the bottom lines of quality-cutters like Home Depot and Walmart.
So when you shop, be appreciative when you find middle class quality at middle class prices. Soon that will be only a memory.
If you have ever wandered through a shopping mall in a developing country, you were probably struck by the lack of merchandise with even modest quality. This is America's future.
As income goes to the very rich and the middle class dissolves, retailers rush to stay ahead of the trend. The result is a choice between the very expensive and very poor quality. And with every choice we make, income inequality is bolstered. So are the bottom lines of quality-cutters like Home Depot and Walmart.
So when you shop, be appreciative when you find middle class quality at middle class prices. Soon that will be only a memory.
10
I'm not sure what is article is on about. Marketing is marketing. If Warby Parker pretends to be anti-fashion, Cohen's pretends they are giving you fashion at bargain rates. (Never cared for Cohen's - high pressure and not great service.) I'm beyond any interest in fashion - old, really old and not slim. I wear progressives and until last year went to a store recommended by my ophthalmologist. Cost for frames plus prescription? Nearly $1,000. Warby Parker cost? Total $345 for a pair that fits and feels better. The folks at the store were patient and very nice - didn't try to rush me out like other fashionable places try to do when faced with someone who doesn't fit their favored demographic. I guess I found my own epiphany, of sorts. Warby Parker, unlike other start ups, provides a useful service.
30
I'm 72 years old, and have recently bought 3 pairs of Warby Parker glasses. When I went for an optometry exam and mentioned that I had these glasses, she commented that she didn't know anybody over the age of 30 who had purchased them. And now I read that I am a member of a young and exclusive subset of "four-eyes". Woohoo!! What appealed to me, without knowing their back story, was the simplicity of design, the quality of the lenses, the ease of choosing frames, and helping people who needed glasses to get them without paying a lot of money. And I was tired of paying $400 for a pair of glasses when now I can get them for $200!
52
I had a horrible experience with Cohen's and would never shop there again. Interestingly, a friend of mine, visiting from Europe, lost his glasses. Before I could warn him, he went to Cohen's and also had a terrible experience.
10
Another case of really find customer value. This is the IKEA of eyeglasses...where you get "high" design (or what is perceived as such) for a low price. The buying experience and service is traded off for adequate design and lower cost. The trailing question is how long WB can continue as its position is indefensible to competitors. Look to Walmart to devour this like it did organic foods.
7
I recently accompanied my wife as she made the rounds of optical shops in search of frames for her new Rx.
"How do you like these on me?" she asked. The frames were hip and groovy.
"Cool," I said, "what's the groan?"
When she told me the price, I got the vapors, nearly fainted. The amount of money was the same as I paid for my first car.
"How do you like these on me?" she asked. The frames were hip and groovy.
"Cool," I said, "what's the groan?"
When she told me the price, I got the vapors, nearly fainted. The amount of money was the same as I paid for my first car.
11
Try buying hearing aides! The fix is in.
4
Costco is void for that, too.
Good lord. Warby has some stylish frames but what they do is customer service and technology at a level so insanely better than everyone else it feels like a revelation. Buying glasses there doesn't feel like glasses are a tedious luxury item, but instead a reasonable and well-integrated part of your life. Many years ago I got into a big argument at the Sol Moscot on the lower east side: they promised to fix my glassed but instead ruined them and then claimed they weren't responsible. Having had a pair of broken glasses replaced at Warby no-questions asked, you can begin to understand this isn't hipster monocles -- it's just good business.
75
I remember many years ago going to eyeglass stores like Cohen's and leaving feeling the same way I felt after buying a car - like I paid way more than I should have.
Warby's success isn't about some being part of some hippy dippy movement, and it's not all about inexpensive glasses. They provide everything I need to know on their website, in high resolution. I can take as much time as I want to make a decision, and order it all online. I just went to Cohen's site.. apparently I still can't buy online, and can't research styles and pricing . I have to go to the store. Much like car dealers want you to go to the showroom. It's so much easier to gouge when you have a captive customer that isn't armed with enough information...
Warby's success isn't about some being part of some hippy dippy movement, and it's not all about inexpensive glasses. They provide everything I need to know on their website, in high resolution. I can take as much time as I want to make a decision, and order it all online. I just went to Cohen's site.. apparently I still can't buy online, and can't research styles and pricing . I have to go to the store. Much like car dealers want you to go to the showroom. It's so much easier to gouge when you have a captive customer that isn't armed with enough information...
32
It's the law. Get your RX
4
Glasses are way overpriced and my eye doctor who used to give me dirty looks when I asked for my prescription know so.
WP as well as internet vendors are a godsend.
WP as well as internet vendors are a godsend.
28
Don't cast Warby Parker as the Robin Hood of the eyewear market. They're still making a profit that almost any other industry would covet, just not the obscene profits of the model that preceded their arrival.
6
They are making a profit...or are they losing money using Investment bank money??? Who knows but my guess it is the latter.
1
You (partisan) guess is irrelevant, Sir.
Cohen's and other older businesses should have thought about price without being forced into it. If they could sell high quality fashion frames before, why didn't they? I love Warby Parker and Fetch - I love their charity components, the well made frames - what's not to love when you can have 5 pair instead of one?
I have been a Fetch (Portland, OR based) fan for years. There is no downside to these online businesses and I applaud them for not price gouging.
I have been a Fetch (Portland, OR based) fan for years. There is no downside to these online businesses and I applaud them for not price gouging.
10
Great product. Great service. Cool brand. Nicely designed retail spaces. Unbeatable prices. And still someone feels the urge to write a critical piece about WP. I guess if you really think about it, it does makes you feel bad for the native Americans who sold Manhattan to the Dutch Ignoring the riches to be made in the unfashionable yet fashionable eyewear business.
15
Cool brand? Neat. Now what if your grandparents had settled in New York City after Europe descended into chaos and genocide. and they founded a nice little optical shop, at which generations of people looked forward to shopping? What if your glasses were something you gleefully looked forward to picking up from an accountable human in a well-appointed store instead of unwrapping from a blasé cardboard box dumped on your porch or drop box?
Us old-timers remember a personal time in America. It wasn't perfect--far from it--but it had it's merits. WP is a far cry from the corner shop with people who fitted your grandparents, parents and you for eyewear.
Us old-timers remember a personal time in America. It wasn't perfect--far from it--but it had it's merits. WP is a far cry from the corner shop with people who fitted your grandparents, parents and you for eyewear.
7
I remember my local optician's, around 1990. Great service and a longstanding relationship. The glasses and frames cost about 1/4 of what optical stores charge today.
I'm buying glasses from Warby Parker now because the prices are more reasonable than the exploitative prices charged by storefront opticians. Shopping online and in the stores is easy, and I've had nothing but great customer service. I look forward to receiving the glasses because I like the product, it serves me well, and because I'm relieved at not being ripped off.
WP knows that packaging is a key part of their customer's experience, and it's far from blasé. Glasses arrive in a sturdy case–better made than any I'd gotten from a traditional optician–inside a white pasteboard box, which in turn sits in a cardboard shipping box.
I'm buying glasses from Warby Parker now because the prices are more reasonable than the exploitative prices charged by storefront opticians. Shopping online and in the stores is easy, and I've had nothing but great customer service. I look forward to receiving the glasses because I like the product, it serves me well, and because I'm relieved at not being ripped off.
WP knows that packaging is a key part of their customer's experience, and it's far from blasé. Glasses arrive in a sturdy case–better made than any I'd gotten from a traditional optician–inside a white pasteboard box, which in turn sits in a cardboard shipping box.
7
What exactly is the purported "sense of exclusion" that the author claims Warby Parker evokes in its business model of reasonable prices, an easy to use website and great customer service? Is that "sense of exclusion" that Warby Parker doesn't go along with the traditional eyeglasses industry standard of price gouging? Last I recalled, there is absolutely no exclusion on Warby Parker's website or in its physical stores. Anyone can purchase read only priced, fashionable eyeglasses from either location and get great customer service. Maybe that is the real story here, not a liberal plea to protect outdated business models at the expense of the consumer.
8
It's difficult to feel sorry for WP's competitors. You walk in, the place is run efficiently, you have hundreds of frames to pick from, and most are around $95 including lenses except for progressive lenses. Sure, you may have to wait 15 minutes. Sure, there are no fancy desks with mirrors and sales people offering to bring you frames. You have to do it yourself. So what? I bought a pair recently and put it next to a fashion brand pair that was $285 for the frames and another hundred for the lens. You couldn't tell the difference. $95 versus $385. Not to mention they arrived almost immediately. I bought a pair of progressive lenses, $200 including frames. They were a couple of days late but I didn't notice. The only way I knew is an email from WP apologizing and saying they had issued a $30 credit as an apology. Who else offers an apology and a refund for being a couple of days late? Uh, nobody. For the moment there is no reason to shop anywhere else. Nobody else in my experience offers the selection, service, and urgency to make the customer happy. If other businesses suffer I believe that's called capitalism. Make a better product, sell it for less, add customer service, and you can own a big chunk of the marketpl. That's what WP did. It's just like any other business. If you want to sell me a dishwasher for $800 and the guy down the block if selling the same dishwasher for $600, it doesn't take a genius to walk down the block.
11
Warby Parker sells good quality glasses at a reasonable price. That's their key to success. I went to Warby Parker after being quoted anywhere from $800-$1000 for glasses from Cohens and Moscot. Warby Parker charged me $350.
They were accommodating and my glasses are fine.
I don't know when buying a pair of glasses required such a huge investment but shopping at Warby Parker makes it not a huge investment and makes it possible for me to get new glasses when and if my prescription changes.
It has bothered me for years that eyeglasses have gotten so expensive. The frames are all made in the same factories in China. Maybe if Cohens and Moscot focused more on price and less on flash they wouldn't be having these issues.
They were accommodating and my glasses are fine.
I don't know when buying a pair of glasses required such a huge investment but shopping at Warby Parker makes it not a huge investment and makes it possible for me to get new glasses when and if my prescription changes.
It has bothered me for years that eyeglasses have gotten so expensive. The frames are all made in the same factories in China. Maybe if Cohens and Moscot focused more on price and less on flash they wouldn't be having these issues.
7
businesses have a lifetime and many cannot reinvent themselves. there are many beloved retail names and retail models that are no more. Warby Parker has the benefit of starting from zero. it has no legacy costs and expectations. the Cohen's model must serve its existing customer expectations and also adapted to its margins over time. this entrenches a lot of fixed expectations. less likely to innovate is a successful business. often times they lose sight of how much their customers may be tolerating them as opposed to appreciating them. this is common in so many services and not only with cost although usually a major factor. it is like a hidden, built up demand, just looking for an outlet. i passed a WP store just yesterday and it looked a pleasant enough to this 40+'er. if i ever used glasses again, i would not hesitate to walk in. i still have vivid memories of hundreds of dollars when i was the WP target age and having no other options. good job guys.
5
The last time I went to a Cohen's franchise, I had insurance that covered the exam, basic lenses, and $130 toward frames. Before I know what was happening, I had spent $1,500 on two pairs of glasses. Everything was an up-sell––they even talked me into a $5,000 line of credit with no interest for 12 months (unless you missed a payment, at which point the interest went up to 25%). I've already decided to try Warby Parker for my next pair, even if I have to admit having gone to public schools and never having read Proust.
8
Please do not compare Cohens to a Independent Optometric Practice. As most are franchises they have to pay royalties and therefore have to add that into their costs. Not so at a Private Optometric office....that is not to say all private optometric offices are reputable. Like anything the consumer needs to educate themselves.
5
I have more than a dozen pairs of sunglasses, accumulated through the years, all costing well over $100. (I was a prescription eyeglass wearer until 16, when I could switch to contact lenses).
Recently, while on eBay, I came across a pair of what I considered to be fashionable sunglasses, available from China, at a cost of $5, shipping included. Granted, prescription lenses-- or perhaps even proper UV protection lenses- would have increased that cost. But surely without the virtual monopoly Luxottica has on the industry, attractive frames can be made available for a reasonable cost. They are only plastic for gosh sakes!
Recently, while on eBay, I came across a pair of what I considered to be fashionable sunglasses, available from China, at a cost of $5, shipping included. Granted, prescription lenses-- or perhaps even proper UV protection lenses- would have increased that cost. But surely without the virtual monopoly Luxottica has on the industry, attractive frames can be made available for a reasonable cost. They are only plastic for gosh sakes!
3
I support the author's point. I've worn glasses for decades and heard of all the hype about WP. About 2 years ago, I visited the store in Soho at the same time I went to one of the major optical chains. There was indeed 'a sense of exclusion' but I persisted in search of a bargain and to be part of some hip community. I found the customer service seriously lacking- being ignored and generally having to push through crowds to see a few, unfashionable frames. The service at the chain was friendly, welcoming, chatty; I now wave to the store attendants whenever I walk by. WP - never again. I bought two pairs at WP (the same frame because only one style appealed to me) at about 50% less than the chain store. But the lack of variety and the poor customer service will not get me to spend my money there again.
4
I think it may be a NYC thing. I've had horrible customer service at WP in NYC (in its HQ store, nonetheless). But at an Atlanta branch, the service, attitude and friendliness was awesome (2 occasions). Maybe they need better staffing in NYC...and they aren't the only ones.
3
Warby Parker is great for what it can provide but it can't provide certain lenses, especially higher correction and astigmatism. I still need a traditional optician for my prescription.
4
I find Warby Parker glasses extremely 'heavy' and not very well made compared to similar styles made by higher-end brands like Oliver Peoples, Selima Optique, etc. I briefly jumped on the Warby Parker train but never got over the fact that the glasses just felt cheap and heavy and eventually went back to a more traditional pair. The traditional pair were much more expensive but I expect to wear them for years rather than months, as I had with my previous pair before the WP experience. In the end, the price as compared to how long the pairs last, or people keep them around, seems to be the same. But in one instance you have a single, high quality pair and in the other, many, cheap frames.
4
It is totally cool but WP excludes the older customer. I explored the cost of a pair of their regular frames with my trifocal prescription and it was 300 plus. Back to my regular but boring optomitrist.
4
An optician friend expanded her practice to sell frames, and the difference in her income multiplied. Markup for frames: 300%!!
I visited Warby P this week. Single vision regular and sunglasses (2 pairs) for $260.
Replacing just my lens for my existing glasses at my doctor's office: $290!!
It's a no-brainer.
Thank you Warby P for bringing reason to the vision world.
I visited Warby P this week. Single vision regular and sunglasses (2 pairs) for $260.
Replacing just my lens for my existing glasses at my doctor's office: $290!!
It's a no-brainer.
Thank you Warby P for bringing reason to the vision world.
14
I went to the Moscot dealer in Silverlake (Los Angeles) and the tragically hip, bearded and bespectacled shopkeeper with his even hipper (or should that be hipster-er?) tattooed, coiffed and cat eye specs wearing cliche of a partner, put off such an air of snobbery disdain at helping a customer from the less hip caste that I ended up buying a pair of Oliver Peoples
I have been to Warby Parkers site before and although I have not purchased a pair of glasses from them, I probably will in the future.
I have been to Warby Parkers site before and although I have not purchased a pair of glasses from them, I probably will in the future.
6
At some point someone needs to ask why consumers have become so price sensitive. I think WP sells a fine product. Their customer service is good. They have a nice site. But at the end of the day I do feel badly that I can't afford to pay retail prices to support my local optometrists. I am a perpetually underemployed milinial. Money is a huge issue so I have no real choice in shopping WP.
It's a shame Luxottica has dominated for so long and ruined the industry. Like how Barns & Noble systematically ruined the bookstore business and now there is no real incentive to shop brick and mortar for books in most of the country with Amazon.com willing to undercut on price and selection. A lot of decent people are going to loose their jobs.
It's a shame Luxottica has dominated for so long and ruined the industry. Like how Barns & Noble systematically ruined the bookstore business and now there is no real incentive to shop brick and mortar for books in most of the country with Amazon.com willing to undercut on price and selection. A lot of decent people are going to loose their jobs.
3
I disagree with the digs on WP for fashion. I used to spend $400 for a complete pair of glasses, and at that price I could only afford one pair with a current prescription every 3-4 years. I was one of WP's first customers and in the last 5 years I've bought 4 frames that I can rotate amongst during the week depending on my mood. When my prescription changes, I can mail them back for new lenses for something like $50 each.
As for style, I'll frequently place my glasses on the conference table at work next to a co-worker's pair, and they are indistinguishable, even though they have some designer brand that I know cost 4x as much.
As for style, I'll frequently place my glasses on the conference table at work next to a co-worker's pair, and they are indistinguishable, even though they have some designer brand that I know cost 4x as much.
6
As a WP customer, I was seduced by their low prices and the fact that they give a pair of glasses to charity for every pair you buy. I have stuck with them even though I discovered their cheap and fragile ear pieces snap off easily and of course can't be repaired, necessitating a new pair, and they won't make new lenses for frames other than theirs. I always wondered, however, why their frames looked so ugly stylewise and were huge enough to give me that fish staring out of a fishbowl feeling. Now, thanks to this article, I have the answer--it's antifashion as fashion. Thanks for solving the puzzle for me.
6
Eyeglasses have been ripe for a disruption for years and WP and Costco have reacted to help us cope. For years I'd have to pay more than $200 for frames and $400 or more for progressive lenses. Buying at conventional stores was like buying a car, paying extra for anti reflection coatings, lighter weight, etc. It was a painful experience, particularly knowing that the optician was making 70 to 80% margins.
While Costco has mostly pedestrian frames you can walk out of the store with glasses or sunglasses for under $200.
While Costco has mostly pedestrian frames you can walk out of the store with glasses or sunglasses for under $200.
9
Unfortunately, there's also become an attitude, thanks to Warby Parker, Zenni, et al that all optical retail stores are overpriced.
It's easy to blame the optician, but it isn't always the retailer's fault. I have two pairs of glasses, both purchased at an independent optician. The lenses cost over $500 each. (Varilux Physio 1.74 progressive with Crizal). Because of my strong prescription and progressives, getting a proper fit and segment height is crucial--I don't want to trust this to mail order. On top of that the lab needs to do a good job cutting the lenses and doing the edge polish, especially for my drill mounts. Essilor, Zeiss, etc have a lot of control over their lens prices--it's not simply retail markup.
As for the frames, I have one pair of Silhouettes (made in Austria) and one pair of Prodesign (designed in Denmark, manufactured in Japan). I wouldn't pay that price for the cheap frames some chains sell and pass off as designer.
It's easy to blame the optician, but it isn't always the retailer's fault. I have two pairs of glasses, both purchased at an independent optician. The lenses cost over $500 each. (Varilux Physio 1.74 progressive with Crizal). Because of my strong prescription and progressives, getting a proper fit and segment height is crucial--I don't want to trust this to mail order. On top of that the lab needs to do a good job cutting the lenses and doing the edge polish, especially for my drill mounts. Essilor, Zeiss, etc have a lot of control over their lens prices--it's not simply retail markup.
As for the frames, I have one pair of Silhouettes (made in Austria) and one pair of Prodesign (designed in Denmark, manufactured in Japan). I wouldn't pay that price for the cheap frames some chains sell and pass off as designer.
12
Warby Parker is a terrible company. The quality of their lenses and frames is poor. Their customer service is inconsistent. After having purchased two pairs of glasses from their UES store, I cannot recommend them. They do sell their products cheaply, and if for no other reason than that, they will likely grow and displace other small businesses. With less competition, things will get worse.
9
I have not tried WP yet (it would have to be online for me) only because they haven't offered progressive lenses until recently. They claim that "predictive" technology can determine the placement and size of the different zones of correction. I have my doubts about that. I use an independent optometrist and eyeglass business because they have a lense fitter on site, and they can adjust my glasses whenever needed. There is still a place for brick-and-mortar eyeglass stores. I agree that the cost of eyeglasses is ridiculous. My husband bought WP glasses online, though, and while the style was fine and the prescrition correct the quality of the frames is not great. They pitch to a certain market.
3
As so many have said, this article completely misses the point. The monopoly of the glasses and frames manufacturing world had me and my husband both paining upwards of $500 per pair for glasses and sunglasses. Along comes WP with its exceptional customer service, quality product, smooth website, AND affordable pricing. Not a hard choice to make, people. Between the both of us, he and I have purchased 7 pair of glasses from WP since they opened in NYC. Each and every time, it was a pleasant experience - that is why we stay loyal to them.
47
So true and a real disappointing article for the NY Times. The writer hasn't a clue and tries to "frame" the article as competing with cool. But this should be a story about how traditional companies used to high profits fail to innovate and take their customers for granted. A perfect opportunity for disruption.
19
I don't have much sympathy for eyeglass retailers, mostly because they've been overcharging us for years and we've been at their mercy. Worse, Luxottica, the Italian company that manufactures most of the frames they sell has had a near monopoly on designer eyewear.
With Warby Parker, it's no big deal if I lose or break a pair, and I can afford to change frames more often. I will never spend $800 on a pair of eyeglasses again.
With Warby Parker, it's no big deal if I lose or break a pair, and I can afford to change frames more often. I will never spend $800 on a pair of eyeglasses again.
20
What I find really sad is that WP is opening a store in Grand Central Terminal, where there has been an eyeglass store for generations run by the same family. A small business where personal service is their stock in trade as well as a quality product.
They held on through some very grim times in Grand Central when the station was a place to scurry through as quickly as possible to ones's destination. Now hard to imagine given the Terminal's remarkable transformation.
I wonder if they will be able to compete with WP's unfabulousness.
While WP is committed to doing good at a fair price must it come at the cost of a family run business that has held it's ground at Grand Central for generations?
They held on through some very grim times in Grand Central when the station was a place to scurry through as quickly as possible to ones's destination. Now hard to imagine given the Terminal's remarkable transformation.
I wonder if they will be able to compete with WP's unfabulousness.
While WP is committed to doing good at a fair price must it come at the cost of a family run business that has held it's ground at Grand Central for generations?
49
I'm sure this family run business is just swell so they need to up their game. Americans just love the competitive free market until they don't.
2
Give me a break. This is America. Merely because a family began a business in GrandCentral first, should they now have a monopoly on eyewear there? If they provide 'personal service,' and if customers value this, they may well outlast the new competition. If the newcomers prevail, then the market has obviously spoken, and approved. That's life.
7
WP can afford Grand Central rent rates....wait until they have to make a profit.
Talk about missing the point! Glasses are a famously profitable product for manufacturers and retailers - the industry is controlled by a monopoly (Luxottica) that owns the rights to produce almost every fashion brand you've heard of, and as a result the mark-ups can be 10 times the manufacturing cost. That pair of Prada frames? Luxottica. Ralph Lauren? Luxottica. Ray Ban? Luxottica. As a result of the high base prices set by this monopoly, even independents like Moscot could sell eyewear for $250 at the low end (and often much more). And these prices do not even include the prescription - at a typical optometrist, that costs well over $100 for what is effectively a 10-minute exam.
Warby Parker broke this monopoly, through a savvy combination of technology and branding. A pair of chic-looking glasses is $100. An in-store exam is $75. Total price: $175. That’s why people are gravitating toward Warby Parker. And while I can’t blame Mr. Cohen (or any other optician) for reaping big profits for decades, the fact that he is being held up as a hapless victim of bourgeois taste is absurd and frankly disrespectful to all the people who have had to pay massive mark-ups for a simple and necessary product all this time. No one was preventing Mr. Cohen from instituting the Warby Parker model—after all, he had the infrastructure and expertise to do so. Instead, he decided to keep his margins high. Now he's been disrupted, and the NYTimes is telling a sob story. Spare me.
Warby Parker broke this monopoly, through a savvy combination of technology and branding. A pair of chic-looking glasses is $100. An in-store exam is $75. Total price: $175. That’s why people are gravitating toward Warby Parker. And while I can’t blame Mr. Cohen (or any other optician) for reaping big profits for decades, the fact that he is being held up as a hapless victim of bourgeois taste is absurd and frankly disrespectful to all the people who have had to pay massive mark-ups for a simple and necessary product all this time. No one was preventing Mr. Cohen from instituting the Warby Parker model—after all, he had the infrastructure and expertise to do so. Instead, he decided to keep his margins high. Now he's been disrupted, and the NYTimes is telling a sob story. Spare me.
483
Yes, the Luxottica monopoly and the consequent exorbitant cost of glasses is at the heart of the matter. WP offers an alternative which is not only affordable but does not feed the Luxottica beast. In many ways WP is the independent business here.
3
Cohen's service has deteriorated and is a poor example of old time optical stores. There is no quality control there. Better to focus on the non-franchise stores that dot the city, where frames may be expensive but the opticians and optometrists REALLY know how to fit glasses, how to make sure the lenses are properly centered in the frames and the prescriptions not over or under corrective as happened to me. There is real skill and experience involved and WB does not always provide it.
6
You have no idea what you are talking about and drink Warby Kool Aid that the industry is controlled by a monopoly....There are thousands of stores in the US that do not have any Luxoticca product...Safilo group did 1.5 billion euros last year .
They donate glasses in India...they are "sourced". You want to take a guess what it costs to donate a pair of glasses in India? 25 cents???
They donate glasses in India...they are "sourced". You want to take a guess what it costs to donate a pair of glasses in India? 25 cents???
This isn't a question of trendiness or style, it's an issue of convenience.
Warby Parker has an easy to use website, mails you multiple pairs to try on, and then sends you the pair you select. It was relatively painless when I ordered glasses two years ago, and looks like the process is similar today--when going to their site, it took two clicks to look at a page full of glasses available for their standard price.
By contrast, the Cohen's website is a mess. Clicking on a banner for "$99 Frames & Lenses" (the item most clearly competing with Warby Parker), I'm taken to a page that asks if I want to physically print out a coupon. That page offers no list of eligible glasses (though it does point out that it's only for "select" frames), and no way to order online. Going back to the homepage and clicking on "Products" and "Eyeglasses" takes me to a page that for some reason feels the need to explain that "Your Eyes Tell A Story". Again, no actual glasses, nothing useful. Looking at the brands of glasses they carry again, no ACTUAL glasses styles, just brand logos. After another few minutes on the site, I realize you can't order online--which is Warby Parker's main selling point-- and you can't even see images of what they're selling.
Cohen's seems to make it deliberately unpleasant to buy from them--not only do you have to actually go to their store during opening hours, but you can't research your options in advance. Sounds like a recipe for price gouging to me.
Warby Parker has an easy to use website, mails you multiple pairs to try on, and then sends you the pair you select. It was relatively painless when I ordered glasses two years ago, and looks like the process is similar today--when going to their site, it took two clicks to look at a page full of glasses available for their standard price.
By contrast, the Cohen's website is a mess. Clicking on a banner for "$99 Frames & Lenses" (the item most clearly competing with Warby Parker), I'm taken to a page that asks if I want to physically print out a coupon. That page offers no list of eligible glasses (though it does point out that it's only for "select" frames), and no way to order online. Going back to the homepage and clicking on "Products" and "Eyeglasses" takes me to a page that for some reason feels the need to explain that "Your Eyes Tell A Story". Again, no actual glasses, nothing useful. Looking at the brands of glasses they carry again, no ACTUAL glasses styles, just brand logos. After another few minutes on the site, I realize you can't order online--which is Warby Parker's main selling point-- and you can't even see images of what they're selling.
Cohen's seems to make it deliberately unpleasant to buy from them--not only do you have to actually go to their store during opening hours, but you can't research your options in advance. Sounds like a recipe for price gouging to me.
129
While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, I find it completely ridiculous that the Times has stooped to placing anti-Trump rhetoric in a totally unrelated article. Keep national politics out of an otherwise interesting piece about glasses retailers, please?
95
Oh, c'mon. This is Big City by Gina. This is her speaking from her perspective. And Trump is a tool.
5
I wear glasses with a strong prescription. The pair I had been wearing (purchased circa 2002) cost around $600 for frames and lenses. Warby Parker, 2013, high-index lenses and all, $130. They've been on my face every single day since then, so WP has my loyalty as long as they're in business.
189
I wear glasses with an even stronger prescription. Warby Parker only goes up to -10.00, so they won't make my -16.50 lenses. I can get non-designer frames at my local optometrist for $40 but thoseg-powered lenses start at $300...
2
This article really skims over what really matter to people nowadays, the price, quality, and customer service. I will risk the assumption that most people will opt to pay $100 for a solid pair of glasses, with lenses included, than spend out $400 plus for a similar looking pair. If there is a person that doesn't like how the store makes them feel, then I'm sure they can pay the huge difference to help them feel better.
Perhaps people should ask why they tolerated being gauged for so long?
Perhaps people should ask why they tolerated being gauged for so long?
119
They are similar looking, not necessarily similar quality. A Hyundai and Mercedes can look alike too. Why buy a Mercedes, they both work?
6
Sure, that's understandable. Personally, I will risk buying a solid piece of plastic with lenses for hundreds less at WP than at Cohens or the like. I will go out on a limb here and assume that we can judge the quality of a pair of glasses when we see, feel them, and wear them.
It also helps that I can return your purchase within a month, lenses and all.
It also helps that I can return your purchase within a month, lenses and all.
Non-optimal experiences with Cohen's gave me a permanent distrust of eyeglass stores. Good for Warby Parker, who have restored some of my trust. There would have been no room for Warby Parker if old-time eyeglass stores had been doing a better job for their customers.
112