Started By
Message
locked post

Meet the Four-Eyed, Eight-Tentacled Monopoly That is Making Your Glasses So Expensive

Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:47 am
Posted by Boatshoes
Member since Dec 2017
6775 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:47 am
Forbes Link

"...Meet the four-eyed, eight-tentacled monopoly that is making your eyeglasses so darned expensive. Luxottica estimates that at least half a billion people around the world are currently wearing their glasses. I don’t know about you, but I am pushing them up my nose right now.

Luxottica controls 80% of the major brands in the $28 billion global eyeglasses industry. This monopolistic structure of the market leads to profits that are “relatively obscene,” says Tim Wu, a professor of law at Columbia University and the author of The Master Switch. In a speech given at this year's annual conference for New America, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, Wu remarks that products in some industries seem to only get better and cheaper -- laptops, for example -- while other products, like eyeglasses, remain strangely pricey, with only superficial innovation.

The difference is due to market structure. Because it controls so many prominent brands and retail chains, Luxottica is what economists call a price maker. That means it can set the price of its goods near the highest amount that consumers would be willing to pay for them, unlike more competitive industries, in which competition both encourages constant innovation and forces the price of goods down..."

Increasingly, our economy is moving towards a monopolistic/oligopolistic model where consumers are given no choice or only the illusion of it. This is a distortion of capitalism that must be fixed. An unwillingness to fix it is going to give socialism and communism an audience.

Another example is what has happened to the airline industry. The Sprint/Tmobile merger will bring the number of cell phone providers down to 3. Expect higher prices down the road. The rental car industry is another example:

Car Rental Companies Discover Mergers, and You're Going to Pay for It
While you weren't looking, Hertz and Avis followed the airline playbook to maximize profit.
LINK

There's nothing wrong with a company attempting to maximize profit, but when two competitors attempt to do so by deliberately trying to move the market to an oligopolistic or monopolistic model, that's a problem.
This isn't how any of this was supposed to work.

Some modest reform proposals:

- Make it illegal for workers and contractors to receive shares of stock as compensation.
- Make corporate M&A activity illegal as it directly reduces the number of competitors in any market sector.
- Start breaking up some of the monopolies that do exist in the market.

Self awareness is an important thing to have.
Posted by East Nasty Swaaaaag
Member since May 2019
1084 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:49 am to
Go to Blenders website or Shady Rays and save yourself a shite ton of money on decent sunglasses.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
37491 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:53 am to
quote:

Make it illegal for workers and contractors to receive shares of stock as compensation. - Make corporate M&A activity illegal as it directly reduces the number of competitors in any market sector. - Start breaking up some of the monopolies that do exist in the market.


Is government the only way to fix it?
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67482 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:55 am to
quote:

Luxottica

quote:

controls 80% of the major brands

That's not all they control; they control the optometrists, retail outlets, etc.
quote:

This monopolistic structure of the market leads to profits that are “relatively obscene,” says Tim Wu

Fact
Posted by AbuTheMonkey
Chicago, IL
Member since May 2014
8002 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:56 am to
quote:

- Make it illegal for workers and contractors to receive shares of stock as compensation.
- Make corporate M&A activity illegal as it directly reduces the number of competitors in any market sector.


This is AOC-level silly (and about as likely as the GND). If anything, we should encourage more equity ownership among workers, not less.

Enforcing existing anti-trust laws would be a better path. The market and pricing tests for this stuff is hopelessly outdated as well.
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
13356 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:59 am to
Its how they bought Ray Ban and Oakley, basically cut them out of their retail shops, then came back and asked "now ya wanna sell".

Its a shame this happened about a decade before online shopping or the strategy would not have worked.

RayBan was doing poorly already so it was easy, Oakley was thriving before they hosed them.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 5:59 am to
quote:

Make it illegal for workers and contractors to receive shares of stock as compensation.

You mean options or discounts?
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
37491 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:05 am to
So why didn’t Oakley open up their own retail stores?

Seems like if they were killing it they would have survived regardless. It also seems to me like that’s what happens when you become too dependent on a sole customer
Posted by coolpapaboze
Parts Unknown
Member since Dec 2006
15802 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:10 am to
I think they also own several, if not most, of the vision insurance companies as well. It's about as close to total vertical integration as you'll see in consumer goods.
Posted by Saint Alfonzo
Member since Jan 2019
22161 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:18 am to
How often do you buy glasses where the price is that much of an issue? What's a pair of glasses normally cost? Two or three hundred bucks? It's a legitimate question as I don't buy glasses from your typical mall optical shop so I have no idea.
Posted by Mid Iowa Tiger
Undisclosed Secure Location
Member since Feb 2008
18632 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:19 am to
quote:

Some modest reform proposals:

- Make it illegal for workers and contractors to receive shares of stock as compensation.
- Make corporate M&A activity illegal as it directly reduces the number of competitors in any market sector.
- Start breaking up some of the monopolies that do exist in the market.


Which of these are “modest”. That sounds like the government completely dictating to the markets similar to the USSR.

Profit is a good thing. There is nothing stopping someone from starting a competitor or disrupter in almost any market.

Hell Cab companies were about the most monopolistic businesses there were in certain cities and along cane Uber and then Lyft.

Don’t like the eyeglass market? Start a new company and go direct to consumer.

Your first suggestion would absolutely kill start-ups who often times compete on equity based compensations.

Your second point would mean many great business combinations (combinations already subject to government oversight) would not happen.

Your third suggestion just shows complete leftist ignorance.

In the words of Gordon Gecko - Greed is good.

quote:

Self awareness is an important thing to have.


Yes, yes it is. Perhaps you should practice it.
Posted by Sunbeam
Member since Dec 2016
2612 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:26 am to
A while back there were a few stories about a nifty set of eyeglasses that they were pitching to help the "Developing World."

Basically each eyeframe had a sort of flexible plastic lens. And each one had a small finger-pump thing where you could squeeze it and the internal hydraulics would change the focus point.

So you close one eye, squeeze the pump on the other till you can see good, then repeat for the other eye.

I'm sure every week or two you have to "pump up" again, but better than nothing. Plus you didn't have to worry about getting a prescription or changing glasses when that changed.

Anyone ever hear anything else about this?
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
13356 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:30 am to
quote:

So why didn’t Oakley open up their own retail stores?


Hmm I guess the same reason wildcatters did not build their own refineries and railroad companies and lock out Rockefeller and Vanderbilt???

Seriously, do you honestly think a store selling just Oakley sunglasses is feasible, it would be akin to baskin robbins offering only vanilla ice cream.
Posted by East Nasty Swaaaaag
Member since May 2019
1084 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:33 am to
A pair of Oakley’s can set you back 200. I kept scratching the lenses despite keeping them in a cover. I don’t think the durability is like it used to be when they were independent. So frick it I looked elsewhere and bought a few Blenders shades. Holding up way better at a fraction of the Oakley’s cost.
Posted by GetBackToWork
Member since Dec 2007
6254 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:43 am to
There already exists methods to control the formation of monopolies. Luxottica is a pretty terrible example of a company using predatory behavior, and I'm surprised it hasn't faced regulatory pushback. Some on this board seem to think any and all actions are fair game - this is wrong. You can't make contracts with shipping companies to deny your competitors access to markets, for instance. The FTC reviews most major mergers to ensure fair competition or market appropriate share still exists. There isn't often universal agreement on all its decisions, but a structure exists.

Banning M&A and eliminating stock options is bizarre. Economies of scale is real and benefits consumers. Monopoly is bad and harms them, unless the choice is monopoly or nothing. Then they get regulated. Arguing that Luxottica is good for consumers is nonsense.
Posted by Saint Alfonzo
Member since Jan 2019
22161 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:44 am to
quote:

A pair of Oakley’s can set you back 200. I kept scratching the lenses despite keeping them in a cover. I don’t think the durability is like it used to be when they were independent. So frick it I looked elsewhere and bought a few Blenders shades. Holding up way better at a fraction of the Oakley’s cost.


I'm blind as a bat so I can't buy off the rack sunglasses. I would still need to put prescription lenses in them or wear contacts. And I haven't worn contacts in years. The last pair of sunglasses I bought were $600 for the frames plus another $350 to put lenses in them.
Posted by Huge Richard
Member since Dec 2018
3743 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:47 am to
Eyebuydirect or Zenni.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89511 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:50 am to
quote:

I don’t think the durability is like it used to be when they were independent.


I can't disagree with this.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134860 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:56 am to
quote:

$28 billion global eyeglasses industry

That seems pretty low for a global industry
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
37491 posts
Posted on 8/19/19 at 6:58 am to
Not just Oakley sunglasses no, but why not try and get dealership/distributor-ships to academy, dicks, hell anywhere?

They didn’t have to sell is what I’m getting at
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram