Work help
 

Please give me your opinion.
I've been presenting my lens design and treatment products in "good/better/best" categories for many years, but I find that those adjectives don't work well anymore. How do you feel about these descriptors?

basic/premium/deluxe
level 1/level 2/level 3
Older/recent/new

Any other suggestions?

bassic/premium/deluxe/suuuper-duuuuuper

older/recent/new means style or fashion to me. It doesn't speak to quality, so I wouldn't use that one.

But this raises a question. What exactly are you ranking? Price? Quality of build? Durability? Trendiness/fashion?

Oh, wait. I see you aren't talking about frames. You're talking about lenses.

Many stores are now using Good/Better/Best
But that has been going on for so long that it's about time for a change.

Maybe something like: value/choice/superior

We use the precious metals on our menu.

Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze. That might confuse your customers, though..

How about:

Diamond, Ruby, Emerald?

What are you describing? The quality, bells/whistle, durability...
Is the only real difference the cost or ???

i'm with classicman on this one...

if your going for the generic then the olympic-style metal ranking is probably the most common knowledge, but what i am sure a lot of customers ask you is - what's the difference? in what way is "better" better then "good"?

Yeah, you need something to convince customers like me who hear: regular/ a little overpriced/ absolute scam

call them Mike, Phil and Brian

What do you mean that they don't work well? Sales falling off? Misunderstandings?

How about customizing it to the customer?

Segment it so relevant folks (based on your feel/knowledge) get sold to in fashion, quality, safety, budget, or the "compromise" positions. Same products, different framing.

Someone that spends a lot of time on their appearance gets fashion-oriented adjectives.

hobo/accountant/SUPERSTAR

That might hurt sales of the Hobo class glasses.

WAIT....... unless they were Hobo-chic....

Like Peter Faulk in Princess Bride

http://www.robertroope.com/wp-conten...YerShirtOn.jpg

Liking that. Maybe basic/choice/superior?
Brian? Bri-an? That's just messed up, man.;)
Then I'd have to kill anyone who chose hobo.

I'm focused (heh heh) on Progressive Addition Lens designs and anti-reflective coatings.
There are about 170 different PAL designs on the market. Some were designed in the seventies, are relatively inexpensive, have very distorted peripheries, and low user acceptance. Some are cutting edge technology, are relatively expensive, have a great amount of usable lens, and high user acceptance. And of course there are products between the extremes.
There are a couple dozen anti-reflective coatings. They all reduce reflection to less than 1%. Low end coatings fail easily (scratch, craze, haze, orange peel), are difficult to clean, attract dust, and smudge easily. Over the last 10 years, the industry has added improved scratch resistance, substrate matching (to reduce failure), a hydrophobic layer (to improve cleanability), an oleophobic layer (to resist smudging), and an anti-static treatment (to repel dust).
I verbally explain these features/advantages/benefits to patients, and I have visual aids to help them understand.

What prompted me is that there is now a brand new (year old) completely different method of making PALs, called digital or free form surfacing. PALs have traditionally had the near vision power molded on the front of the lens, and a patient's distance Rx was cut into the back surface of the lens using what amounts to a cup lathe. With digital lenses, the front surface is spherical, and the distance and near vision powers are cut into the back surface, one "pixel" or point at a time using what amounts to a router.

So now I have the traditional PAL categories of good, better, best, and digital/free from. But people ask "well if the best are the best, why are the digital lenses more expensive". And I have to start all over again.

Sorry for the long ass post.

bester? bestest?

Tall, Grande, Venti.