Labs Listen to ECPs
This OLA-sponsored article looks at what ECPs want from their labs
By Alex Yoho, ABOM
At the recent OLA Annual Meeting, occurring simultaneously with International Vision Expo West, the education program included a panel discussion regarding what ECPs want from their labs. It was an audience consisting mostly of OLA members, all of whom were eager to understand their customers' needs and form better partnerships.
Moderated by Drake McLean of Dietz-McLean Optical in Texas, the panelists included: Bill Barber of Eye Optics Optometry Center, Elk Grove, Calif.; Robert Hill, OD, of Northwest Ohio Vision Center, Bryan, Ohio; Robert Hubsch of Metropolitan Eyecare, Chicago; Bob Royden of Village Eye Works, Phoenix, Ariz.; and Neil Sika, OD, who practices in Cleveland.
NUMBER OF LABS
The event opened with McLean asking, “How many labs do you use in your business?” Answers varied from two to eight, but most of the panelists have a primary lab or divide the majority of their business between two labs. The determining factor was a good relationship.
Discussing number of labs used, Royden says, “We typically use a couple of labs. It depends on the specialty of the lens and what we're looking for.”
When it comes to distinguishing one lab from another, Royden notes, “We use one lab specifically for our rimless work since they do such a great job on them with a high luster edge polish. They are good with our plus lenses, where another lab does a good job with our minus lenses.”
Hill uses the greatest number of labs. He explains, “We use eight different labs. One lab gets 90 percent of our business and then the other ones are dictated by insurance or we have to use that specific lab.”
Panelists (l to r) Bob Royden, Neil Sika, OD, Robert Hubsch, Bill Barber, and Robert Hill, OD, with moderator Drake McLean
| IMPACT OF CONSOLIDATION |
|---|
| The lab world is undergoing significant changes with larger organizations buying smaller labs. When asked what effect this has, all were willing to work with the situation and willing to trust the labs recommendations; but, as Robert Hubsch of Metropolitan Eyecare in Chicago puts it, ”It had better work.” Neil Sika, an OD practicing in Cleveland, adds that he understands these situations, but is sorry they can't do all the things they used to. BRANDS VS. TECHNOLOGY. On the other hand, according to Robert Hill, OD, of Northwest Ohio Vision Center in Bryan, Ohio, larger labs can offer the newer free-form options, so change can be good. Quality is the important thing, and, surprisingly, brand-specific products were not as important as quality and consistency. SPIFFS VS. LOWER PRICES. Larger organizations often offer spiffs to encourage sales. However, most of the panel did not want these offered to them or their staff. Hill suggests instead that a lower price would be better. |
| OUTSOURCING AND TURNAROUND |
|---|
| Bob Royden of Village Eye Works, Phoenix, Ariz, answers, ”It's the turn-around time that's a concern. If it's going to be delayed two to three days, we'd rather look at an in-house option.” That turn time could be a problem, and labs need to know that patients expect fast. Neil Sika, OD, who practices in Cleveland, explains that though he understands turn time, ASAP is important due to patient expectations. “Ideally, a free-form AR should take three to four days, while I promise five to seven. And, remember that patients count weekends no matter what we say.” Several of the panelists suggest that a call was in order on any delay. |
FACTORS IN LAB SELECTION
The discussion also hit on the importance of issues that influence lab selection, with some interesting comments.
For example, though price is important, other factors significantly outweigh discounts.
■ X-FACTOR. “Quality, service, and price—if you don't have those, I won't even talk to you,” Hubsch says. “Beyond that, there is an ‘X-factor.’ What's an X-factor? Communication is important and just putting the whole package together that runs smoothly is important. We try to cooperate with the labs, working with them in such a way that will make their business run better and more smoothly,” he adds.
■ COMMUNICATION. Requirements include such things as quality, service, and price, but communication is what cements the whole package. Barber agrees, noting that a customer service department that can communicate well is key.
■ CONSISTENCY. The thread of consistent quality ran through the discussion. Though warranties are an influencing factor to some on the panel, others are not as concerned.
■ RELATIONSHIP. A good relationship with the lab is an influence in deciding on a lab, Sika says.
“I think all labs, big or small, will provide product and price to a certain extent. What I'm looking at is what kind of relationship do you develop with me because the other things will follow,” he adds.
Product warranty also enters into his decision, but as these two subjects intertwine, it boils down to making the patient happy as the bottom line.
■ EXTRA EFFORT. All of the panelists understand the business ramifications to labs when they have to stretch to take care of a problem situation, but making that extra effort when the ECP is facing the patient on the front line really makes a difference and is appreciated.
■ EDUCATION. Moving the conversation away from the traditional product relationship between ECP and lab (e.g., lenses, frames, contacts, and cases), McLean's panelists all noted that education is valued. From a knowledgeable customer service department to face time with lab personnel for staff training, the ability of a lab to impart knowledge is paramount to a lab attaining the aforementioned X-factor status.
■ PROBLEM SOLVING. Hill affirms that service and the ability to solve problems is based on a lab's knowledge and can really set ECPs apart from the competition.
“We're in customer service, too, and we have to give the patients what they want. There are certain restraints involved, but you'll do anything to make a patient happy. I think it just goes down the line and I'm sure most labs will do anything to make an ECP happy. We understand labs will have restrictions for us, but I guess what they need to have is the same type of restrictions we have,” Hill says.
| FIRING A LAB |
|---|
| Dietz-McLean Optical's Drake McLean didn't pull any punches when he asked, “Have you ever fired a lab and why?” Most had never completely given up on a lab, but have instead cut back if quality went south after communicating their concerns. If there's an issue, Bill Barber of Eye Optics Optometry Center, Elk Grove, Calif., says he pays close attention to the next three to five jobs coming in. Robert Hubsch of Metropolitan Eyecare in Chicago adds, “I always give them the opportunity to come back. I try to remain friends with them.” Losing that face time with a lab might also cause a transfer to another source. |
AR, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND MORE
When asked why AR isn't selling better, Sika replies, “Shouldn't we always be offering the option?” He adds, “Old AR was bad and we are still dealing with that, but newer ones are better and education on them is getting better, so it should improve.”
Considering what else could labs help with, aid in utilizing social media would be a good thing, Royden and Sika note, suggesting perhaps labs could supply content.
The ECPs' opinions reflect the way things are moving, and it will be interesting to see how labs respond. All in all, this was a great discussion, leaving both OLA lab members and ECPs with a better understanding of the ins and outs of our business. It also left them with a renewed dedication to the partnerships that both value so much. EB
To learn more about the OLA, visit ola-labs.org.
![]({"src":"/media/5j3kza0i/112011.jpg","focalPoint":null,"crops":[{"alias":"thumbnail","width":1110,"height":700,"coordinates":null}]})