Brand bordello for the four-eyed

It’s been at least 15 years since I’ve had to buy new glasses.  A happy contact lens person, I keep glasses around mostly for lazy mornings.   But I freshened my prescription recently and stepped out into the brave new (to me) world of eyewear.

It was, shall we say, eye-opening.

At the top: Sensible luxury

At a high-end store recommended by a stylish friend, I found exactly what you might expect from a top-of-the-line marketer.  This included  (surprise!) extremely expensive frames: maybe $400 for the cheapest.  Brand-wise, it was largely a mix of elite global fashion/accessory names like Prada and Tag Heuer along with eyewear-specific brands like Alain Mikli and Bellinger.  A boutique atmosphere, it offered ample but not overwhelming choice and emphasized personal attention and service.  Textbook marketing, and a very pleasant experience.

Elsewhere: Brand bordello

The rest of the market appears to be tawdry licensing in extremis.  Where else might you find side-by-side the brands Sophia Loren and Ducks Unlimited?  Catherine Deneuve and Seiko?  Dolce & Gabbana and Levi’s?  Versace and New Balance?  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen in one place such a strange and slightly desperate-seeming brew of brands as I did at both local (Cambridge Eye Doctors) and national retailers (ForEyes, Costco).

The left-brain marketer in me says: this is an opportunity area!  Trends as disparate as aging boomers, geek chic and personal expression/branding would make eyewear a growing market.  Licensing creates opportunities for brands of all kinds: has-been brands can prolong their franchise a little longer at low cost, while robust brands can gain additional revenue and share-of-customer.

The right-brain marketer in me says: Ouch! What a horrible thing to do to a brand. This is a tacky, wacky slugfest at best.  If ever there were a category with negligible opportunities for differentiation, this is it. Not to mention consumer overwhelm.  Acres of nearly identical merchandise tarted up with an indiscriminate brand name.  What’s next: Dunkin’ Donuts? Broyhill? Why not Verizon Wireless?  At least their iconic can-you-hear-me-now ad guy is strongly associated with glasses!

Meanwhile, the potential glasses buyer in me says: yeesh.

I’m torn between just grabbing some $79 special and fleeing to the expensive arms of the elite boutique.  Do I want value?  Do I want quality, service and the potential for self-expression?  Do I dare to eat a peach?  Mostly, I want out: I don’t want so many slightly debauched faux choices, or for this to be so complicated.  I think my new prescription is good for two years: if I end up buying a pair, I’ll let you know.

Will they still respect you in the morning?

Meanwhile, will Prada’s image be tarnished by shrill discounting (Their price $4xx, Our price only $3xx!) and placement near low-end Stetson aviators in the chain stores?  Will the Kenneth Cole brand be enhanced as a “2pairs for $99” option?  Will serious runners view New Balance shoes the same way after seeing the brand name on bargain frames?  Time will tell.

Eyewear retailing is a Morning After environment–perhaps the starkest, but it’s not the only one.  Incremental revenue is one thing, but brands who license indiscriminately may not look the same in the cold light of day.