597. Why Do Your Eyeglasses Cost $1,000? | Freakonomics Radio

A single company, EssilorLuxottica, owns so much of the eyewear industry that it’s hard to escape their gravitational pull - or their “obscene” markups. Should regulators do something? Can Warby Parker steal market share? And how did Ray-Bans become a luxury brand? (Part one of a two-part series.)
FOLLOW FREAKONOMICS RADIO:
KZbin: freak.ws/3yIl6dl
Apple Podcasts: freak.ws/3yAvQh0
Spotify: freak.ws/3TsdCmV
ABOUT FREAKONOMICS RADIO:
Discover the hidden side of everything with host Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of the Freakonomics books. Each week, Dubner speaks with Nobel laureates and provocateurs, intellectuals and entrepreneurs, and various other underachievers to uncover things you always thought you knew (but didn’t) and things you never thought you wanted to know (but do) - from the economics of sleep to the future of education, from markets for marriage to the surprising utility of wolves.
ABOUT THE FREAKONOMICS RADIO NETWORK:
Freakonomics began as a book, which led to a blog, a documentary film, more books, a pair of pants, and in 2010, a podcast called Freakonomics Radio. Hosted by Stephen J. Dubner, it’s one of the most popular podcasts in the world, with a reputation for storytelling that is both rigorous and entertaining. Its archive of more than 500 episodes is available, for free, on any podcast app, and the show airs weekly on NPR stations. Freakonomics Radio is now the flagship show of the Freakonomics Radio Network, which includes the podcasts No Stupid Questions, People I (Mostly) Admire, and The Economics of Everyday Things.
FREAKONOMICS RADIO NETWORK PODCASTS:
Freakonomics Radio: freakonomics.c...
No Stupid Questions: freakonomics.c...
People I (Mostly) Admire: freakonomics.c...
The Economics of Everyday Things: freakonomics.c...
Special series: freakonomics.c...
CONNECT WITH US:
[e-mail]
/ freakonomics
/ freakonomics
/ freakonomics
/ freakonomicsradio
/ freakonomics-media
Subscribe to our newsletter: eepurl.com/bKm0cf

[@nunyabidness117]

I have a simple prescription and was able to buy 3 pair with wire frames online for $110. As always the best way to keep prices low is a competitive capitalist market. I am sure some people won't buy glasses unless they are under $1000.

[@skells8609]

I don't watch podcasts but since I read freakonomics and eyeglass prices is a interesting subject I did listen for once. I have been buying eyeglasses online for many years and it's great, my eyes is not straightforward, I need progressives and have astigmatism. I don't like constantly hearing disparaging remarks about seniors ability to do things online and our ability to use computers. I'm very able to use computers and I've been a senior for a long time

[@hughdalton7622]

Awesome. You're the exception, (you're exceptional!) not the rule.

[@allanknox8216]

Two words: Zenni Optical.

[@joethecomputerguy1]

Mine don't. They cost $140 for 2 pair. Shop around people.

[@santavigrahadasa4866]

I stopped buying brand name frames. I had a nice pair of Oakley frames that I kept and just changed the lenses when I needed and the last time I did, even with insurance I was out of pocket for over $1000TT($150usd approx). That was the last straw. I bought my last pair from a company called Zenni Optical. I got a titanium frame and progressive lenses with the add ons and it cost me about $170usd and I got most back from my Insurance. I’m up for a new prescription soon and I’m going back to them.

[@jeffreycuray81963]

Those guys are my go to with "Yes" as my second most of Yes's frames are no more than 60 and they have a lot more actual selection of small round frames which I like that might be able to hide my coke bottle lenses..yikes still might run me about 250 because of the lenses..maybe VSP still will kick in, but I have to submit the claim myself four years later "now they're out of network"... conveniently..🙄

[@optidave1313]

Yes, please do your research. Small businesses and businesses owned by Essilor/Lux are two different things. Private practices are not making the massive profits like they are talking about in the episode. Plus, their overhead is not assured like the stores owned by E/L parent company.

[@nunyabidness117]

I think anti-trust action against luxury goods just because they have a high profit margin is pointless.

[@freemason4979]

the biggest monopoly is the state

[@GetSicRiCH]

3:53 *RUDiMENTARY* 🙏🤣💭 _my brother _*_RUDY_*_ recommended this podcast._

[@luvirini]

Mine presciption classes cost 29 euro/pair including lenses. . Why would anyone pay 1000?

[@jeffreycuray81963]

Believe me I'm not..and won't..even with insurance..

[@StephenPoor]

> cites a biden appointee > wants to be taken seriously on economic issues Pick one.

[@fritzbang4805]

It's become a scam business. You don't have to pay those prices.

[@roverdover4449]

I never really thought about glasses as being expensive. Mine aren't. Love this channel but this story seems a bit of a stretch.

[@sirrickthe2nd583]

You can get 2 pairs for $60. What are you talking about?

[@chanterellebreakfast]

Tim Wu did not pass the A.R.E. & is not an architect.

[@ytqclys]

I see frames from Lenscrafters for under $40. Does it make sense to call monopoly when people have a much more reasonably priced alternative? Fashion is a form of art. Is it a monopoly that a composer has the exclusive right to sell their product? Seems like another case of subtle Leninist vanguard thinking, that people must be protected against their own tendency to submit to the power of the wealthy.

[@CountJeffula]

You don’t have access to all the information though. If you walk into the expensive shop, they will lie to your face about their great deals and discounts and try to get you to buy today. If it was run like the Nasdaq, that would make more sense. The root issue is that these companies aren’t actually innovating, but rent seeking. They would seek to do less if they could. There is no incentive to improve. They’ve used economies of scale to corner the market, not lower production costs. Their uncompetitive behavior results in an inefficient allocation of scarce resources.

[@jm7974]

@@CountJeffula That's what you get for flocking into the expensive shop with the rest of the sheeple. Nobody can protect you from your own bad decisions, nor should they. $79 for two pairs advertises on tv. People are aware, at least if they want to be.

[@CountJeffula]

@@jm7974 I don’t even wear glasses. Your assertion that it’s bad decisions doesn’t address my concern about informational disparity. There comes a point where sales tactics eventually become predatory. The average consumer makes fairly rational decisions in the supermarket, but somehow becomes a total moron when buying glasses is what you’re suggesting. Well, why? Because they are being manipulated very heavily to purchase those expensive glasses. They are told that they are expensive everywhere and that their lenses are premium and built custom to order when in fact they are just mass produced in the same places as the others and the lenses are ground and fitted. I get what you mean about people being vigilant. People should always request specific questions about performance instead of opinion based questions. Instead of asking, “which ____ is best,” ask, “which features does _____ possess?,” or, “how does that feature work and how will it help me in my unique circumstance?” The problem is similar to luxury fashion house goods. If you buy an Italian made purse, you expect to be funding an artisan. You don’t really expect the company to do the absolute bare minimum to say made in Italy while doing most everything else in a cheaper labor market. You would feel differently about your purchase if made aware of all the lobbying and behind the scenes influence to morph the word assembled into made.

[@jm7974]

@@CountJeffula en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

[@DF-ss5ep]

Doesn't pass the smell test. 5B in profit and there are no competitors? Explain that first before calling for regulation.

[@Ek_LA]

Explain Google.

[@cecinestpasuncompte]

This gives voice to flimsy opinions not even supported by research or numbers. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXLIeah6mN6SmLssi=G5l2c7aeuPstU9qZ was done better. The worst part is that the subject of the ills of monopolies is so important to explain and so deserving of understanding by the general public. Subjects like environmental impacts of productions, human impacts, consumer choice, geographic scarcity of offerings, consolidations of practices by financial groups purely based in America are just a few items that should be factored in explanations. Classic finger pointing in one direction to benefit another group of thieves called Warby Parker. Freakonomics, where is economics in your demonstration? Oh and planes not being that different today than in the 60’s ?!!! I think this piece is more what an initial focus group sounds like to start answering questions.

[@CountJeffula]

The planes aren’t that different. That’s why the Boeing Max planes crashed. Instead of redesigning the plane, they thought they could, “fix it in post,” with MCAS software even though they significantly altered the flight and stall dynamics by installing larger engines.

[@cecinestpasuncompte]

@@CountJeffula . 🤯🤷🏻‍♂️🤣