> Michael,

> Excellent observations about many, if not
> most, people's behavior, when it comes to
> dental and vision care. It's generally
> REactive -- and then, usually only when it's
> really bad -- rather than PROactive.

> I read your post just before leaving to see
> Tom, and I thought you had an interesting
> point about the ad, so I mentioned it to
> him. He disagreed -- we weren't targetting
> people who were functionally blind, after
> all! ;-> (Just f.y.i., the 5 symptoms
> given in the ad were Computer-related
> Eyestrain, Ghost Images or Trouble
> Focussing, Unusual Light-Sensitivity,
> Constant Scratchiness, and Floating Spots.)
> He makes a good point, too, though I
> wouldn't have so readily dismissed your
> observation (no pun intended). Who knows...?

It doesn't matter whether you were targeting legally blind people or not. And he can disagree all he likes. It won't change how people act...

A person with bad eyes - such as trouble focusing - will find it difficult to read. So they won't read. Thus, the people you are targeting will not see your ad.

Remember also, a person with bad eyes - such as trouble focusing - has probably lived with it for a long time. And may even know they have the problem. Yet, their actions show they would rather spend their money on other things than getting their eyes seen to. Possibly, they think, "I've lived with it for forty years already, it's too late to correct my eyes - or I can't be bothered."

Again, Tom can disagree if he wants. It will not change the behavior of these people and how THEY view their problem.

> Interesting suggestion about using flyers to
> get his name in front of people. I'll have
> to think this one over and discuss it with
> him.

Well, if 25% of people wear glasses - and I'm making this number up because I don't really know how many do - then a flyer drop will target 25% of potential customer. If another 25% have problems but don't wear glasses, then the flyer drop will target 50% of the potential market.

Because it's a low/no pressure marketing method, and will be viewed as a friendly note, response rates could be expected to be higher.

It's a low cost marketing method that is at least worth a test.

> One point of clarification about the
> subscription fee idea: is that fee for the
> "on call" service?

The fee is for whatever service he cares to offer under it - repairs, lense replacement, etc. The fee gives his customers priority service over all other customers.

> As for the cleaning fluid, I know he's
> mentioned it before, but I'm not sure how
> hard he pushes it.

If you're not sure, then he probably doesn't push it very hard.

> Thanks for chiming in, Michael. I was hoping
> you would.

Thanks, Chris. And from reading your response here and the "update," it would appear that he is not really that interested in pursuing a long term, effective campaign/system to increase his business. Too much resistance to everything other than a magic bullet "this one ad will bring me all the business I need."

Another thought: does he push fashion contact lenses and fashion frames?

Michael Ross