The Designer Frame Trap - Repost

This is a repost of an article originally published in the Optical Journal. Mark Graham makes a compelling, well-supported case for the points I aim to convey to brand partners, so I’ve kept it intact for sharing with our network.

Let me be clear: I’m not here to bash designer frame.

I’ve been in this industry since 1973. I’ve seen the rise of designer brands firsthand, how they revitalized frame sales when contact lenses threatened to wipe them out, and how they brought fashion, excitement, and higher price points into our dispensaries.

Designer brands serve a purpose. They meet a segment of consumer demand, and some patients will always love them, whether it’s in shoes, purses, or eyeglasses.

But as someone who’s spent over 50 years in this business, I think it’s time we pause and ask: At what cost? Yes, designer branding brought growth, but where did that growth go? To whom? Was it growth for independent practices… or for the large retailers who priced them better, promoted private-label alternatives, and chipped away at our capture rates?

This isn’t about being anti-designer. It’s about understanding the full picture, both the upside and the unintended consequences, so today’s ECPs don’t repeat the same mistake tomorrow.

Back in the early 70s, most frames were made in America. They carried factory brand names (Martin Copeland, Universal, Fairfield, Shuron, Art Craft, Bausch & Lomb, American Optical, Liberty), not fashion labels. And while they weren’t flashy, they were built to last.

But as contact lenses exploded in popularity, the industry panicked. Eyeglasses were at risk of becoming obsolete. The same panic that happened when LASIK became popular.

The solution? Turn frames into fashion. Enter: the designer brand.

Suddenly, frames weren’t just about function; they were about fashion. They became status symbols. Accessories. Extensions of personal style. That was good for the industry and good for the consumer.

And for a time, that strategy worked. Designer licensing revived the industry. Practices had something new to sell. And patients were willing to pay for it.

But We Stayed Too Long at the Party

We stayed too long at the party. The music was loud, the labels were shiny, and for a while, it all felt like success.

That’s when the absurdity really kicked in. More and more “designer” labels entered the market, many with no business being on a pair of glasses. I remember being pitched by licensors trying to license eyewear under names that sounded more like tech startups or novelty brands. The trade journals would celebrate these deals like they were groundbreaking. But all they did was inflate costs and further widen the price gap between independents and the big players who were smart enough to say, “No thanks.”

And just when you thought it couldn’t get more ridiculous…it became the theatre of the absurd. It was like a Broadway show no one asked for, starring frames no one needed, from brands no one respected.

But then the lights came up, and what was left was overpriced inventory, shrinking margins, and patients walking out the door to buy at the chains or, today, online.

Meanwhile, many independents just kept pushing the same designer brands. Brands that patients now see:

• On Amazon

• At LensCrafters

• In Costco, Walmart

• Online

• On TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram

• And at their local warehouse club

The result? Capture rates have dropped. Margins have eroded. And loyalty has shifted.

Here’s the Bigger Truth

Most of those designer frames? They’re made in China. Even the ones with Italian names and European mystique. Yep, you paid for the name and not the frame. And, while you were doing that, your competitors were creating their own names and... NOT PAYING FOR IT.

Patients may not understand the full global supply chain… But they’re smart enough to wonder: “What exactly am I paying for?”

Designer Brands Aren’t the Problem. Dependency Is.

I’m not here to bash designer frames. They helped save this industry once. But over-relying on them today is doing the opposite.

You don’t own the label. You don’t control the pricing. And when your dispensary looks the same as your competitors’, the patient walks.

Private-Label Isn’t a Trend. It’s a Strategy.

Designer brands will always have a place, but they should no longer define your optical. Your practice should. Your story should. Your brand should.

Private-label frames:

• Aren’t prices compared online

• Can’t be bought down the street

• Offer higher margins, higher capture, and more loyalty when presented the right way

• What worked for us in the 80s won’t work for you now. The rules have changed.

Build your own story. Use designer brands to complement, not define, your offering. And protect your margins with inventory that belongs to you, not a licensing deal.

Final Thought

As I said in the beginning, over 50 years. I’ve seen the shifts. I’ve lived through the cycles. And I’ve watched too many good ECPs lose control of their frame boards and their patients by relying too heavily on someone else’s name.

So before you keep restocking the same brands that your patients can find anywhere else… Ask yourself: Whose business are you really building?

Wanna know more about private-label?

And as Paul Harvey would say… now you know the rest of the story. Good day.

The link to the original post: https://www.opticaljournal.com/the-designer-frame-trap/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-designer-frame-trap&utm_term=2025-11-10