http://investor.oakley.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67365&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=874012&

shouldn't this be in oakley update ?

Sounds good and makes sense, I always wonderd why there were so many names for the same store owned by the same company. This is not really an oakley.com update, but really is just a General oakley topic.

Sounds good to me; go get 'em* boys.

*(Luxottica)

It also makes sense to me, was always wondering why there was all the other store names that never got under a same name at some point. A stronger brand name will be the result for sure.

I'm not sure I understand. Are all the brands offered in these multi brand stores owned or partially owned by Oakley?

No Tick, these stores are selling multi brands, including Oakley of course, under different names. The stores are owned by Oakley, but the brands can be anyones; Oakley, Luxotica (most Fasion Labels like Chanel) or other.
Marketing-wise it's much easier (and cheaper) to use the same name for all of those stores. Smart move!

Why does it concern investors then, if these stores aren't owned by Oakley & if they are owned by Oakley, why are the selling brands they don't own or partially own?

they are owned by Oakley. Under the subsidiary Iacon. These outlets do a TON of business for Oakley (since they are as well-stocked in terms of eyewear as O-Stores), that outshines they're having other brands. Neil works at one in Orlando that is one of the bigger Oakley retail spots in the country (if not the world) on the Disney Property.

Also, oakley makes money selling the maui jims and those other brands so why not? we make money selling our glasses and selling the competitions glasses so its win win to a degree. i mean some people just have to have thier "great" lenses made of glass and will stick to what they like, so we just make money off thier ignorance. =)

I am not sure if this is the place to post. I saw the following in another forum. I thought it was interesting that someone wrote the following. No offence intended but feel free to refute it.

"Actually, only fanatics buy Oakley and Oakley lenses. Other brands are actually just as good, if not better. Brands like Rudy Project, Tifosi, Maui Jim, even adidas are more value for money than Oakley. If you have money, tag heuer is way better.

I work in the optical industry and can honestly tell you that Oakley lenses as much as they would have you believe, do not have better optics than other brands. They are just very good at marketing and giving fancy names to thier process and material parts. Plutonite is basically just polycarbonate lenses which are treated with layers of hardcoat. Many companies exist which supply military equipment also can provide these polycarbonate lenses. Plano lenses are not calculated for wrap distortion in the industry, only RX lenses. Their XYZ optics is more a psychological thing. Vision is very sensitive to autosuggestions on the mind, if I tell you something is good what you see actually becomes clearer because your mind reinforces that. People who like Oakley thinks that only Oakley is good, so their mind shuts out other options.

Just to quote a few cases of Oakley's problems, their iridium lenses which is mirror coated with metal oxide is one of the worst by industry standards. The scratch easily compared to other brands. The reason is that the control for their mirror coating is not impressive. Other European companies can do thicker mirror coats much better with more vibrant colors. Note that Oakley always stress their impact protection, but these lenses are not produced exclusively for them or by them, many companies can do it, not just for the 102 mph test Oakley did but in actual bullet shots test. So called independent test on lenses cited are still affliated to Oakley in some way and in everyway American biased. These test can be easily manipulated. That is one reason why they cannot afford to give consumers warranty on lenses. If they are so good, why worry about giving a replacement guarantee like Rudy Project.

Another thing is that the frames also exhibit defect even when it's new. Take for example the X metal range, you will find that the gasket can be loose on one side and the other side is very tight. Also, I had to on many occasions help customers to add nylon strings between the lenses to stop them from moving in the frame. O matter frame once slightly scratched will start to peel off. The lenses will also peel off once the iridium coating is exposed to long period of sweat, salt water and sun.

I did a little experiment (blind test) on a so called die-hard customer once, he's got a collection of over 20 pairs of Oakley. Brought him outdoors and gave him a tray of 15 pairs of lenses to look through. Apparently, those he identified as protecting his eyes best and most comfortable are not Oakley!! To make it worse, he compared a pair I got from a pasar malam to being about the same quality as an actual Oakley lens.

My point is that you may want to be more open and consider what will give you the best comfort and protection and not be swayed by brand names and fanciful marketing. A lot of Oakley fans tend to look down on others and other brands so when you see one, you know a red flag coming. These people don't work in the industry and are usually brainwashed from the truth. "

'Pasar malam' literally means 'night market', if anyone's wondering. It's when we set up stalls at night and sell food stuffs and other cheap items.

pinkoakley , if you don't like oakley , why are you on this forum ?

Take for example the X metal range, you will find that the gasket can be loose on one side and the other side is very tight. Also, I had to on many occasions help customers to add nylon strings between the lenses to stop them from moving in the frame.

What other company has even attempted to make glasses like the x-metal line? Before I got bit in the arse by the Oakley bug i wore Randolph Engineering aviator glasses I owned 6 pairs, they scratched easily, the finish on the chrome glasses would peel, offered no perhiphial vision coverage and god help if you sweated on them, if you ever wore a flight helmet all you do is sweat in it, the ear stems would rust to the sides of your melon.

easy Fred, seems it's a quote from another forum, not his own thoughts.

as for some of the claims in the rant:
yes, there are better lenses than Oakley out there, but you must pay dearly for them. I'll always agree that zeiss lenses are the best I've ever tried. Maui's Rose lenses (glass or poly) are exceptional also. costa and kaenon also make pretty good budget polarized lenses.

can other companies make "impact resistant lenses"? of course. go into any industrial manufacturing facility and you'll see them on almost everyone. I bet even Oakley's own manufacturing facilities are littered with safety glasses.

lens warranties are rare in the industry. except for Rudy Project (which is a very small percentage of the market) I can't name another company that will warranty scratches. I find it more of a sales tool for a smaller company than a sign of a better product.

while we at the O-Review are known to look down on other brands, it's usually for good reason. a lot of memebers have respect for other "respectable" brands (like Maui). but fashion brands like Lux's and budget brands that aren't so great (Nike, Adidas, Spy, Electric, and so many others) don't cut it.

Plano lenses are not calculated for wrap distortion in the industry, only RX lenses. Their XYZ optics is more a psychological thing. Vision is very sensitive to autosuggestions on the mind, if I tell you something is good what you see actually becomes clearer because your mind reinforces that.

That's a bit much, isn't it? If the lenses were just curved without accounting for wrap wouldn't they distort horribly? The bit about his little experiment doesn't prove much to me.
Finally, it's a cheap shot to say Oakley made up test results. The whole rant is basically "Oakley lies." If you wanna critique the O, go ahead, but these claims aren't supported very well.

The story as I know it...

1) Oakley sues Luxotica over patent infringements.
2) Luxotica owns Sunglass Hut.
3) Sunglass Hut says that it will no longer carry Oakley products.
4) Worried about not having a reatil outlet in which to sell projduct, Oakley buys a small existing retail chain. This becomes Iacon.
5) Oakley and Luxotica reach an out of court settlement.
6) Sunglass Hut continues carrying Oakley.
7) As part of settlement, Sunglass Hut gets some "exclusive" colorways.

Kingphilbert may be able to correct any of my mistakes, or offer any more insight.

I've heard from several sources that the testing done by the defunct "Private Pilot" magazine is paid for and sponsored by Oakley so that the tests all skew in favor of Oakley. I find it odd the selection of frmaes used, which doesn't help matters. A Sq. Wire seems to have better odds of winning a distortion test versus some of the high curve competition.

Regardless, until an independent 3rd party can prove that Oakley lenses are scientifically better, I'll continue to use my personal judgement and consider the tests a marketing gimmick.

I work in the optical industry and can honestly tell you that Oakley lenses as much as they would have you believe, do not have better optics than other brands.

Funny, I used to work in the optical industry myself - as an optician, so I might know a little about optical stuff - and can only laugh about the above quote.

A Sq. Wire seems to have better odds of winning a distortion test versus some of the high curve competition.

Square Wire is also a base 8 lens!

american image: As pointed out by BrianJ1888, these aren't my thoughts. I copied from another forum. I thought it was an interesting write up and I didn't know how to refute it. I copied it here to see the thoughts of everyone and get a better idea/judgement myself.

Let me put it this way. Any company that has attained a level of admirable success will always have haters. There are always people who prefer pepsi to coke. Growing up, we had a Walmart hate group that made lives difficult for many in our community, including and especially my old man who works there. At night, we would get smashed bottles strewn all over our lawn as a sign of protest. Some of these people works for competitors or are in some way overlooked by Walmart's business decisions.

It's not easy running a tight ship and often times decisions are made that would adversely affect a minority. Oakley is just one of those many companies. Perhaps their CS has angered certain retailers or it could be an employee from a competition.

Do I think that there are better lenses out there, Yes. And I also don't wish to discredit worthy competitors of Oakley but a lot of firms follow a cat chasing mouse competition in design - Too many similar types. Oakley has a team of world class designers churning out some of the best designs ever known, each piece would be considered a fine artwork. Their RX lenses are tops in an industry where many practitioners are still struggling to account for distortion on a curved lens. Bottomline is that I am very pleased with my Oakley and it too has not failed me. People can drink their pepsi, I will stick to Coke.

Their XYZ optics is more a psychological thing. Vision is very sensitive to autosuggestions on the mind, if I tell you something is good what you see actually becomes clearer because your mind reinforces that.

The last time I checked they don't let you patent autosuggestions.

My friend thinks my fascination with Oakley is silly but he's respectful of it. He buys all these bike oriented brands such as Tifosi, Serfas, Specialized, & Smith but when I show him my newest pair he almost always says "god, these are nice lenses" I'll break him one day & he'll be all O! Muahahaha!
PS Strake is right, Coke is the best!

PS Strake is right, Coke is the best!

columbian , or good ol' US

About f***ing time. I'm getting real tired of explaining why all our other stores are called something other than Sunglass Icon.

Anyway, to add the original story here the current "concepts" are going to be kept in some form. Existing Occhiali da Sole (the high-end Iacon concept) will become "Sunglass Icon Fashion" or somesuch and continue carrying the normal Safilo/Lux/Marchon designer junk (see Chanel, Gucci, Juicy Couture, and so on) along with the O, naturally. Sporting Eyes will become "Sunglass Icon Sport", and so forth.

Carrying Luxottica products, specifically, while IMHO undesirable, is really hard to avoid if you want to run a profitable sunglass retail company. Ray-Ban, for example, whatever we think of them, have a phenomenally well-established brand image and at least until the baby-boomers are no longer big spenders, they'll have a massive market share.

Also, a good reason we carry non-affiliated brands is because most customers don't come into a sunglass store looking for Oakley, per se, any more than the average customer walks into a record store expecting that every CD will be from the same record company.

Otherwise, all the Iacon stores- we're a little over a hundred, now- would have been retrofitted as O stores by now.

Carrying other stock, perhaps counterintuitively, makes it a lot easier to promote Oakley eyewear. Say you're a Ray-Ban fan, and you walk into a sunglass store. If you ask for Ray-Bans and the store doesn't carry them, what are you going to think when the salesperson suggests that Oakleys are a better product anyway? Obviously, you're going to assume that the seller is attempting to lure you away from Ray-Ban because otherwise they're not going to make a sale.

If I do it, on the other hand, after showing them to our (sadly quite large) Ray-Ban rack, the assumption will be that I'm genuinely trying to interest them in a better product- naturally providing I don't start out with, say, a Romeo 2. If I do my job correctly, and get that customer into a pair of Oakleys, they'll come back for more- and probably many more.

Frankly, that's Iacon's biggest value to Oakley- marketing. While we're the second-largest sunglass retailer in the US, SGH dwarfs our retail volume. 'Course, SGH has no interest in promoting Oakley, other than to people who were going to buy them anyway.

I suppose I should also mention again- if any of you find yourselves in the Orlando (specifically Disney World) area, feel free to stop by. I'm usually at the store, and I'll always make time for a fellow Review-er.

I always wondered what the deal was with them. Thanks yall for clarifying all this up.