While researching “giveaway” marketing strategies recently, I found a web site (EveryDayLifeToday.com) promoting a wide range of attractive free prizes.  Superficially, the site seemed legitimate, but it’s now clear that it’s a scam.

First, let’s look at why most folks would initially consider it legitimate:

• The site includes a Privacy Policy.
• There is a “Contact Us” page which lists a street address, an email address, and the names of three editorial staffers.
• There are “Official Rules” for their sweepstakes, with fixed deadlines for each drawing.
• They promise that winners will be listed after the drawing.
• There’s a page inviting prospective advertisers to contact them.
• Rotating third-party advertisements appear on the site.
• Most prizes identify recognized national brands (Apple, Sony, Wal-Mart, Ikea, Schwinn, DeLonghi, Home Depot, etc.), and some of the prizes are modest-value tangible items with limited appeal.
• Searches for phrases like “everydaylifetoday.com scam” bring up no negative results (until this blog post was picked up by Google).

But that’s all superficial stuff. Here are some warning signs:

• Their sweepstakes entry forms remain active long after the listed deadlines;
• They never actually list any winners (not even vague references like “John S. of New York”).
• The email address listed on their “contact us” and “advertising” page is invalid (emails to that address “bounce”).
• The phone number listed in their “WHOIS” domain registration record is invalid.
• There is no clear business name (corporation, LLC, etc.).
• The site’s business model is unclear (where do they get revenue?).
• The street address listed is a multi-tenant office building, but no suite or office number is listed. One of the tenants is an “executive suite/virtual office” company.
• The entry form doesn’t include safeguards against abuse (such as a “captcha” verification code).
• All of the rotating third-party advertisements that appear on the site appear to come from a single dubious advertising network.
• The site appears to have evaded detection by “credibility tools” like McAfee’s SiteAdvisor.

Is this is a scam? It sure looks like it.

What are they gaining from this scam? I don’t know. They ask for a name, email, and mailing address (a combination of data that’s useful for “data mining” and other marketing purposes), but they don’t ask for a birthdate or telephone number, nor for gender, age, birthdate, income levels, or interests (as many other giveaways seek). And the omission of a “captcha” verification probably means that they’re being flooded with bogus data and entries from automated tools (and other scammers).

It’s possible that this is just someone’s “pipe dream” business, created on a whim with the hopes of finding a way to make a profit.  It doesn’t appear to be an “orphan site,” since there are new giveaways being posted (though they might have been queued up many months or even years in advance), and eventually some of the “completed” giveaway links disappear.

Most likely, the entire site is just “bait” to attract people to click on the paid advertising.

Now what? What can anyone do about this? I’ve notified the dubious third-party advertising network whose ads appear on the site, but otherwise there’s really nothing left to do.

Unless, of course, we call this scam to the attention of “the right people” who have a motivation to protect their companies’ reputations. But how can we do that? Perhaps some of the right people will find this article: Apple scam, Sony scam, Wal-Mart scam, Ikea scam, Schwinn scam, DeLonghi scam, Home Depot scam, Nespresso scam, Dyson scam, Bulova scam, Sharp scam, Quattron scam, MacBook scam, Apple fraud, Sony fraud, Wal-Mart fraud, Ikea fraud, Schwinn fraud, DeLonghi fraud, Home Depot fraud, Nespresso fraud, Dyson fraud, Bulova fraud, Sharp fraud, Quattron fraud, MacBook fraud.

I’ve had the same business telephone number for 17 years.  Four years ago, I switched it from a regular business telephone line, to instead ring to my cell phone.  Last week, my wife and I decided to change phone service.

We switched to another cell-phone company (cutting the monthly bill from more than $145 to less than $60 — with more minutes), but I decided to move my business phone number to a VOIP phone service (voice-over-IP, often called “internet phone service”).

My wife was able to complete the cell-phone transfer instantly at a retail store; within minutes, her incoming calls rang to the new phone.

My request to port my business number to a VOIP service was handled very differently.

I submitted the order and authorization to the new carrier, which submitted the porting request to AT&T on Tuesday. The next day, AT&T advised my new carrier that the number was scheduled to port on August 19 (one week later).

However, AT&T immediately suspended my cell-phone service, without warning.

Now, prospective clients and employers who call my number hear a message that “This number is not accepting calls at this time” (which they’ll reasonably interpret to mean, “service was suspended for non-payment”).  I think it’s probably illegal, and certainly unethical, but there’s no practical action I can take to stop it. AT&T already knows that it’s lost my business, so it perceives no benefit from restoring my service or accelerating the “porting” process.

I already knew that about the interesting business conspiracy among the major cell-phone carriers, who have agreed to permit “instant porting” of phone numbers among their companies, but for all other phone number transfers they will only process the changes at the slowest possible rate that the law allows. But I never expected that they’d take special steps to punish customers porting to VOIP phone services, by disabling my phone number during the intentionally-delayed process.

AT&T has disabled my business phone for a week, as punishment for my attempt to switch to VOIP phone service. I will never again do business with AT&T.

Sometimes it’s designed to force customers to spend more money to buy upgrades, even if customers don’t need any new features.  However, there’s also a reasonable limit to how long a company can be expected to train its staff to work with customers using older software versions (often on antiquated computers and operating systems).

I understand the concept, and today I found an excellent “positive example” from the folks at WordPress: they announced that new versions of WordPress released after 2010 won’t work with older versions of PHP or MySQL. http://wordpress.org/news/2010/07/eol-for-php4-and-mysql4/

Of course, their announcement is entirely reasonable, in part because the changes don’t impose any financial burdens on anyone (all this software is completely free).  By requiring these newer versions of the software that WordPress relies upon, WordPress can provide better performance and more features without the cost of testing and adapting their code to work with older versions of those tools, and without the hassles of making certain features or capabilities available only to a subset of all users.

I’m more annoyed at companies like Microsoft and Dell, who proclaim that they won’t support products after a certain date.  I was especially upset at Dell, which essentially refused to provide support at any price for my Dell 5150/E510 computer, purchased in 2006, after the two-year warranty expired in 2008.  After re-installing the operating system due to a hard disk failure, I was unable to re-activate key features, including using the TV tuner card or DVR features. Dell flatly refused to provide support, even through its fee-based support programs.

Microsoft, to its credit, has sought to clearly define the “support lifetime” for each of its products, so that customers recognize that when they buy a computer or upgrade their operating system, they will cease to receive support from Microsoft (at any price) after about 5 to 7 years. (Of course, Microsoft itself won’t provide free technical support for its operating systems when pre-installed on computers.)

Recently, we bought a TiVo DVR and I was reminded of the absurdity of their “lifetime subscription option.”  You can choose to pay for the service monthly, annually, or with a one-time payment for a “lifetime subscription.” But although most consumers would expect that “lifetime” means “as long as the product works, including any hardware replacements under warranty,” TiVo’s definition is “whatever they may later choose to define as a product’s lifetime.” In other words, they might announce this autumn that the “lifetime” of the TiVo Series 2 (which I think has been available for almost a decade, though we only purchased ours last month) will end in 2011 or 2012, and then all those “lifetime subscriptions” will end.  And paying $300 for a “lifetime subscription” means nothing after the product’s hardware warranty expires (3 months standard, or 2 or 3 years with an extended service contract) — if the TiVo fails, your “lifetime subscription” ends, too.

For businesses, this represents a potential financial “trap,” especially if they operate their businesses using the standard depreciation periods imposed by the IRS (Publication 946, How to Depreciate Property), which assumes a 5-year depreciation period for “Computers and peripheral equipment.”  In fact, many computers and most peripherals will not remain in use for 5 years.  Your accountant can advise you on how to deal with this in your tax accounting, but from a business planning point of view, you should budget to replace most peripherals within 3 years, and to replace or upgrade most computers every 2 to 3 years.  In most cases, computer software will require expensive upgrades every 1 to 2 years.

A month ago, our two-year-old Kia Rondo was due for “scheduled maintenance” as required by the manufacturer to maintain our warranty. The dealership where we bought the car is out of business, so my wife took it to another nearby dealership, where we’d had “scheduled maintenance” done once before.

My wife was told that the “scheduled maintenance” would cost $600 to $700.  After much hesitation (since we’d made special arrangements to drop and pick up the car), she decided to bring the car home and research our options, bringing her copy of the canceled service order with her.

We discovered that the dealership had misrepresented the maintenance schedule.  They sought to charge us “early” for expensive service that wasn’t required for at least another year; they also tried to charge us a second time for “scheduled maintenance” that we’d paid for during the prior visit (that service was also done “early,” and certainly didn’t need to be repeated so soon after).

Eventually, the dealership claimed that the problem arose from a “computer error” (meaning that their service manager had modified the database so that the dealership would charge all customers for unnecessary service.)

They offered to do the actual “scheduled maintenance” that was recommended by the manufacturer.  Since there is no other dealership within 30 miles, we made an appointment, and I drove the car to the dealership — but while waiting for someone to help me, I realized that it was absurd to trust these crooks to perform any service.

We haven’t had the “scheduled maintenance” done yet, because we can’t figure out how we can trust any dealer or garage to competently perform the required scheduled maintenance.  In the next few weeks, I’ll end up taking an entire day to drive to a far-away dealership and wait while the work is done.

This is just one of several recent “cheat attempts” that we’ve experienced this year, from businesses that seemed reputable. What made it “special” was that it was clear that someone had deliberately modified the dealership’s computer database so it would tell agents that expensive service was required, long before it was recommended.

As a result, every customer was being cheated, unless they researched and noticed that the dealership’s advice was wrong. The owner probably considers this a “gullibility tax,” but it’s really a tax on trust and honesty.

Our complex, technologically-advanced society demands that we trust a variety of “experts” to advise us, but that trust is being badly eroded, by what appears to be a growing pool of dishonest businesspeople. The result is increased cynicism, skepticism, and distrust. Consumers now must allocate extra time to researching and verifying the claims made by “experts” — and when we don’t have that time available, we simply delay or cancel our purchase plans.

The word “guru” implies a blind faith which many embrace in their religions, but it iisn’t appropriate for business.

Don’t buy a “course” or “system” or even an ebook about “How to Make Money from AdSense” or “Internet Success Secrets” or “Money Machines” or any other gimicky name.

And don’t pay money to buy “secrets.”  There really are no “secrets” about how to make money. There are strategies, of course, which can often work when properly applied — but they aren’t secrets.

The information is already out there, available for free (with expert commentary, including lots of warnings about how techniques being “sold” by gurus can backfire).  You just need to invest the time to read and to think critically.

If you want to earn money from affiliate marketing, or from web site advertising, don’t spend your money on “gurus” or ebooks — instead spend your time on forums like ABestWeb.com. (Go to the forum; register as a new user; read through the introductory forums; and do not post any messages until you’ve spent at least 20 hours reading and using the “search” function to find the answers that are already there. Yes, I’m serious — at least 20 hours spent actually reading posts (not just “taking time to reflect”) before you post anything, not even an introduction or a “thanks for the advice” post.)

Of course, what the “gurus” promise, and what we all wish we could have, is a “foolproof system” where all you need to do is follow a very simple set of instructions and then watch the money roll in.  Guess what: those instructions will always include “steps” that require you to apply experience and wisdom that you probably don’t have. For example, to earn money from AdSense and affiliate programs, or from PPC spending on AdWords, you need to develop expertise on a specific topic, and then do extensive research, and then do extensive, careful testing.  And 90% of the people who “buy the system” or “pay the guru” never earn a profit. Many find that the “foolproof plan” is a fast path to bankruptcy.  Of course, the “guru” disclaims any responsibility because the failed venture didn’t follow the steps correctly.  (In fairness, most of us simply don’t follow instructions; we’re all looking for shortcuts, and sometimes the shortcuts are especially tempting, when we “don’t know what we don’t know.”)

Think about it: If someone shares a “secret” of how to make money, and the “secret” is easy to implement, then a bunch of people follow the advice until the opportunity is fully exploited or saturated. And of course, if someone really does know a good way to make money easily, they’re not likely to share it with others who might drain away the opportunity.

I’ve been doing this (affiliate marketing) for 12+ years, and right now I’m struggling to earn a living.

Don’t pay a guru. Ever.

• On July 15, 2009, a New York plastic-surgery firm agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for “astroturfing” — paying employees to post fabricated positive reviews and “endorsements” of the firm on a variety of online forums and web sites (“NY AG Cuomo Gets $300,000 From Company For Posting Fake Reviews“).

• Earlier, on June 21, 2009, the FTC announced that it will investigate and monitor whether bloggers are improperly publishing comments and reviews without disclosing payments from companies (“FTC plans to monitor blogs for claims, payments“).  This “consumer-protection” effort shows serious misunderstandings about journalism and the First Amendment, but more attention will definitely be focused on deceptive practices.
  

  ---

The issues are not simple, and unfortunately some merchants misunderstand the problem.

First, it’s easy to get caught.  Competitors and citizen-journalists are everywhere, increasingly skeptical of reviews and commentary, and increasingly capable of tracing the origin and authorship of “anonymous” or “pseudonymous” writing.  But this is the “wrong focus” for discussions on this topic, because ethical marketers don’t need to worry about “getting caught,” if they’re doing nothing wrong.

Instead, the “right focus” should always be on proper strategies to serve our clients.

I think I’ve “tuned in” to this issue because for over past decade, I have urged many clients to consider creating or sponsoring “captive affiliate” and/or “stealth affiliate” web sites.  A “captive affiliate” is a web site which provides information or services which are “complementary” to the client’s business, and which are clearly owned or “sponsored by” the client.  A “stealth affiliate” is similar, but the client’s ownership and control of the site iis not disclosed. When I’ve discussed this with clients, I always make clear that a “stealth affiliate” web site can never include “reviews” or “endorsements” of the client’s business, because that would be a deceptive practice.  I won’t work with deceptive or unethical clients.

Usually, the idea for a “captive or stealth affiliate” starts with a statement that starts, “somebody ought to create a web site about….”  Sometimes, there are existing some sites but they are poorly written, or they’re confusing because they’re written for a specific audience.  Sometimes, there simply aren’t any web sites on the subject.

I speak up when the client moves from “somebody ought to …” to “maybe we should ….”  First, I remind the client that the business must not lose focus — if the company plans to sell widgets, it doesn’t really matter that there’s a great opportunity for someone to create a separate web site about “101 uses for a widget” or “understanding the differences between widgets and fromitzes.”  Then, I’ve sometimes suggested the option of creating or commissioning a separate web site to meet the need that the client has identified. (I usually also suggest a third option: encouraging someone else (perhaps an existing affiliate) to create the web site.)

But I strongly emphasize that neither a “captive” nor a “stealth affiliate” should ever include a review or endorsement.  A “captive affiliate” (with the sponsorship disclosed) might contain language and images which favor or support the client’s mission and business, but a “stealth affliate” would always need to be scrupulously neutral and objective.

Some of my clients have created “captive affiliate sites.” Sometimes, the ownership is clearly visible on every pagel; on a few sites, the ownership is “not prominent, but adequately disclosed.”  I actually don’t believe that any of my clients has ever created a “stealth affiliate site.”

This summer’s developments have let me to reconsider the concept of a “stealth affiliate,” in part because of the risk of “over-reaction.”  But I probably should have abandoned this advice several years ago, after I realized that most of the stealth affiliate sites that I encountererd “in the wild” were deceptive.  Over the past decade, I’ve discovered dozens of “stealth affiliate” sites — where the ownership or control is concealed, but I become suspicious because of biased language or factually-unsupported endorsements, leading me to do some research and eventually uncover the site’s true ownership.  I’ve discovered only a few legitimate stealth affiliate sites (although by definition, a legitimate stealth affiliate site should not trigger my suspicions).

It all started, apparently, with a failed hard disk. I’m not really sure — it took many months to diagnose the problem, and several failed attempts to re-install the operating system. Finally, late this summer, Dell sent a replacement hard drive, which I was able to install (it was pre-installed with the operating system configured exactly the same way my system was shipped from the factory, so I didn’t need to re-install the operating system again at that time).

Since I had purchased the computer in September 2006, the warranty expired in September 2008.

In early December, I experienced a series of problems which ultimately forced me to re-format my hard disk and re-install Windows XP (in fact, the first attempt to re-install did not work, so I had to re-format and re-install Windows twice in one day).

Since then, I have been unable to maintain a reliable “wi-fi” wireless internet connection. I am able to access the internet, but the connection is “intermittent,” and is interrupted at random times (sometimes several times within a few minutes, and sometimes only two or three times per day). In order to continue, I must right-click on the Windows Wireless Network icon in the system tray, and select “Repair,” and then wait 20-30 seconds while the connection is disabled, reset, and then re-enabled and re-connected (sometimes this doesn’t work, so I must repeat the “Repair”). Of course, this makes it almost impossible to accomplish meaningful online work.

I’ve spent many hours on the phone with Comcast, McAfee, and Dell, and finally determined that the problem is some sort of conflict between the wireless device drivers installed in the computer. Unfortunately, Windows XP has an amazing “memory” (probably a cache of device-driver data) — there is simply no way to delete or remove the wireless drivers in order to re-install them.

After spending about 15 hours trying to get my intermittent connection fixed — and after having Dell, Comcast, and McAfee each point the finger at each other — I finally determined that the problem was in the configuration of the wireless drivers in the computer. Re-installing the operating system yet again is certainly an option, but since I don’t know what (if anything) was done wrong during the last re-installation, I doubt that this would actually fix the problem.

But now I’m stuck: Dell won’t provide support, at any price. Each time I call Dell, I am told that because my warranty is expired, I must call “Dell On Call” for paid support. However, the Dell On Call service description (the closest thing to a “contract” that they offer) expressly excludes problems with software configuration from coverage. (It says, “Dell On Call HelpDesk Service Does Not Include: * * * Support when compatibility of the system to the software is in question or configuration is invalid.”

The result, now, is that I can no longer use this computer with a wireless connection. My choices are to either drill a hole to run an unsightly long ethernet cable, or else buy another computer. — Mark J. Welch

I wanted to buy new glasses. I knew what I wanted, and I had my prescription (written by the nice lady at the EyeExam office inside LensCrafters, for the bargain price of just $59.95). However, the salespeople I spoke with (and the general manager) kept trying to pitch me on “upgrades” — featherweight lenses, anti-reflective coating, and the “new thing” called AVP (for “Advanced View Progressive,” not “Alien Vs. Predator”).

I had to ask four times before the salesperson finally went into the back and brought out samples of lenses with and without the “anti-reflective” (AR) coating. I was suitably impressed, so we moved forward to the AVP issue. The salesperson could not explain it to me, and I became so frustrated and angry that I simply left the store, promising to return later when I was in a better mood.

But when I returned six hours later, in a better mood and absolutely expecting to spend $300 to $400 on a new pair of eyeglasses, nothing really changed. I asked at least ten different ways for the salesperson and manager to explain what AVP actually is, other than some marketing hype. Each time they explained it, it sounded just a little bit different from the time before.

But one thing was clear: glasses without AVP are crap, and I really needed to buy AVP. No, they couldn’t “show me” anything. No, there was no sales literature. No, AVP is not explained technically.

I finally took a break and tried to research the issue online, using my iPhone. (Of course, this was hard to do since I didn’t have the right eyeglasses.) Eventually, I determined that there simply didn’t seem to be any reference to AVP (“Advanced View Progressive”) anywhere other than at LensCrafters’ own web site. When I pointed this out, the general manager told me that AVP is the same technology as “Accolade,” so I tried to research that. I found that there are no web pages ther mention both AVP and Accolade — clearly, they are not the same technology.

I asked, again and again, to be shown anything that would actually describe or show the difference between AVP and non-AVP progressive lenses. The staff was unanimous: there was nothing. I even called another LensCrafters store, and got the exact same explanation and agreement that there was nothing that either explained or demonstrated the difference.

So what’s the deal? Is AVP just another made-up buzzword like they use to sell toothpaste and gasoline at inflated prices? It certainly seems to be. I walked out of LensCrafters twice today, because I won’t do business with bait-and-switch scam artists. I expect to pay more money tomorrow at another optician to get the glasses that LensCrafters persuaded me that I should not buy from them.

Added 10-7-2008: Some form of “better progressive lenses” are apparently offered by a number of companies under different trademarks. None of these web sites actually explain the technology or provide a credible demonstration. This all appears to be “marketing hype” with no actual benefit for your money.

• Advanced View Progressive (AVP) – LensCrafters
• Verilux Physio – WAVE (Wavefront Advanced Vision Enhancement)
• Accolade & Accolade Freedom With FrameOptimization Technology
• Harmonix (Accolade’s “Technology”)
• EasyView (PearleVision)

– Mark J. Welch

What they told us (and today, telephone sales AND in-store staff repeated this) was that these phones would work with any WiFi router using the 802.11 standards. Our experience was quite different: most of our calls were “dropped,” and we could not reliably connect to our WiFi network.

Yesterday, I paid Comcast $100 to come out and replace our wireless router with a Comcast wireless gateway.

Today, T-Mobile’s “Hot Spot at Home” support staff acknowledged that its implementation of WiFi telephony is non-standard and proprietary. The service will only work reliably with routers which have been specifically designed to implement T-Mobile’s proprietary standard (currently, only LinkSys and d-Link offer such routers). Connections with other WiFi networks are possible, but intermittent at best.

It also turned out that our home lies in a “weak signal” zone for T-Mobile, so that when calls were dropped from WiFi, the phones were usually unable to hop over to a T-Mobile wireless connection, and therefore the calls were dropped. We also found that even when we disabled all wireless networks, our calls were still dropped due to the poor T-Mobile signal. (Of course, the T-Mobile web-site and in-store sales staff both showed maps proclaiming excellent signal strength at our home.)

We’ll be returning the T-Mobile phones and cancelling their “service” later today, once we transfer our phone numbers back to AT&T/Cingular.

Analysis: As a cynic, I’d normally assume that this was simply a “bait and switch” tactic, designed to force more people to buy T-Mobile’s proprietary routers. But there’s more confusing data to consider:

1. T-Mobile has “rolled out” this service relatively quietly; it’s mostly marketed to people who ask about WiFi. When I called for information, it was hard to get any meaningful data about the service or phones. When I visited the store, the WiFi display was not prominent, and the sales staff emphasized the limitations of the WiFi phones offered.
2. Strangely, T-Mobile offers only two very limited telephones for use with WiFi — even though most cell-phone makers have designed and shown much more advanced models. (For example, one of the two phones has a 1.3-megapixel camera and no memory-card slot; the other has a 640×480 camera.)
3. And now, T-Mobile has revealed that its phones use a proprietary variation of WiFi that won’t work reliably with standard 802.11 wireless networks, but only with special routers designed to T-Mobile’s specification.

It appear that T-Mobile wants to alienate customers who want WiFi. Why would this be?

Kill Wifi Telephony: Ah, yes. T-Mobile charges for wireless telephone service, based on “minutes used.” Its financial interests are not well-served by converting customers to free WiFi calling. But its consumers were demanding WiFi, and so it offered a service — not to capture new customers, but in an attempt to “ruin WiFi’s reputation.”

This is reminiscent of the bizarre “electric car” strategy: two automakers (GM/Saturn and Honda) offered electric cars for sale in California, but limited production, set absurdly high pricing and lease restrctions, and suppressed all marketing efforts. Then, when consumers defied expectations and demanded more electric cars, the companies stopped selling them, and when the leases expired, they were repossessed and actually crushed.

The goal: get cell-phone users to say, “Gee, Ma, those WiFi phones just don’t work reliably. They’re crap. We’d better stick with ‘real’ wireless telephone service at much higher rates.”

T-Mobile is engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations when it claims that its WiFi phones will work with standard WiFi networks and routers. It should stop making those misrepresentations, and advise customers that the WiFi phone feature will only work reliably with routers designed specifically for T-Mobile’s proprietary standards. As intended, this makes T-Mobile’s phones less attractive — but without damaging the reputation of WiFi telephony in general.

– Mark J. Welch

Like most folks, I’ve never really liked glasses.  But at several times in the past, when I’ve inquired about contact lenses, I’ve been told that something about my eyes was unusual (I assume it was my astigmatism) so I could not wear contact lenses.  Later, I was told that I might be able to wear contact lenses, but I might spend a bunch of money and then discover that I couldn’t wear them.

Finally, two months ago, I decided it was time to try contact lenses.  I visited my eye doctor, telling her I’d never worn contacts but would like to see if they might be appropriate.  She did the basic eye exam and then some additional stuff to measure the curvature of my eye, and ordered a pair of trial lenses.

When the trial lenses came in, the doctor had just returned from vacation so there was a delay for the “fitting” and “instruction” — it turned out that these consisted of one hour of “instruction” from a young woman in the office (she apparently had very little training), plus a quick glance from the doctor while the lenses were in my eyes.

It’s hard to be objective, but I think it’s safe to say that the “instructor” was not very skilled in her job, and I had great difficulty finding the right way to insert and remove contact lenses.  In fact, after the first hour of “instruction,” my eyes were red and I was told to return the next day to try again.  It would probably have taken many more visits, except my “instructor” finally asked for help; it turned out that her instructions were wrong, and after just five minutes of proper instruction from someone else, I was able to insert and remove the lenses without difficulty.

During this process, I noticed that there was a “line” at the edge of the right contact lens, and I pointed this out to the (first) “instructor.”  She rinsed the lens, held it up at a different angle, and said it was okay.

But after noticing discomfort in my right eye while wearing the lens out of the office, I removed the lens at home and inspected it again, and there was that line again.  When I examined it closely, I could see that it was a tear in the lens.  I don’t know if the lens was torn originally, or was damaged due to handling during the “instruction,” but it was certainly torn.  I called the doctor’s office, and my eye doctor said she would re-order new lenses from another manufacturer. I asked why she simply did not reorder the same brand of lens (presumably just replacing the one that was torn), and she said that if I felt discomfort, it made sense to try another brand (which seemed strange, since the discomfort appeared to be caused by the torn lens only).

A day later (in early August), the office called to tell me that one of my new lenses was “back ordered” until August 26, so I waited until August 29 to call and inquire about the status.  I was informed that the lens had been received much earlier, but had not been properly logged in by the “instructor,” who in any event was no longer working for the firm.  I picked up the new lenses on Tuesday, September 3, and took them home.

After I removed the new lenses from their sealed package and cleaned them, I could not determine which was the “inside” and which was the “outside” of the lenses – perhaps due to inadequate “instruction” or perhaps because the new lenses were a different brand than the first pair.  While I scrutinized the lenses, I noticed a line on the surface, and worried that one of the new lenses might be torn. I called the doctor’s office, and several hours later the eye doctor called back and told me that these lenses normally would have small laser-etched markings, used to confirm that the lenses were correctly oriented when I went for a follow-up visit. She was surprised I’d even noticed these markings; another office I called, suggested that I was supposed to look for the lines, and insert the lenses with the lines pointing downward.

But by the time I spoke with my eye doctor, I had seen more.  The edges of the new lenses (like the edges of the original lenses) did not appear to be completely even, and I thought I saw tiny scratches or abrasions on the surface of the contact lenses.  And of course, I still could not tell the inside from the outside of the lenses.  I definitely would never have noticed or become concerned about these, if I hadn’t already become concerned about the reliability of my eye care “team” and my ability to gather even the most basic information.

At this point, I asked how I could determine what a “normal” contact lens should look like, and discovered that there is no answer.  Yes, there are defective lenses, and yes, I might see some defects, but nobody can identify how I should examine or inspect a lens before putting it my eye — and my doctor said that if I couldn’t see an obvious tear, I should just put it in my eye.

My eye doctor initially told me that I could schedule another “instruction” appointment, but said she could not see me until I’d worn the lenses for two weeks.  Later, she offered to meet with me and examine the lenses and make sure I was properly trained — but told me that even then, she could not provide any real guidance on how I should examine new lenses to determine if they were normal and safe.

I told her that since I had completely lost confidence in her office, I would return the lenses and find another practitioner.

I then made dozens of calls, to other opthamologists and optometrists and manufacturers, and confirmed that there are no resources that would help me determine whether a particular contact lens is normal and safe.

Nor could anyone answer the question, could I be injured if I ended up putting a defective or damaged (or normal) lens in my eye?  Some internet research turned up some anecdotal evidence — queries from people who said they had suffered injuries from wearing contact lenses, either due to unseen defects or from wearing them for “too long” (although worn as instructed).

No one will provide written instructions, period. All instruction is oral. In other words, if you get improper instruction, there’s no way to know. (As a lawyer, I view this as “total deniability” — it’s your word against the “expert’s” as to what was said in that room, and in the unlikely event that you ever suffer injury and sue, the “expert” will certainly testify that perfect advice was given.)

At this point, I’m throwing in the towel : I can’t find any eye care professional who will explain to me how I can evaluate whether a new contact lens is “normal” and “safe” and not defective. Many folks can tell me what are “obvious defects” (torn lenses), but nobody will say what other defects might exist or what harm they might cause.  One doctor suggested that most contact lens defects, are impossible for a consumer to perceive visually, although many would result in discomfort while actually wearing the lenses.

When I asked about the risk of injury from wearing contact lenses, I could never get a straight answer from anybody.  Maybe one in a million people get hurt from wearing contact lenses, maybe one in a thousand, maybe one in fifty, nobody seems to know.  (This complete uncertainty is the reason I won’t even consider laser eye surgery.)

I spent $75 for an eye exam (which I did not need, since I’d just had an eye exam 8 months earlier), and $140 more for a “contact lens fitting.  After the replacement contact lenses were delayed, I went out and bought two pairs of glasses (one for distance, one for reading), buying “cheap” pairs ($360 total) because I knew I would rarely wear them — and now I’m stuck with them as my full-time eye glasses for the next year or two, unless I want to spend more money to get the better glasses I would have chosen if I had known that contact lenses weren’t an option.

I spent more than ten hours over two months, trying to get contact lenses.  I spent $215, or about $72 per hour for the three hours I got to wear contact lenses.  It was a very bad investment.

And for all of that, all I have is a bad experience.

If I want to proceed to get contact lenses, I will need to start over, paying another doctor for a complete basic exam and then again for another fitting.  But that’s unlikely, since nobody can assure me that the outcome would be any different if I spend another $200 or $300 with a different eye care professional.

I really liked my contact lenses for the three hours I got to wear that first pair.

I think contact lenses would be great.  But I also want some meaningful reassurance that wearing contact lenses is safe.  Sure, millions of people wear contact lenses, and most of them have no problems (except, strangely enough, many people I speak with [who have worn contact lenses for years], tell me stories about damaged or torn lenses, and some have stories about temporary eye damage apparently caused by contact lenses).  It appears that the contact lens industry simply refuses to disclose any information about how consumers could evaluate its products — each manufacturer told me that I must rely on the advice of my “eye care professional,” and each eye care professional told me that they will not examine each new contact lens.

What I really expected, was that the contact lens manufacturers would provide a brochure (or a web site) with pictures of contact lenses — this is how a normal lens looks, this is what a torn lens looks like, this is what other defects look like.  They won’t do it, nor will the eye doctors, nor anyone else. If they won’t tell me how to determine if their product is safe, I won’t buy or use the product. Period.

Last Updated on Sept. 5, 2002