Optical Distortion: Considerations in the Adoption of the Contact Lens

Optical Distortion, Inc. (A)        

Midia Kazzaz

GMAN 508

Executive summary

In the wake of 1962, an Arizona farmer discovered an improved behavior on his chicken. Upon closer interrogation, he realized that the behavior was driven by their blindness due to a cataract problem. In a twist of events, his request to the vet nary officer at the time was not to cure the problem but rather spread the problem to the rest of the poultry farm. However, spreading the cataract problem was not genetically possible. The blindness intrigue and benefits compelled him to explore other blinding techniques hence the ODI lens. “Discovery by accident” makes a very compelling marketing argument. The benefits of the partial blindness in chicken also supplement and speak to the necessity of the product. Indeed, ODI lens Inc., a company created by Robert Garrison, the inventors’ son had a market edge. It is significant to identify that just like every other idea its economic exploitation purely relies on the execution plan. Further, as the “new kid on the block” in a multi-billion industry particular implementation decisions were paramount for success these include: considering the thematic factors that come into play for the adoption of the lens to the commercial market. Interrogation of the of the geographical target markets that inform initial adoption efforts. Pricing of the product, to ease penetration and sustenance in the market and the ethical considerations the company should consider in the execution of the business plan. Indeed, the exploitation of the venture provides viable revenues and production solutions to poultry farmers across all the states.

Considerations in the adoption of the contact lens

The introduction of any biologically related product to the market receives its share of scrutiny. However, the advantage point that ODI derives is the fact that the innovation seeks to tame behavior in chicken and not human beings, which attracts less scrutiny. However, tracing back from inception the innovation faced among other challenges retention of the lens. In the earlier years of the invention, Daniel Garrison the inventor faced a retention problem as the lens had the habit of coming out thus causing irritation (Palich, & Bagby, 1995). Further, it would be impractical to request farmers to keep an eye on the eyes of the chicken. Further, the behavior would be classified as a biohazard thus blocking commercial production. However, in 1968 the realization of a polymer that allowed the retention of the lens provided a solution to the problem. The take away from this reality is a monitoring program that the business model should adopt. It is quite essential for any biological related product for living organisms be monitored not only for business security but also for the respect of animal rights.

Besides biological hazards, ODI had to consider penetration into the market. With the reality that the venture was a start-up and there were already existing companies in the industry. ODI’s best option was patenting the product in order to give a monopoly and a marketing edge before competitors came on board (Mitchell et al., 2002). This consideration was taken to heart by the founders, and they secured a patent license that gave them a three years edge. As earlier mentioned ODI was founded by the inventor of the lens Garrison and Ronald who owned a chicken farm and after securing monopoly petition, they strengthen their market and lowered completion by obtaining a contract with New World plastics that was in charge of polymer production. Polymer is a material used to the make human lens, and Garrison found that the use of polymer lowered the cost of production, and it reduced irritation of the eye. Irritation was also reduced by making bigger lens that were not easy to come off. The contract stated that New World plastics would not sell polymer to other companies that wanted to use it for nonhuman use.

Before the discovery of ODI, the method that was popular among chicken farm owners was debeaking. However, this method proved to have its disadvantages such as reduction of eggs production, sometimes it caused trauma to the chicken if not done right. These factors may work in favor of the product. However, marketing ODI may be easy or potentially face difficulties since this is a new product that has completed testing and may therefore face opposition from its major monopoly competitor of debeaking (Clarke, 2009). Nevertheless, the company has advantages of three years monopoly policy that will help the company establish itself and be ahead of potential competitors. Farmers who are already used to the debeaking method may have a problem adjusting to ODI and therefore the marketers have a plan for training farmers and teaching them the advantages of ODI over debeaking. In addition, the company is to offer after sales services so as to follow-up on the product as to whether is maximizing the farmer’s production. It is important to remember that a product that is new in the market ad has no product awareness will take time to gain popularity.