This was posted 14 years 6 months 29 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

ClearlyContacts Are Now Giving Away 500 Pairs of Glasses in Adelaide

320
ClearlyContacts Are Now Giving Away 500 Pairs of Glasses in Adelaide
Go to Deal
LDeWalt on 26/04/2010 - 08:46 clearlycontacts.com.au (1527 clicks)

It looks like the same deal as previous,
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/24042 (WA only)
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/21849 (VIC only)

The WA and VIC deals were very popular on OzBargain. Postage was previously about $16. Glasses come from Canada.

Here's a summary of the blurb from the web site,

Get a FREE pair of glasses on May 6th!
There are absolutely no strings attached, and lenses are included.
Promotion is valid on May 6th, 2010 only. Offer limited to first 500 pairs of glasses, for South Australia residents only. While supplies last. Offer includes frame, standard 1.5 index lenses, A/R coating, UV coating and Scratch Resistant coating. One free pair per household. Previous Free Pair customers excluded. Clearly Contacts reserves the right to cancel orders that do not fit this criteria. Shipping & handling applies.

DeWalt

Other Glasses

Related Stores

Clearly
Clearly

closed Comments

  • Save Medicare on 26/04/2010 - 09:19

    Is it just NSW that hasn't had a deal yet?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2010 - 09:35

      It already did

  • xuqi on 26/04/2010 - 10:17
    +1

    Don't bother if you live elsewhere. It seems that others who tried it before got this orders cancelled.

  • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 10:50
    -6

    This state by state crap is completely unfair - people in NSW are getting shafted.

    On the other hand, I live in the ACT, will you be offering 500 pairs to us?

    New South Wales
    7 165 000

    Victoria
    5 473 000

    South Australia
    1 629 000

    Western Australia
    2 259 000

    • Sweetsugar on 26/04/2010 - 11:02
      +4

      its free and we are still complaning???????

      • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 12:19
        -7

        Of course I am - why shouldn't I? If they were giving stuff away to white people only, do you think it would be fair to complain?

    • glenr on 26/04/2010 - 11:30
      +1

      Your position is that a free giveaway of a product should be fair? What is this world coming to…

      • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 12:20
        -5

        Yes - have you something against fairness?

        • glenr on 26/04/2010 - 13:11
          +4

          You do realise that it isn't an entitlement or right? There's no need to be "fair" about it. Thems the breaks.

          • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 13:14
            -3

            @glenr: Of course it's not an entitlement! What difference does that make? All else being equal, wouldn't it be better for giveaways to be fair?

            • CorporalMaladict on 26/04/2010 - 14:45
              +2

              @Metaphor: To be truly fair wouldn't offers need to be made to the other 6 billion people in the world who wont get a crack at a deal like this from ClearlyContacts?

              • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 15:43
                -4

                @CorporalMaladict: Not really, as it wouldn't be the same offer with respects to costs. Nevertheless, it is better to be more fair if you can be, which an arbitrary restriction to one state is not.

                • pais on 26/04/2010 - 16:53

                  @Metaphor: I'm sure their marketing department really cares on how you label "fair", mate.

                  • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 18:07
                    -3

                    @pais: I'm sure they don't, though your snarky vitriol is hardly called for. I notice my comments have been negatived, though no-one has pointed out precisely what it is I've said that is inaccurate. But the world is full of unreason, I suppose.

                    • pais on 26/04/2010 - 19:25

                      @Metaphor: Fair enough - NSW are getting shafted.

                      Having said that, they're a private business and what they do with their funding and marketing is not really your concern. If you happen to catch the short end of the stick, then… tough cookies really. Simply put, you don't have to give them your business. It doesn't really need half a dozen posts whinging about it (the word "entitled" comes to mind), which is why people are negging you.

                      It's not supposed to be "just" or "fair"; it's just a good faith booster to get the word out about their company. You can either dwell on it or get over it. If you missed out on a blatant freebie - again - tough cookies.

                      • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 19:44
                        -2

                        @pais: I didn't spend half a dozen posts whinging, but defending myself against specious comments.

                        • pais on 26/04/2010 - 20:04

                          @Metaphor: sigh

                          Right; if it wasn't clear, my position is that the initial one was already more than enough.

                          If you've noticed, they've gone state-by-state, so I can only speculate that NSW is next in line. I'd venture to say that it's significantly smarter doing it on a state-by-state basis; both as a marketing decision (exponential inlinks due to number of states), also from a logistics perspective. Organizing 2000 free pairs of sunglasses sounds like a royal pain to me (and I'd imagine it sounds fairly tedious to you?) and it's likely there couldd be a debacle not dissimilar to what has been seen from Logitech Shop where consumers are waiting more than a month for their packages (and those packages are ones that weren't freebies). And if you say, "but they're free, who cares if you have to wait?" then you've essentially just mooted your initial reason for posting.

                          Hopefully that gives you a logical rationale for their actions that you can accept. With that, I digress.

                          • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 20:20

                            @pais: Actually, since I do not live in NSW, the fact that NSW is next in line is neither here nor there to me.

                            As for the logistics argument, I struggle to think why, if you want a staggered release, you need to limit it to certain states. Just stagger the release. It's done all the time.

                            So no, there is no logical rationale for the restricted nature of the promotion, and despite all this back and forth, not a single person has even tried to refute my original point: that it's not fair. They've either come up with non-sequiturs like 'life's not fair' or have attempted to argue that unless it is perfectly fair, it's no use trying to be somewhat fair. The complete lack of coherent thought in these rebuttals did not mean that those comments did not receive positive votes and mine continue to receive negative ones.

                            And, frankly, if reasoned criticism of the fairness of a deal is unwelcome (as you've indicated), I don't even know what the purpose of the comment feature is.

                            • pais on 26/04/2010 - 20:46

                              @Metaphor: You've indicated that you live in Sydney in your profile.. But you're right, it's neither here nor there, because it was just speculation anyway(as stated).

                              You are right re: logistics, and it was just a thought.

                              Why isn't marketing a valid rationale? (which I've already stated) The SEM value alone of being covered multiple times for their faux-exclusive promotions would in theory be exponentially beneficial as opposed to being covered a single time. If they release 5-6 waves of 500 pairs of glasses nation-wide, do you think their coverage would be equal to, less than or more than if they localized them as they've done? It's a possibility that it'd have equal coverage, but I consider it unlikely.

                              Local media (although I don't know how far 500 pairs actually stretches) are more likely to give the business exposure if they're running a localized campaign.

                              Is that a fair assessment?

                              What you call reasoned criticism seems to be displayed in such a way that it presents as a "something for nothing" attitude. As I said (again, above), it comes across as being entitled.

                              • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 21:32
                                -2

                                @pais: If they release 5-6 waves of 500 pairs of glasses nation-wide, do you think their coverage would be equal to, less than or more than if they localized them as they’ve done? It’s a possibility that it’d have equal coverage, but I consider it unlikely.

                                So do I. I think they'd get more coverage each time if they didn't restrict it to one state each time. There are more people in Australia than there are in one Australian state. But then again, all I said was that it was unfair - which it is. Not a single person has fairly rebutted this.

                                Local media? What? What you are suggesting is that an internet-presence company is going to be covered by the local rag for an internet-advertised promotion? How much faith you have in print.

                                Frankly, not one single person has explained to me why my 'reasoned criticism' is unreasonable. It is certainly the case that not a single person responded to my other scenario - what if they were giving away 500 glasses to 'whites only'?

                                However, I think I'm wasting my time here defending myself. People have seen fit to neg me without comment (are they afraid their case is weak?) I no longer live in NSW and, by my own argument, if the offer were made to people in the ACT it would, indeed, be unfair.

                                Clearlycontacts are a private business and they are not beholden to me or my opinions, and I never suggested as such. But it appears ozbargainers are deeply offended that I would dare to criticise a marketing strategy.

                                And I don't know what you mean by 'being entitled'. Am I entitled to free glasses from a private company? No. Am I entitled to offer negative comment on said company's strategy? Unless I am violating ozbargain's guidelines, yes, I think I am entitled to do that. Am I glad that the internet is filled with a sea of knee-jerk reactionaries? No.

                                • pais on 26/04/2010 - 21:58

                                  @Metaphor: So do I. I think they’d get more coverage each time if they didn’t restrict it to one state each time.
                                  I disagree, as do their marketing dept I can only presume.

                                  Local media? What? What you are suggesting is that an internet-presence company is going to be covered by the local rag for an internet-advertised promotion? How much faith you have in print.

                                  Uh, yep. Right off the top of my head, OzBargain has been in a Sydney newspaper (or so I read on one of the blog's comments). Kogan featured in a number of local newspapers in Melbourne. There was also a company about 10 minutes drive from me (started just a couple of months ago) that was featured in the local rag for their awesome pricing and unique business model… and these are examples from someone that reads print media for less than ~5 minutes/week. Print media is about as dead as FTA TV - alive and kicking.

                                  But it appears ozbargainers are deeply offended that I would dare to criticise a marketing strategy.

                                  You're more than welcome to criticize their marketing strategy. Having said that, this promotion is free. Personally, I'm appreciative that a company can and does run these sort of promotions - not that I'm even in the market for a pair.

                                  I don't really see how the contrast between state-discrimination (if you can call it that?) and racial discrimination are analogous. Surely you can concede that's a slightly over-sensationalized point?

                                  • Metaphor on 26/04/2010 - 22:59

                                    @pais: I don’t really see how the contrast between state-discrimination (if you can call it that?) and racial discrimination are analogous. Surely you can concede that’s a slightly over-sensationalized point?

                                    Well, of course it was deliberately provocative, that was the point. If discrimination based on arbitrary, morally neutral characteristics is frowned upon, why is the line drawn at geographic boundaries?

    • ssaarraahh on 26/04/2010 - 12:50

      I think by now, those of us in the ACT should understand that we don't get the same (or as many) offers/deals/bands as everyone else, we should just be happy when we are able to get a deal.

      Unfortunately life can be unfair..

  • bigosmallo on 26/04/2010 - 11:27
    +1

    Where's QLD?

  • grizz_li on 26/04/2010 - 11:52

    Damn I missed the NSW then.

  • Zawoooo on 26/04/2010 - 13:07

    last time this deal was on i managed to get one sent to Sydney

  • Jaxx on 26/04/2010 - 17:39

    Thanks for this deal!
    Are you limited to certain frames only?

  • eccentriq on 26/04/2010 - 18:26

    woo! finally, it's adelaide's turn!

  • shopbot on 26/04/2010 - 18:47

    These deals are awesome! Keep it up clearlycontacts!
    Hopefully a NSW one is around the corner. ;)

  • abdalian on 26/04/2010 - 20:31

    Do we have to wait till 6 May to place the order??
    Can we place the order now?

  • carlscott1982 on 26/04/2010 - 21:20

    Seems great so far…I guess we'll wait until May 6 to find out for sure. :)

  • anthony on 27/04/2010 - 13:09

    Postage was previously about $16
    Offer includes frame, standard 1.5 index lenses,

    Why pay $16 for a pair of 1.5x glasses?

    Chemist Warehouse has 3 packs of these glasses for about $10

    • CyberMurning on 27/04/2010 - 13:49

      these are "branded" some looks very nice, trust me.
      also come with matching case, etc.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/04/2010 - 09:49

    I saw lots of people in this site haven't received their glasses yet.

    • Save Medicare on 28/04/2010 - 16:30

      I got mine from the WA deal today. They seem to be very good although I cannot see through them (myopia)

  • eccentriq on 06/05/2010 - 08:36

    Code is: FOOTY

  • Jaxx on 06/05/2010 - 08:46

    Just confirmed my order, total was $15.xx (postage + insurance), they accept paypal.

  • benneh on 12/05/2010 - 09:16
    -2

    I ordered 5 the other day on this offer. 3 of them shipped but 2 have been refused :( (Im in QLD).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join