Tru Vue

Jean McLean

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Posts
128
Loc
Millinocket, ME, USA
Let's discuss UV and glass. I must be confused for sure. I thought regular glass offered no UV protection and Tru Vue has glass that offers 47% protection. I have their advertisement showing the difference between their glass and regular glass with fading right at my point of sale table and show it to all my customers to convince them that Tru Vue is the way to go. My God, have I been totally off the wall all this time?
 
Here is my understanding. Any regular clear glass, including Tru Vue Premium Clear filters about 45% of UV light (I think there's a distinction among different types of UV rays, but I'll leave that to someone more technically inclined) True Vue, and other, UV filtering products filter 95% to 97%. None of them are 100%. One thing I was told is that Products like True Vue Anti-Reflective (not the UV museum glass) filter less than regular because it is not refracting light back away from it.
 
Jean,
I think the display you are describing is the comparison of Tru-Vue Conservation Clear (97%) to Tru-Vue Premium Clear (45% +/-) or any other regular glass.

I just happened to have a recent email from Tru-Vue which only duplicates their published spec. I needed some affirmation regarding the Perfect-Vue product. I have 2 distributors who describe the product in a very negative manner when it comes to benefit vs cost. At 2.5 times the cost of CRC, CPV does not give much bang for the buck. To our eye, CPV has more reflection than CRC when viewed from a side angle and is no less fuzzy. I should have listened to the distributor rather than Tru-Vue when I bought the stuff.

I must say that the dialog with TV has been positive regarding their attitude and willingness to work with Framers.

Rick
 
Directly from the Tru Vue POP Display:
UV Blocking Capacity for
Premium Series
Premium Clear = 45%
Ultra Clear = 25%
Reflection Control = 45%
Perfect Vue = 69%
AR Reflection Free = 78%
Conservation Series
Conservation Clear = 97%
Conservation Ultra Clear = 97%
Conservation Reflection Control = 97%
Conservation Perfect Vue = 97%
Museum Glass = 97%

[This message has been edited by Ruth Yheulon (edited April 30, 2001).]
 
Related.....

As a photographer knows, when you purchased a "UV" filter for your camera, you were purchasing a Plain glass filter.

Referred in such a manner, as "regular" or "plain" glass ALWAYS filtered a certain percentage of UV rays.

Whada-ya-know!

John

------------------

The Frame Workshop of Appleton, Inc.
www.theframeworkshop.com
Appleton, Wisconsin
jerserwi@aol.com
--------------------
 
I have been wondering.

If you put two regular lites together would you get 90% protection?

If that were true, would you get 194% protection from two lites of conservation clear?

Three regular lites or two conservation clear lites, hmmmmmmmm, What would bring the most profit?
 
Hey Mitch, if you have 194% protection does that mean that any colors that faded would come back?
smile.gif

If your question was halfway serious and since I'm afraid someone might take you seriously the answer is NO! The reason is that glass only blocks certain frequencies of UV light and adding more glass just blocks those same frequencies. UV glass has a broader set of frequencies that it blocks right up to visible light. If you were to graph the range of frequencies blocked by UV glass you would find it actually rolls off a little before visible light. To get 100% UV blocking it would also block some of the visible spectrum, that's why it's only 97%.
 
Is this what they call "thinking out of the box?"

May I play too?

If 3% of harmful UV light gets through one lite of the glass, then the second lite would filter out 97% of what gets through the first lite. Right?

With calculator in hand:
.03 x .97 = .0291. So, with two lites of UV filtering glass, instead of 3% of harmful light getting through, only 2.91% would get through. Whoopee.

Is my calculator working right?
 
Jim...nice try but no banana.
97% of the 3% is blocked so it would be 3% - 2.91% = .09% being allowed through if it worked that way. Which it doesn't. Don't you just love playing with numbers and nonlogic? I took a statistics class in college once and was amazed at how easy it is to make numbers lie.
 
You guys are funny. So, let's go another step further and ask...how many times do you mark up conservation clear glass? I am picking up my first box tomorrow along with 6 other boxes of Tru Vue's premium clear. I think the con. clear is already picey and think 2x is fair? Will ya little ole calcs figure that one fer me?
 
OK.....Let's see....if Conservation Clear is 97% effective and regular glass is 46% effective at blocking UV than it should be priced 97/46 = 2.11 times the regular glass price, Right? Right???? Then again, maybe not.
 
Back a couple of years ago I did some of my own tests using UV glass and various UV inhibiting sprays. Being a landscape photographer, (in addition to a framer), I was interested in preventing the fading, especially in the ink jet prints that I was beginning to produce and display.

The tests were conducted in an east facing window and directly compared UV sprays and regular and UV inhibiting glass. For the purpose of this thread I will stick to the subject of the glass.

I tested inkjet prints, conventional photo prints, offset prints and original watercolor paper, and will not go into how each media compared to each other.

Observations were made daily over a period of several weeks during which fading went from none to severe.

Results: When compared side by side there was no discernible difference between the UV glass side of the print and the regular glass side.

Since this was not a carefully controlled laboratory experiment, I must admit that you should take the results with a grain of salt. But to me, at the very least, it seems to imply: Be careful about how much faith you put in products that claim to protect the artwork from light damage. Things WILL still fade over time if exposed to sunlight or strong UV sources.

Do I still use or recommend UV glass? Yes. Even though I now have more skepticism concerning UV products I must believe that it must offer at least some degree of protection (even if it was not evident in my limited testing) over regular glass. Any additional protection, even if small, is welcome by some customers and some are willing to pay for it.
 
Hey, no fair! You protected against UV light then exposed the photos to infra red.
Or have I got that backwards? Boy, I sure hope Orton gets better soon. Kit

------------------
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
 
Pricing...
Have you seen Tru-Vue's pricing for profit program on CD? It will help make the decision on markup and help with the decision on making CC default.

Our default glass is CC and only stock regular for those customers who absolutely want to save a few pennies and for our poster special. CC is priced for profit which includes a markup on the glass, a waste factor of 15-20% and adds a labor factor for cutting to size, cleaning, etc.

We use a much higher markup factor for regular glass so that the difference between it and CC is small. Anyway you put it, the markup is greater than 2 times in order to make a profit.

We threw away all regular matboard samples last summer.... And hope to make a similar decision on regular glass in the future.

Rick-CPFcm

[This message has been edited by Frugal Framer (edited May 03, 2001).]
 
Just to go one step farther than my husband's (Robertmitch) reply on testing UV Glass, has anyone else done their own test and if so, what were the results? I had a tendancy to blame the medium (ink jet prints, which we knew would fade) rather than the glass type for the fading we saw.

Also, if not sunlight and/or flourescent light we are protecting artwork from, what exactly is it? I am not sure I am really clear on this, but I do know from this shop (with a LOT of light) that it is a problem. I especialy worry about pieces like event posters, which we have a lot of collectors of around here, and which I know are made cheaply and fade quickly.

Should I feel confident selling UV glass?
 
Originally posted by Frugal Framer:

"Have you seen Tru-Vue's pricing for profit program on CD? It will help make the decision on markup and help with the decision on making CC default."

Is it the same recommendation they've been preaching at trade shows the past couple of years?

That is, mark up the expensive glass products less than regular glass; you can still make more profit dollars because the retail price is higher, even though you make less profit percentage.

While that is true, it is generally bad business. Any banker or financial analyst will remind you that a primary indicator of a business's direction is its profit expressed as a percentage of revenue. Tru-Vue's pricing recommendation causes a *direct* reduction of profit percentage.

In other words, $2.00 profit on a $10.00 piece of glass is 20% profit; $3.00 profit on a $20.00 piece of glass is 15% profit; a 5 point reduction in profit percentage.

If your banker notices that your profit percentages have dropped in recent years, even though your revenue and profit dollars have been increasing, he/she will ask what's going on. That's a danger sign -- you're selling more and enjoying it less.

With Tru-Vue's recommended pricing strategy, we're simply giving Tru-Vue our profit. They seem to like the idea.

Tru-Vue "TruGard" is our default glass. We sell it close to the markup we used to have on regular glass, and help customers justify the added price by informing them of its benefits. At the same time, we increased our markup on regular glass. It's still cheaper, but the difference is smaller.

I would sell more Museum glass if I cut my price by 20%, but I won't suffer that blow to my bottom line.
 
Jim,

At least we are saying the same thing regarding price structure. We actually increased the price on CC and significantly increased the price on regular glass so that like you, regular glass is less expensive than CC, but only by a small margin.

The Tru-Vue CD can be used as a tool even if a person doesn't use the markups provided. Instead of using the CD to lower the CC prices to make it more attractive, raise the regular glass prices. Then, it's the best of both worlds.

We use a similar structure on moulding. Why should I sell a knockoff moulding for less money than the original, when I have no trouble selling the original. Thus, a knockoff moulding gets a significantly higher markup so that if someone chooses a knockoff moulding, the price will be slightly higher than the original.

Rick
 
Jim is right on the money. I remember the La Marche standard line was to mark up their product less than others because, since their product was so much more expensive than most, a smaller markup would yield equal to or greater gross profit dollars. My response was the same to them. I would when they would! You can bet their pricing protects their margins, and so should yours! Why would you accept a higher cost of goods because it's more expensive? My suggestion to Jean, and others, is to do the same on this product as any other: Know your costs, know your targeted cost of goods and then shop your market. Those three factors will tell you all the information you need to know.

As an aside, these percentages on UV and regular glass are like the % of arsenic in our water. Is 11% too much, and 10% just right? Like UV damage (and arsenic), use the best product for the money that assures a reasonable level of protection. In glass, that's Conservation clear. If someone comes out with a 98% value and it costs 5times as much, I don't think we are going to buy it.
 
Weighting retail markup should only be done for promotional purposes in my opinion (i.e. dropping %markup on expensive products).
Recently I set an increase to the markup of regular glass, while our price is now above the average market for non-uv poducts, our UV protective prices are "in the field" as such. Increasing the sale price on regular has made the gap smaller and more readily acceptable to customers, CC sales are most certainly on an increase as a result. While this is not recomended for retail in general, it is working for us.
As a point of interest this is similar to tactics used in "mid-range" camera sales.

------------------
"If at first you DO succeed, try not to look astonished!"

[This message has been edited by Lance E (edited May 03, 2001).]
 
Back
Top