Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Dr Cliff: OTC Hearing Aid Companies have lost Billions

35 replies1.3k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Reply
Edited

In reply to @user490

In the U.K. there’s online Distance Selling Regulations as part of our Consumer Rights Act. Though, if misdescribed/faulty it’s 30 days. Like I said, this is just for bare-bones supply not supported sales.Typically our couriers get product across the U.K. in 24/48hr. The clock goes from the delivery time. You can ‘same day’ lots of products on Prime from local distribution if you want.

Ai dump incoming:

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives you clear legal protections for online purchases, including a 14-day right to change your mind and a 30-day right to reject faulty goods. [1]

Changing Your Mind (Cancellation Rights)

  • 14-day notice: You have 14 days after the day you receive your goods to tell the seller you want to cancel.
  • 14-day return: You then have another 14 days to send the items back.
  • Full refund: The seller must refund your money, including standard delivery costs. You usually have to pay for return postage unless the retailer's policy says otherwise.
  • Exceptions: Personalized items, perishable goods, and opened sealed software cannot be returned just because you changed your mind

In reply to @tenkan

In California, by law (1793.02), the return period is 45 days.
This takes effect as soon as the aids are delivered to the customer.
This applies to and Rx .

In reply to @Um_bongo

To avoid confusion, that UK regulation applies to most goods sold to consumers and is not specific to hearing aids. The US has less general regulation about this and has hearing aid specific laws on a state by state basis. The UK has no additional provisions for hearing aid sales?

It's predominately the cost of marketing. This is the cost before a potential client even walks in the door. There is wasted spend there to be sure, but also most people don't want hearing aids so until there is a general change in attitudes the marketing spend isn't going to have great returns on investment.

In reply to @user490

@user490 said:

To avoid confusion, that UK regulation applies to most goods sold to consumers and is not specific to hearing aids

Hearing Devices sold unprescribed don’t carry the same T+C’s as those prescribed by hearing professionals. So you default to the Consumer Rights Act.

There’s a greater duty of care in respect of face to face dispenses - but that’s a function of the professional status and many firms (including us) offer a right of return (60 days), but in real terms you still default back to the same act. The issue is that the user must show the goods are faulty: the right to ‘change your mind’ doesn’t actually exist: a FTF deal is binding unless the goods were faulty at the point of sale.

Ai Dump again:

Under the UK Consumer Rights Act, you have a legal right to a full refund if goods are broken or damaged (not of satisfactory quality), unusable (not fit for purpose), or not as described. You must reject the item and claim this refund within 30 days of purchase. [1, 2, 3, 4]

You can read the official guidance on GOV.UK Accepting Returns and Giving Refunds or check detailed breakdowns through Which? Consumer Rights Act Advice. [1, 2]

Core Rules for Faulty Goods

  • 0 to 30 Days: You have the short-term right to reject the item and claim a full refund.
  • 30 Days to 6 Months: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace the item before you can claim a refund.
  • After 6 Months: You must prove the fault was present when you bought the item, and the retailer can offer a partial refund or make deductions for use. [1, 2, 3]
Edited

In reply to @Um_bongo

The claim about "losing" billions is based on market capitalization (i.e., precipitous fall in the share price) of the company he discusses in the video. That's not quite the same as financial losses on a company's balance sheet, but I can't really argue with it as a way of quantifying loss of value. The point of the argument: if you believe markets reflect a reasonably accurate aggregate of the future prospects of a companty, then in this case the market determined that this leading company was going nowhere. By extension, you can argue that the entire OTC HA concept was over-hyped.

In the long run there may well be a place for mature OTC HAs. They need to find a sweet spot with devices that work as well as promised at a price substantially lower than comparably-performing Rx devices, while actually managing to convince people with mild to moderate loss to actually buy them. So far it's been a hard sell.

Personally, I am interested to see what happens if OTC devices are permitted in Ontario where I live. But considering the likely small difference in price between OTC and Costco... why bother? That's the crux of it.

Greg.Smith, The current price of the Apple Air Pods Pro 3 is $199.00 (what I paid in March.) The price of the Elehear Beyond Pro is $599, or very close to that. The price of any at Costco is around $1,699. Both the Apple and Elehear have received very good reviews. Hear Advisor ranks Elehear excellent in speech in noise. Ontarians may want a trip to Niagara Falls! Not sure if you'll have to declare your at Customs on the way back.🤔

Edited

In my opinion, someone who walks around with Apple earphones in place of hearing aids is doing themselves no favours. Everyone you meet will think you are rude for keeping in your “headphones” while you speak with them unless you proactively explain that they are “my hearing aids” (which is silly). There’s a reason the “hearables” category is basically dead now. By the way, Apple disables functionality in regions where HAs are not permitted so that’s not even an option here yet. As for other models: buying OTC HAs from another country where no warranty support is available is also unwise until they are actually availalable. And a trip to the US is not free (nor am I willing to do it if it were free as long as the “51st state” nonsense continues).

My comment about relative price still stands when you compare Rx Costco prices to the few OTC HAs that professional reviews suggest are actually capable of meeting their stated specifications (which many evidently do not). When someone who doesn’t want to pay an audiology clinic price ($4000-8000?) is looking at the choice between $700-2000 for OTC versus Costco’s price for Rx quality devices, sales figures show that almost nobody is buying OTC… they're either buying cheaper Rx devices or buying nothing.

Editing to add: once Apple releases AirPods with a camera built-in as they are rumoured to be planning, this will make AirPods an even worse “all-day wear” option. As with Meta glasses, many people, venues, and workplaces will likely start to ban them and users will be facing lots of hassles. Having devices that are hard to distinguish from “pervert pods” will be stigmatized. Mark my words!

Oh and one other thing that may not have been obvious in my comparison above… if I can’t use my benefits (from work and the government) for OTC HAs then Costco may be LESS expensive.

Greg.Smith, I don't know the reason(s) why Canadian authorities don't allow . It was a political battle in the U.S. Two somewhat unlikely allies, Senator Warren (D. MA) and Senator Grassley (R. IA), withstood the onslaught of opposition spurred by the HA manufacturers, they both led the legislation allowing OTC's. I don't know how that played out in the European countries, almost all of whom now allow OTC's. Regarding the 51st state, yeah, really, absurdly stupid. But "come on down" when you think the time's right!

Edited

In reply to @greg.smith

I like Cliff. I think his heart is in the right place and he's generally a thoughtful, rational guy. I especially liked him at the beginning when he was mostly banging the drum of real ear verification. I still do watch all of his new hearing aid release videos. I think his hearing up network is kind of dumb, but I recognize that the States don't have the same level of auditing and oversight as other countries and at least he's trying to put something into place. I really do think that that should come from a professional body, however.

I think he rubbed some older clinicians* the wrong way when he graduated from school and then immediately started telling people what to do. I think some older clinicians who already follow best practices equal to or better than what he promotes are annoyed to be asked to pay him money to market a thing they already do. I think some people are disappointed that as his time on YouTube progressed he seemed to fall into the manufacturers's pockets and more get more YouTube-y. But that is kind of just the name of the game he's playing.

*Not old clinicians as in age, just clinicians who have been practicing for longer than him.

In reply to @portage

Ontario recently initiated a regulatory process that may result in becoming available. Each province needs to do this individually. In theory it is just a matter of time. Usually our regulators follow the US with some lag time to see what happens.

In reply to @Neville

Completely understandable. On the other hand… it’s just lead generation, which is how things are done online. If folks don’t want the leads they can stick with marketing as they have done previously.

In reply to @greg.smith

@greg.smith said:

based on market capitalization (i.e., precipitous fall in the share price) of the company he discusses in the video. That's not quite the same as financial losses on a company's balance sheet, but I can't really argue with it as a way of quantifying loss of value. The point of the argument: if you believe markets reflect a reasonably accurate aggregate of the future prospects of a companty, then in this case the market determined that this leading OTC HA company was going nowhere. By extension, you can argue that the entire OTC HA concept was over-hyped.

I accept the point, but given none of that potential is (was never) realised it was just based on someone’s imperfect business plan/assessment of latent demand. I could over value my business by 500% and sell shares or borrow against the notional value, but that doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically ‘worth’ that amount of money - or - if I subsequently rebase the value back to my original, I haven’t lost billions, I’m back where I started.

As to markets giving the aggregate value: no I don’t think they always do, just look at firms like SpaceX or one of the other Tech bubble lot, like NVidia who are reverse pumping their supply chain. If you want a non-physical example: Bitcoin.

To the general point about products like Elehear, I think there’s a large latent (middle-third) of the market who’d be willing to use a legitimate denoising set of aids with home testing/programming from an App for around £500. Especially if there is some brand recognition.

@Um_bongo said:

To the general point about products like Elehear, I think there’s a large latent (middle-third) of the market who’d be willing to use a legitimate AI denoising set of aids with home testing/programming from an App for around £500. Especially if there is some brand recognition.

This seems to be the crux of the issue: so far, marketing under consumer electronics brands with massive recognition (like Sony or Bose) has not succeeded. Evidence in the marketplace suggests that the hurdle may still be the user's unwillingness to actually accept the need for HAs rather than pure price-sensitivity or suspicion of unknown brands.

Related discussions