[lukasbarton]

It would appear as though they are, at least according to this article from 2015. One would imagine they wouldn't continue expanding once the $/sqft leveled off:

"$3,785 in sales per square foot, a figure that would put Warby Parker behind only Apple in terms of retail efficiency. Though those numbers have dipped somewhat as Warby Parker has grown, the company is still averaging about $3,000 per square foot of retail space, a figure that’s in the same breath as Tiffany’s estimated $3,043."

[1]https://www.fastcompany.com/3041334/warby-parker-sees-the-fu...

[slg]

Those numbers say nothing about the interaction between retail and online sales. There is no question the Warby Parker retail stores cannibalize the online sales. The only reason I went to the store was because it was quicker than a home try on. The brand is what attracted me as a potential customer and not the store itself. It is a mistake to only credit the store with the potential sale.

[hn_throwaway_99]

True, but that is how you report in-store sales, and the exact same dynamic applies to Apple sales.

In terms of "There is no question the Warby Parker retail stores cannibalize the online sales", I wouldn't call in "cannibalization", I'd call it (excuse the business buzzword) synergy. I did the exact same thing, but both parts of the experience enhanced each other for me. That is, I liked being able to browse and search online, and then get a real feel and fitting in-store. I'm sure they expanded into brick-and-mortar retail because they know a large number of folks aren't going to want to go through the mail-order-try-on-five-pairs thing.