tanTALK - View Single Post - How To Eat An Elephant: The NAC Revisited By Ask Don!

Don Smith · 05-19-2002, 06:59 AM

MJ/Sheila:

First of all, even though it is 3:15 am (Tucson time) as I start writing this (finished at 4:05 am), I want you both to know I HAVE NOT been drinking! And, given the fact that I have spoken out against the other NAC proposal, I hope that the two of you HAVE been drinking when you read this. LOL

LET'S TAKE A NEW LOOK AT NAC.

What I want to propose for discussion here in the "Ask Don" forum is an idea regarding the NAC (national advertising campaign) that has been "fermenting" in my "alleged" brain for the past month or so. If you (and others) think it has merit, perhaps we can talk about it tonight (Sunday, 5/19/02) on the Sunday Night Super Chat.

In order to change the perception of the indoor tanning industry with the public we must literally and figuratively eat an elephant. And we all know that while you CAN eat an elephant, you have to do it one small bite at a time. In the same way that you can't eat an elephant in one meal, we can't expect to change the perception of our industry with one ad. And since multiple ads in multiple publications is prohibitively expensive, we came to a "stand-still" regarding the NAC.

So the question is, where do we start with an affordable NAC? What small "bites" of this "elephant-like" problem facing us do we take first?

My suggestion is that we take a look at why and how our enemies - the anti-tanning segment of the dermatology community - have been so successful in creating this anti-tanning elephant. What have they been doing for the past decade that has allowed them to so completely "demonize" our industry in the eyes of the public AT MINIMAL EXPENSE when the scientific facts so overwhelmingly and increasingly support the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR?

What they have done, IMHO, is to "convince" the media that tanning is bad. And we know that (1) the media LOVES bad news stories, and, (2) they LOVE to get "useable" information handed to them that will make their job easier! So, what our enemies have done is to bring the media a steady stream of "bad news" stories about the "evils" of tanning that have been "spun" as public service announcements (IF YOU tan even once in your life or if you got one sunburn on your butt when you were three years old, you WILL get skin cancer is the "sum and substance" of their scientifically unsubstantiated message!).

Therefore, it is my opinion that the best place to start in a NAC (National Ad Campaign) is for us to present the media with FACTUAL information (but still "BAD NEWS") about the hazards and risks involved with UNDEREXPOSURE to UVR.

Here's my thought. IF we try to convince the media that tanning is good for us (and, as we all know, it is!), we will be ignored because the media abhors good news. BUT, and this is a critical "but", IF we can show them that underexposure to UVR is "bad" (and it is!), they will be more likely to "run" the material we provide them.

Therefore, I propose that we organize an affordable NAC that "targets" the national media and that provides them with a steady stream of information showing that the risks of underexposure to UVR are far worse (badder! LOL) than the risks of even overexposure to UVR and that ONLY THE INDOOR TANNING INDUSTRY is fighting against both of these extremes.

Our "themes" in this proposed campaign?

1. Don't EVER sunburn! (Avoid overexposure)

2. AVOID sun avoidance! (Avoid underexposure)

3. The benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved. (Common sense I)

4. IF the "risks" of overexposure are greater than the "risks" of underexposure, our national public health policy must do everything it can to bring this "message" to the American public. On the other hand, IF the risks of underexposure are greater than the risks of EVEN overexposure, our national health policy MUST bring the "message" of the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible EXPOSURE to the American public. (Common sense II)

One other "side benefit" that must be kept in mind. The NAC that I am proposing is not prohibitively expensive and so tanning salon owners can finance it themselves.

Thoughts? Comments?

Don "Sober As a Judge" Smith

PS: Pick your jaws up off the floor ladies! [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-19 06:07 ]

05-19-2002, 06:59 AM	#1 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,619 Rep Power: 10	MJ/Sheila: First of all, even though it is 3:15 am (Tucson time) as I start writing this (finished at 4:05 am), I want you both to know I HAVE NOT been drinking! And, given the fact that I have spoken out against the other NAC proposal, I hope that the two of you HAVE been drinking when you read this. LOL LET'S TAKE A NEW LOOK AT NAC. What I want to propose for discussion here in the "Ask Don" forum is an idea regarding the NAC (national advertising campaign) that has been "fermenting" in my "alleged" brain for the past month or so. If you (and others) think it has merit, perhaps we can talk about it tonight (Sunday, 5/19/02) on the Sunday Night Super Chat. In order to change the perception of the indoor tanning industry with the public we must literally and figuratively eat an elephant. And we all know that while you CAN eat an elephant, you have to do it one small bite at a time. In the same way that you can't eat an elephant in one meal, we can't expect to change the perception of our industry with one ad. And since multiple ads in multiple publications is prohibitively expensive, we came to a "stand-still" regarding the NAC. So the question is, where do we start with an affordable NAC? What small "bites" of this "elephant-like" problem facing us do we take first? My suggestion is that we take a look at why and how our enemies - the anti-tanning segment of the dermatology community - have been so successful in creating this anti-tanning elephant. What have they been doing for the past decade that has allowed them to so completely "demonize" our industry in the eyes of the public AT MINIMAL EXPENSE when the scientific facts so overwhelmingly and increasingly support the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR? What they have done, IMHO, is to "convince" the media that tanning is bad. And we know that (1) the media LOVES bad news stories, and, (2) they LOVE to get "useable" information handed to them that will make their job easier! So, what our enemies have done is to bring the media a steady stream of "bad news" stories about the "evils" of tanning that have been "spun" as public service announcements (IF YOU tan even once in your life or if you got one sunburn on your butt when you were three years old, you WILL get skin cancer is the "sum and substance" of their scientifically unsubstantiated message!). Therefore, it is my opinion that the best place to start in a NAC (National Ad Campaign) is for us to present the media with FACTUAL information (but still "BAD NEWS") about the hazards and risks involved with UNDEREXPOSURE to UVR. Here's my thought. IF we try to convince the media that tanning is good for us (and, as we all know, it is!), we will be ignored because the media abhors good news. BUT, and this is a critical "but", IF we can show them that underexposure to UVR is "bad" (and it is!), they will be more likely to "run" the material we provide them. Therefore, I propose that we organize an affordable NAC that "targets" the national media and that provides them with a steady stream of information showing that the risks of underexposure to UVR are far worse (badder! LOL) than the risks of even overexposure to UVR and that ONLY THE INDOOR TANNING INDUSTRY is fighting against both of these extremes. Our "themes" in this proposed campaign? 1. Don't EVER sunburn! (Avoid overexposure) 2. AVOID sun avoidance! (Avoid underexposure) 3. The benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved. (Common sense I) 4. IF the "risks" of overexposure are greater than the "risks" of underexposure, our national public health policy must do everything it can to bring this "message" to the American public. On the other hand, IF the risks of underexposure are greater than the risks of EVEN overexposure, our national health policy MUST bring the "message" of the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible EXPOSURE to the American public. (Common sense II) One other "side benefit" that must be kept in mind. The NAC that I am proposing is not prohibitively expensive and so tanning salon owners can finance it themselves. Thoughts? Comments? Don "Sober As a Judge" Smith PS: Pick your jaws up off the floor ladies! [ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-19 06:07 ]