Don Smith

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 ]

solarmeter

Don,

There will be book published in a couple months by Krispin Sullivan that may help take a big bite.

She's been working with Grant, Holick, Mims, NASA etc to bring together facts about UVR and vitamin D, focusing on UVB and testing for D levels.

She feels that 'tropical' levels of UVB are important (with exposure short of erythema), and normal 5-6% may be as well.

Her website www.sunlightd.org is a 'holding place' for future news & updates as the book nears completion.

Steve

MJ

Don,
You are very correct.. the media really likes BAD FOR YOU SCARE TACTIC STORIES.
Why not use them. It worked well for the anti-tanning crusaders.
Now the issue at hand is will they even fall for this reverse psychology approach?

I am interested how his is going to pan out in chat tonight. See you you there!
Mj

Don Smith

Here's an example of why we must mount a NAC to motivate the media to "tell the truth" about UVR.

On http://www.cnn.com/health, an article titled "Skip the tan, save your skin" and subtitled "By 18, you may have had 80 percent of your sun exposure" quoted our old friends at the AAD (American Academy of Dermatology who said "On average, a person recieves about 80 percent of their lifetime sun exposure by the time he or she is 18." The only problem is, THIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!

In addition, this article tried to "link" tanning beds and cigarette smoking by quoting a Baylor College of Medicine (Houston, TX) dermatologist who said "A safe tanning bed is like saying there is a safe cigarette. It doesnt exist."

And then, incredibly, the AAD was quoted as saying tat "sun exposure is responsible for at least two-thirds of melanomas" WHICH ABSOLUTELY IS NOT TRUE!

So you see, folks, the media prints all of this unsubstantiated "crap" that is spoon-fed them by the AAD.

We MUST counter this by providing the facts.

Here is what I sent Christy Oglesby the CNN corespondent who is guilty of writing this nonsense.

To: CNN.com/Health

http://www.naatso.org/frameset_tso.htm

By clicking on the link above you will be able to learn that the "lead" statement by Ms. Oglesby "By 18, you may have had 80 percent of your sun exposure" and the AAD statement "On average, a person receives about 80 percent of their lifetime sun exposure by the hime he or she is 18" is NOT TRUE and never has been true.

IF you would check the veracity of the facts given you by the American Academy of Dermatology, you would not make embarrassing mistakes like this.

Moreover, you should also consider the fact that another AOL news article covered the fact that Vitamin D protects against colon cancer and ask yourself what the "natural" mechanism of the body for producing it is.

The incontrovertible fact is that the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible EXPOSURE to UVR (ultraviolet radiation) outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved.

Indeed, the greatest risk to the health of the American public is UNDEREXPOSURE to UVR.

I hereby request that you promptly correct your error.

Donald L. Smith

PS To TanTalkers: The "link" to this article is: http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/05/17/tanning.bed.laws/index.html



[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-19 19:35 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-19 19:39 ]

Don Smith

MJ:

Monday Morning "NAC" Update!

The "idea" of making a "paradigm shift" in the NAC from advertising to consumers to "focusing" on the media was shown last night to have merit. It's too bad the "technical problems" prohibited a "discussion" last night.

IMMEDIATELY after he "heard" it on the TanTalk Sunday Night Super Chat, Bruce went over to his website "chat" and presented my idea AS IF IT WAS HIS! LOL

I went "over there" incognito and when I couldn't remain silent any longer, identified myself and asked him the question - "Sir, have you no shame?" (At least he could have told them where he "borrowed" the idea. LOL)

But while we all agreed that it makes sense to "target" the media instead of the consumer, there IS a MAJOR difference in my approach vs the approach of Bruce and the "over there" crowd. They think that the "image" of the communications (the "marketing" of the idea rather than the "scientific value" of the idea) is what is important and so they were proposing things like using the Kava Kava girl "picture" to promote interest in breast cancer (tacky, tacky, tacky!).

My appoach is to present one scientific fact in an interesting way per transmittal and use that "fact" to illustrate why UNDEREXPOSURE to UVR is BAD (and therefore newsworthy).

I tried to point out to the "over there" crowd that their approach would generate nothing but a big laugh by the media and would, in fact, further damage the "image" of our industry and that ONLY documented, proven scientific information would be accepted and used. Fortunately, I pointed out, the "scientific facts" support our case.

The way I ended it (they began "accusing" me of not being a "team player" because I refused to agree to "go along" with their approach) was to issue a challenge. Let's go our separate way, I said, and see which approach gets more "ink" in the nations papers, magazines and on radio and TV. The "over there" folks wouldn't accept my challenge and, instead, fell back on their standard way of handling things - insulting me. (The "odds" were about 10 to 1 against me. That made it about even! LOL)

Our "team" will send these "scientific tidbits" under the banner of the UVR Research Institute which is a division of the North American/International Alliance of Tanning Salon Owners (TSO). [Note: They don't have a "clue" as to how they will send them out.]

I will post some information later for those who wish to help financially support this campaign. If no one else wants to help support it, Pat and I will do so because we beleive that, long range, it has the potential to significantly benefit the indoor tanning industry.

Don

MJ

Don,
I hope that in time we will all be on the same page or at least in the same chapter...lol
I wish the techinical difficulties were not an issue last night. I might have been able to be more of a help. Sheila and other had these problems as well.

You knew going in you had approximately 20 minutes max to conform without become a target.
Things will change Don.... it just takes time! I actually do believe that. I also believe that the middle ground has not yet been found. As for it being Bruces idea..LOL well you knew that also!! What difference does it make. Hey it makes him feel better. What ever works.
As long as they are working towards the goal I do not care if they think it is George Bush's idea!
The bottom line is they agree on the need foe the NAC. However the detials and "how it is pulled off" will be worked out later.

Mj

solarmeter

Just as long as it's NOT Al Gore's idea...

Algore: Global UV warming is here! It's 39 degrees in MI.

MJ

I know Solar.. I am not liking MICHIGANS WHEATHER AT ALL LATELY! It better be nice for the weekend. Lots of BBQ guest coming!
Mj

Sheila in Minnesota

D*mit Don - - - reposting this here too . . . .

DON SMITH ~ Take it back you silly crab apple!!!! That is NOT how it went down . . . even those with extra estrogen would never recount the dialogue as such!!


The consensus was that you and Bruce NEEDED to work together to accomplish this. . You are overstating the Boob comments and you are also overstating the 'attacks' on your weird science . . ..

Do not split the force here Don - - - there is NO CONTEST and if you do this - - - I will have to move you back to former lover status AGAIN!!!!


Do not be we todd did!!!

You cannot reach the masses with science alone - - - - they need to FEEL the pain of underexposure . . . they need to VISUALIZE the benefits of a Tan Achieved in a Professional Salon . . . and they NEED to understand that there is a method to our madness

Don't make me beg for your cooperation Don . . . I don't know how ~ and you would be very unhappy with the %$#@#@#! Sheila ~ and then we would not be able to play together - - -

That would make me sad.

Please behave . . .. Swallow some pride & agree that YOU CANNOT DO THIS ALONE - - and should not flirt with your own disaster by trying to change the facts of our reality.

Do not become the force that stops the unity we are currently gaining.

Sheila

Sheila in Minnesota

Now . . . Don~ I never read this topic till today . . . (thought it was your version of being 'racy' and was afraid to commit to removing you off the pedestal I have placed you on )

I do not need to kiss your illustrious a$$ in order for you to realize just how much I value you and your efforts . . . and I agree that you need to promote the benefits of UV, the dangers of not enough UV and Expose the agenda of the Anti-Tans . . .

You need to do this as a group effort love . . There is no need for "them or us" on this issue . . .. Do you think for 1 second that NAC was not going to be a topic at TanToday.com Chat??? I was doing both sites . . . I have no gag order on me for this topic

Don - a deep cleansing breath . . . do not smack out - - - pull the horns in . . . count to 100 very slowly before coming after me . . .. See if you still want to, count to 1000 . . .. If you still want to then . . . have at me.

Oh Tay Panky?

Sheila