Don Smith

FYI To Ask Don's Army:

I have received a LOT of phone calls and e-mails recently about a problem that has been quietly "festering" for some time and the time has come to face it squarely and get it resolved.

1. As mentioned in the "Stay With Me..." series of posts, "traditional" salons help their clients develop UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION and "spray" technology (booths and air brush) only provide COSMETIC SKIN STAINING.

2. I estimate that there are between 34 and 36 million American citizens patronizing "traditional" tanning salons in order to develop PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION and a like number are the "market" for COSMETIC SKIN STAINING. [Note: That means that between 68 and 72 million people in the USA WANT TO BE TAN!]

3. Thus, there is plenty of business for the salons offering COSMETIC SKIN STAINING and so they don't need to resort to "badmouthing" the traditional salons that offer traditional UV-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION.

4. However, new COSMETIC SKIN STAINING "only" salons are springing up all around the country and they seem to feel obligated to "knock" traditional PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION salons instead of just professionally marketing their product.

5. [Note: Thanks for all of the copies of advertisements that many of you have sent me.] One ad that was sent me stated that "The best way to stop wrinkles, age spots and freckles is to stop exposure to UV rays, INCLUDING DANGEROUSLY STRONG TANNING BEDS." [Note: With "friends" like this, who needs enemies!]

6. However, all of the COSMETIC SKIN STAINING salon ads have in common that they advise their clients and potential clients to "Practice Safe Sun" BUT then they fail to warn their clients that COSMETIC SKIN STAINING does NOT provide photo-protection.

7. Furthermore, there was no mention of the fact that UVR avoidance may lead to sub-optimal levels of vitamin D which, in turn, may increase the riske of vitamin D mediated diseases like cancer, TB, coronary heart disease, diabetes and osteoporosis.

If I thought it would do any good, I would write a letter (and organize an e-Message campaign) to the companies responsible for these anti-traditional salon ads asking them to quit bashing us and (1) stick to promoting the benefits of their product, and, (2) ask them to IMMEDIATELY take steps to notify their salons to warn their clients about the fact that COSMETIC SKIN STAINING does not provide the photo-protective, thermo-protective, immuno-protective, and cellular repair enhancement benefits like normal, natural UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION conveys.

Therefore, I will write a letter to (1) the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) protesting these FDMSU (false, deceptive, misleading and scientifically unsubstantiated) advertisements, and, (2) to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) asking them to step in and take regulatory control of the COSMETIC SKIN STAINING portion of the industry that, IMHO, needs immediate attention (the least that must be done by FDA is to make sure that the clients of COSMETIC SKIN STAINING salons are advised, in writing, that COSMETIC SKIN STAINING does not provide photo-protection).

I will also bring to the attention of both FTC and FDA that both salons providing traditional UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION and salons providing COSMETIC SKIN STAINING must warn EQUALLY about the risks of underexposure to UVR and overexposure to UVR.

These letters will be posted in the "International Regulatory Information" forum after they are sent.

I will also set up an automatic e-Message to both FTC and FDA so that you can add your protest to mine.

It's time to "face up" to this festering problem and resolve it before it does any more damage to traditional salons.

Don

PS: We offer both traditional UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION and COSMETIC SKIN STAINING but we provide written "informed consent" warnings (that the client must sign) about the risks involved with the former and a written "informed consent" warning (that the client must sign) that the latter does not provide protection from sunburn. Why? Because that's the way it should be done in order to protect the American public!

fungirlz

Don.. as you know we now offer air brushing by licensed aestheticians in our facility..
I have come to the conclusion my next ad will say..
BODY STAINING!!!!!!!!!! it's eye catcing and GRRRRRRReat!! I'll let you know what a hit it is in our area... I love it.. BODY STAINING...

Don Smith

Christine:

And I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that you warn your clients that the "body staining" does not provide photo-protection.

Don

Frankie

Don I have ordered a Mystic Tan that I should
have sometime in November. I plan to switch my customers from the tanning bed to the Mystic or vise versa. I realize I will have some customers that do not use my tanning beds. These are the people I will have to make sure they understand that in NO way does the body staining provide any protection from sunburn.

I think the Mystic will be a great addition to my salon. I can`t imagine anyone advertising in such an unprofessional manner. Only to make a dollar. I thought we were all in this together. A tanning salon w/out body staining and a body staining salon only could be a great benefit to each other. As if we don`t have enough problems
Now this.

Don Smith

Frankie:

You summed the situation up very well.

There IS a place for salons offering COSMETIC SKIN STAINING, salons offering PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION and salons (like ours and yours will soon be) that offer both.

However, there is NO place for COSMETIC SKIN STAINING "only" salons "badmouthing" salons offering UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION just to make a few quick bucks. [Note: It appears that salons offering both services do not seem to "badmouth" traditional tanning as much as the COSMETIC SKIN STAINING "only" salons.]

Furthermore, some of these COSMETIC SKIN STAINING only salons don't seem to understand that while the color of the stained skin may be tan, their "product" IS NOT facultative pigmentation (better known as a "tan") and, therefore, DOES NOT provide the same protective benefits (photo-protection, thermo-protection, immuno-protection and enhanced cellular repair capacity) that PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION provides.

In their ignorance and greed, they have "gone over the line" and we must do whatever is necessary to protect the American public and "traditional" UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION salons.

Don

BooBop

Man... another lost post I will try again.

Thank you Don for the email campaigns. I challenge everyone to jump on the band wagon if you truly want to help our industry.

I too, plan on bringing in Skin Staining very soon. Thank you for some tips on how to protect myself and my clients by educating them in regards to protective pigmentation. I think there is a market for both ways of changing the skin color. We just need to make sure that everyone understands the difference.

solarmeter

"Staining". I bet the spray-on companies just love that term! Makes me think of red wine spilled on the carpet.

Wood stain: absorbs into wood and colors the fibers.

Paint: sticks to top surface with or without chemical bond.

Electrostatic: charged spray particle application process for paint, stain or DHT.

Don Smith

Steve:

I belong to the "call a pig a pig" school of advertising.

COSMETIC SKIN STAINING describes the "product" provided by the "fake spray" technology perfectly.

And, UVR-induced PROTECTIVE PIGMENTATION describes the "product" provided by "traditional" salons perfectly.

Call a pig a pig!

Don

BooBop

As Mori once stated on TToday,,, Why stop at brown colors.? Can you imagine seeing a bunch of Bama fans at a ballgame stained Crimson, or TN fams Orange?