CTS - Please do not buy from them

[dcjjp1]

There's no way to really win in this situation unless you go PL and hype up how much better your PL is than the commercial brands, and even that is a stretch. Hair/salons out rank tanning salons by like 10:1, it's no wonder where their allegiance is.

Sorry to have sounded insensitive, I didn't get the scope of the problem until just now....

[Kathe]

No problem. It's really a fight I'm not going to win, anyway. Just venting about it.

Kathe

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by besttan

I buy my shampoo from Arbonne, I don't shop at Nailco/CTS/whatever. And they won't let me, I'm a tanning salon owner and am not allowed to buy beauty products from them. That is my beef with them. They won't let me by beauty products but they'll let they beauty people buy tanning products.

Not to get this thread too off topic, but I own a hair salon as well as a tanning salon.

I believe the reason tanning salon operators cannot buy some hair products at some stores is for safety.. bare with me..

Hair stylists, atleast in Ohio, go through a few years of training and something like 2000 hours of OJT before they are licensed to do hair.. Not because it takes them so long to learn how to do an updo, but because the stylists learn a good deal of the biological and chemical factors that they will encounter with clients.. if you screw up, using commercial grade hair products, you can burn the client's scalp quite badly.. you can make their hair fall out.. etc..

I believe this is why there is a requirement at most beauty supply stores that only licensed stylists may buy the products.. for the sake of responsibility (ethical and legal), it's best for the chemical manufacturers that a professional stylist does your hair.. and thus it's best that the average person who may be confident in their own abilities to work on their own or someone else's hair just not be given the opportunity to do so..

I realize you can't screw up your life too badly with a bottle of professional grade conditioner, just as you can't with tanning lotion.. but I think that "double standard" starts with chemicals truly for safety reasons and then extends to the other products for mostly business reasons...

It might not be fair, in many respects. But it's not as if it's an arbitrary decision solely intended to slap tanning salon owners in the face.

[TonyG]

Well then, the lotion companies and distributors in the tanning industry should institute a policy that only businesses/hairdressers who have been through an accredited tanning training course can buy tanning lotions.


Simple as that, and it would level the playing field.

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by TonyG

Well then, the lotion companies and distributors in the tanning industry should institute a policy that only businesses/hairdressers who have been through an accredited tanning training course can buy tanning lotions.


Simple as that, and it would level the playing field.

It might make we tanning salon owners feel better.. but I don't think it is in the public interest..

I do understand the point completely though.

[TonyG]

Originally Posted by JeffK

It might make we tanning salon owners feel better.. but I don't think it is in the public interest..

I do understand the point completely though.

Not in the "public interest", or not in the hairdresser's interest?

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by TonyG

Not in the "public interest", or not in the hairdresser's interest?

Well... I meant I think it's a good idea to restrict sale of alot of the commerical grade hair products, namely chemicals, to the general public..

I do not believe it serves the public's interest to have restrictions on tanning sale lotions..

As I tried to share above, you're dealing with chemicals which can create open sores, serious burns, etc.. that's why I guess I'm drawing the distinction.. I realize it's probably not a popular opinion on this forum.. I was just trying get the point across that it's not a policy designed to annoy tanning salons, or any other segment of the general public for that matter..

[TonyG]

Originally Posted by JeffK

Well... I meant I think it's a good idea to restrict sale of alot of the commerical grade hair products, namely chemicals, to the general public..

I do not believe it serves the public's interest to have restrictions on tanning sale lotions..

As I tried to share above, you're dealing with chemicals which can create open sores, serious burns, etc.. that's why I guess I'm drawing the distinction.. I realize it's probably not a popular opinion on this forum.. I was just trying get the point across that it's not a policy designed to annoy tanning salons, or any other segment of the general public for that matter..

I don't see how the "public interest" is hurt in any way. If CTS and all the other distributors had a policy that they would only sell to businesses that had gone through an accredited training program, then it would mean that either (a) the hairdresser/salon would have to go through a tanning training program before they could buy, or (b) the hairdresser would say forget it, I'll just buy from a tanning salon.

Both of those options are good for the tanning industry, and good for the "public interest", as the "public" would be sure they are buying tanning products from people who know about tanning.

A strong tingle product when sold to the wrong person, can end in disaster, by the way.

[brownsuze]

Originally Posted by JeffK

I do not believe it serves the public's interest to have restrictions on tanning sale lotions..

..

Odd way to phrse it tho. How does it HURT the public to have restrictions?


I liken this to the movies... You can sneak your own snacks in but the theater pays a huge sum for the film no matter what (like we do our beds). If they don't make that sum on snack sales, they'll make it at the box office. And I don't like it but I'll pay it, $10.50 to see a movie these days...

If you can't get revenue from retail sales of lotion et al, raise the price for your sessions.

[JeffK]

At this point the only way I can respond to you, Tony and brownsuze, is to open a debate about the benefits of a free market economy with controls and restrictions on certain areas of commerce.. ie: age limits to buy things, certifications to buy things, etc.

I believe that's beyond the scope of this board and thread.

I think I'm using the term "public interest" differently than it sounds.

Please accept my apologies.. I'm not trying to blow you off.. I was just trying to describe the other side of the coin.. nothing more.

[brownsuze]

I'm not offended by your argument I just thought it could have been worded better.

I see your point... and, shhhhh, I have bought professional grade dyes and done my own hair many times over the years.

BUT if I walked into your hair salon and said "I brought my own dye I bought at Nailco, so I'll only pay you to apply it," don't you think your stylists would think a lot less of me? Wouldn't you cringe the next time I came in and be totally pissed at Nailco for biting into your bottomline? I bet a lot of salon's would just tell me to get the hell out.

THAT's Kathe's point.

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by brownsuze

I'm not offended by your argument I just thought it could have been worded better.

Probably. I'm not that bright.

BUT if I walked into your hair salon and said "I brought my own dye I bought at Nailco, so I'll only pay you to apply it," don't you think your stylists would think a lot less of me?

As I've never heard of such a thing happening it is a difficult statement to try to respond to..

I think many salons would refuse to discount the price of the product from the service.. some stylists might refuse to do the service based on the fact they are not familiar with that particular product line..

I don't know how to respond, exactly.. but playing along.. if *I* was called and that was the situation told to me, I would instruct the stylist to refuse based on not being totally sure what was contained in that bottle and an extreme reluctance to apply it to a person's head.. like I said, who knows what's in that bottle and therefore what the results will be..

That's why you don't buy tanning lotion off eBay, btw.

[TonyG]

Originally Posted by brownsuze

I see your point... and, shhhhh, I have bought professional grade dyes and done my own hair many times over the years.

That statement is useless without pictures!

[brownsuze]

Originally Posted by JeffK

As I've never heard of such a thing happening it is a difficult statement to try to respond to..

I think many salons would refuse to discount the price of the product from the service.. some stylists might refuse to do the service based on the fact they are not familiar with that particular product line..

But see, this happens to us every single day. Tanning IS a service (albeit not hands on) and any schmuck can walk in with any bottle, and...?????

Originally Posted by JeffK

but playing along.. if *I* was called and that was the situation told to me, I would instruct the stylist to refuse based on not being totally sure what was contained in that bottle and an extreme reluctance to apply it to a person's head.. like I said, who knows what's in that bottle and therefore what the results will be..

.

ok!!! And yet TANNING salon owners are supposed to roll over and say "enjoy your tan."

I just get burned when hair stylists think this is somehow different than where they are, that for whatever reason what we do doesn't count, even tho we are still a vanity industry, we still go thru a lot of training, have the same potenial to eff people up big time, we are still salons....

[Shane]

What we ought to do is start a hair product diversion site. I have a managers license and can purchase any hair products at cost.

[brownsuze]

Originally Posted by TonyG

That statement is useless without pictures!

SEE??? You don't have to be licensed to do that shit...

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by brownsuze

But see, this happens to us every single day. Tanning IS a service (albeit not hands on) and any schmuck can walk in with any bottle, and...?????
ok!!! And yet TANNING salon owners are supposed to roll over and say "enjoy your tan."

I just get burned when hair stylists think this is somehow different than where they are, that for whatever reason what we do doesn't count, even tho we are still a vanity industry, we still go thru a lot of training, have the same potenial to eff people up big time, we are still salons....

Hair and tanning are very different disciplines. But based on what you're saying, reaction and opinions of hairstylists toward tanning salon employees -- you have already told me enough.

I would simply ignore anyone who has the opinion that these jobs "don't count". Every word they said after sharing that sentiment would become nearly meaningless.

[brownsuze]

Well I was playing Devil's Advocate. See my movie theater anaolgy above. Buy your lotion where ever, but if you wanna use my bed, pony up da ching.

[brownsuze]

Unless of course, I get free blow outs...

[TonyG]

Originally Posted by brownsuze

SEE??? You don't have to be licensed to do that shit...

Is that you? Cool!! Just work on the tan!!