Thoughts on the Berman Campaign...

[Jim Fisher]

I didn't even know that the campaign started nor did anyone mention anything to me so they dropped the ball in my opinion.

[Robbie]

Jim...you didn't get the memo? You must be off the list.

Here's what you missed-
http://www.sunlightscam.com/downloads/TanningHighlights.wmv
Brian...I have posted elsewhere, my favorable opinions on this topic. These open forums are not the right place to be discussing this type of strategy so I wouldn't expect too many of the donors to be posting here.

That said, here's as much as I'm willing to say publicly.

I put a few bucks towards this campaign and I believe I got my money's worth. Is that a valid criteria by which to judge?

There is no question that the media representation after the fact could have been handled much better. I believe a real opportunity was lost there, and I concur with the poster who said we should have had an MD representing our side.

That said, I believe it was a decent first volley.

I was drawn to the campaign for two reasons. I liked Berman's approach in "starting the debate" and their concept of "earned media".

I believe they delivered on both.

This was the first time in the history of this Industry that an advertising campaign gained national media attention.

This was the first time in the history of this Industry that we were on the offensive, claiming the link to melanoma was hype and unfounded.

Berman's ad made it to every major outlet and we were given the opportnuity to defend this position (albeit a poor defense using the wrong defender), but nonetheless, they started the debate, as promised, and they got national coverage in the process, as promised.

Much like Iraq, the after-party was poorly conceived and poorly coordinated. Is there room for improvement going forward? ABSOLUTELY!

Will it happen? My hope is that it will but I guess we need to wait for Nashville to hear the next step.

In the meantime, this campaign provided me with many learning opportunities. It opened my eyes as to what is possibe. What we should say, what we shouldn't say, who should be saying it, and how to get our message amplified through earned media.

These very valuable lessons can be expensive, but if you pay close attention, there is much to be gained for each of our own marketing campaigns.

In short, I got my money's worth...and I dare say that most of you who posted got theirs as well.

[JeffK]

Well, Robbie..

As someone who apparently made a sizeable contribution, why don't you involve (or even assert) yourself in the process more this time around? I know you're busy but you obviously care about the campaign and if you think that much of your money was a good investment then perhaps some of your time would be as well.. surely the ITA would welcome that? I think most of us on here would as well.

[Robbie]

Jeff...I wish I could post the real history of my involvement with this campaign. I was on the front line, helping with the script, but was told that the MD's that they were seeking to involve were too uncomfortable with the position I was pitching...I wanted our message to be woven into the breast cancer issue...they disagreed and I was off the team....politics.

Matt Russell went on to create Smart Tan's d-feat breast cancer approach, which I wholly endorse. I have since created a media campaign to support this, which will be rolled out in Nashville.

I had issues (and still do) with the Berman ads. At one point I rescinded the money I had pledged, but after seeing the earned media they created, I got back on board.

There is so much I would have done differently, and my last post alludes to the fact that I am now personally doing things differently. In this process I am hoping that I can convince others to come on board, but you'll have to wait for Nashville to see what I, and others, have in store for moving our collective message forward.

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Jeff...I wish I could post the real history of my involvement with this campaign. I was on the front line, helping with the script, but was told that the MD's that they were seeking to involve were too uncomfortable with the position I was pitching...I wanted our message to be woven into the breast cancer issue...they disagreed and I was off the team....politics.

Matt Russell went on to create Smart Tan's d-feat breast cancer approach, which I wholly endorse. I have since created a media campaign to support this, which will be rolled out in Nashville.

I had issues (and still do) with the Berman ads. At one point I rescinded the money I had pledged, but after seeing the earned media they created, I got back on board.

There is so much I would have done differently, and my last post alludes to the fact that I am now personally doing things differently. In this process I am hoping that I can convince others to come on board, but you'll have to wait for Nashville to see what I, and others, have in store for moving our collective message forward.

Fair enough.

I'm glad to see you state your position that there was catastropic errors with that parody of a campaign that Berman's team threw together..

I also agree wholeheartedly with the ideas you've shared so far for round 2.. since you have a seat at the table, or at least can get one, I think you would do the campaign and the industry a massive favour if you could have the ITA work to convince the manufacturers to make more than a token donation this time around.. their resources are going to be needed, and let's face it they have the most to lose..

One question about this statement: "I wanted our message to be woven into the breast cancer issue...they disagreed and I was off the team....politics."

So, since they kicked you off the team to avoid the breast cancer angle and placate the MDs ... where were the MDs?! Or are you suggesting that because Smart Tan went ahead with that story line that the MDs backed off anyway?

[sunsally]

Well, since I was another perceived "cheerleader", I'll tag my two cents here..........

I agree with much of what Robbie said. I believe the campaign delivered what it said it would, and feel Highline Capital got their $5,000 worth and Ann Wiggins Noe and Salty Sunfish Tanning got our $1/day ($365/year) worth as well.

At the time, I'm sure having someone used to dealing with "media" as the spokesperson seemed smart. I think Sarah Longwell did well on that front - but needed to have a tan and anticipate that they would ask her about that. Lesson learned for year #2.

I don't think this is a one-trick pony. I think there are a lot of different ways to approach it and ultimately, the more the better! I think it is GREAT that it has spawned/linked all sorts of "additional" campaigns, from Matt Russell & Smart Tan's "D-feat Breast Cancer" to the things Robbie is doing in his market with Darque Tan and the efforts MANY individual salon owners are undertaking to this day!

On my side of the fence, as an "action item" - I have thrown my hat into the ring to be voted in as a "salon sector representative" to the ITA. I'm up against a lot of well known veterans with multiple salons and other ties to the industry, but hopefully I'll get enough votes to have at least one "Mom & Pop" representation on the board, as well as a female! And if not, I'll keep going to the meetings as an open participant and chiming in where I can.

Three choices as I see it:

1. Sit on our (ITA, salon owners, etc) hands and do nothing

2. Wait for the "perfect storm" of the right message, funding, timing, and everything else to be "just right" before taking action

3. Get in there, mix it up, stir it up, get some eyeballs, create some action, get people talking and keep fine tuning it as you go.

In this case - I am satisfied that #3 was the best course of action and delivered as promised - while still leaving much to be done in the future. I look forward to being part of the next phases - and continuing to involve more people in the process!

[Robbie]

Jeff...I never heard another word about the MD's, and don't know of any connection to them backing out because of the d-feat breast cancer campaign.

After seeing the Berman ad and it's execution, I can understand why they'd back away.

Ann...you have my vote

[solarmeter®]

So... which of the MD's whose names are on the various positive UV studies are not chicken to step forward?

[Robbie]

Steve...I wish we could find just one.

Check out this exchange with the reporter who did the story on us. She ended the story with this-

"Dr. Joan Lappe conducted one study at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

When we told Lappe that Segler cited her study to promote indoor tanning, she said there aren't enough studies on tanning beds to make the safe connection between indoor tanning and vitamin D.

"There's a great big leap from going from my study to going to tanning booths are good sources of vitamin D," Lappe said.

We also checked with researchers at Harvard and Boston universities who all say it's true increased levels of vitamin D does decrease your chances of getting cancer, but none of them said they would or have ever advocated using a tanning bed to get your vitamin D.

They all recommend foods such as milk or taking supplements."

so I called her out on this-

-From: Robbie Segler <Robbie@darquetan.com>
To: Amy Davis
Sent: Wed Aug 06 23:28:20 2008
Subject: FW: Tanning beds help vitamin D deficiency

So Dr. Holick in Boston said he didn’t recommend tanning beds Amy?

"Vitamin D deficiency is common in both children and adults worldwide," said Michael Holick. "Exposure to lamps that emit UVB radiation is an excellent source for producing vitamin D3 in the skin and is especially efficacious in patients with fat malabsortion syndromes."

Best Regards,
Robbie

she responded-

From: Amy Davis
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:33 PM
To: Robbie Segler
Subject: Re: Tanning beds help vitamin D deficiency

He absolutely said he did not recommend tanning beds as a safe source of Vitamin D. I even asked him why he posed in a tanning bed for the USA Today article if he didn't recommend them. He told me that it is true that the rays in tanning beds help to produce Vitamin D, but that much more research on tanning beds needed to be done about the possible harmful effects of tanning beds before he would actually recommend them. Maybe you should call him yourself.

Amy

If Dr. Holick, who is a phenomenal resource (he gave a fabulous presentation to my Boston staff a few weeks ago), won't even speak out...who will? We all know what happened to him when he endorsed UV exposure in his book.

Finding an MD to appear on screen as an advocate would be nice.

[solarmeter®]

Pretty sad. They know the truth but won't admit it.

Even Mercola (whom I wouldn't recommend as a spokesperson) has tons of D3 info on his site... including some ESB lamp arrays:

Search Center * - Search.mercola.com

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by solarmeter®

Pretty sad. They know the truth but won't admit it.

Even Mercola (whom I wouldn't recommend as a spokesperson) has tons of D3 info on his site... including some ESB lamp arrays:

Search Center * - Search.mercola.com

It doesn't seem to be worth their while.

So the ITA will have to make it worth their while by paying the MDs very, very well..

[mgj]

To me, this was act one of a longer play. Any PR is good PR. Should changes be made? Absolutely. Any project in life that is of this magnatude, will not go as planned and will have many changes made during it implimentation. See the US generals comments on Iraq/Al queda, the enemy always has a say in the outcome of the war.

Now enough crying in our beer, what can we do to make Act 2 a success?? If we a group come up with some good ideas, I sure Robbie or someone else could take it forward.

Act 2:

1. get a few MDs involved to argue our case in the MSMedia.

2. Get a couple of well versed Salon owners instead of pasty Sarah.

3. .....(gotta go mow the lawn having employees over for a cookout so carry on)

[Robbie]

Jeff wrote- “I think you would do the campaign and the industry a massive favor if you could have the ITA work to convince the manufacturers to make more than a token donation this time around”

Jeff, I’m always uncomfortable with the idea that the manufacturers are the go-to resource for these types of initiatives, and I’m even more uncomfortable ‘expecting” or trying to ‘convince’ them, or anyone, otherwise.

How much a person donates is a personal matter and answerable to no one. My theory is to lead by example. Donate your own money and if others see the wisdom behind your actions, they’ll donate too.

[Robbie]

from Steve- “Pretty sad. They know the truth but won't admit it.”

I’m not so sure Steve. Dr. Holick has an interesting point and it is the same one that Dr. Lappe (Creighton University study) also used when she wouldn’t recommend tanning beds.

Not enough studies on beds.

Doctors will reluctantly admit that UVB from a tanning bed produces vitamin D3, but what else does it produce?

They’ve been scared into thinking that tanning beds do more than that, most pointedly- they believe tanning beds can cause skin cancer.

And they can.

Basal cell and squamous cell admittedly…but melanoma gets lumped in with this as well.

This connection is seemingly unavoidable.

I applaud the Berman campaign in that this was the first time I have ever seen this issue taken on directly- even complete with a full page New York Times ad specifically outing this claim.

If you watch the link I attached in my previous post again you’ll see that Sarah tries to defend this particular point, albeit without much success.

I’d actually like to see the Berman campaign continue this approach (with better representation- preferably an MD) as I see this as a vital step in the process of our mainstream acceptance.

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Jeff wrote- “I think you would do the campaign and the industry a massive favor if you could have the ITA work to convince the manufacturers to make more than a token donation this time around”

Jeff, I’m always uncomfortable with the idea that the manufacturers are the go-to resource for these types of initiatives, and I’m even more uncomfortable ‘expecting” or trying to ‘convince’ them, or anyone, otherwise.

How much a person donates is a personal matter and no one. My theory is to lead by example. Donate your own money and if others see the wisdom behind your actions, they’ll donate too.

Everyone who's tired of hearing me say this, please skip the rest of this post as it's a repeat of what I've already said in posts from months ago..

Robbie, the problem I see is that the management of the lotion manufacturers will evaluate the campaign and then make their decision based on what they think is the best thing for their company.

As you know, this is how companies behave.

So when they, who have alot more to lose than I do, evaluate it and decide the campaign isn't worth their while.. then it makes people like me think: "what do they know that I don't?".. it sends a loud and strong signal that they think the campaign won't be meaningful or do anything worthwhile - so they aren't backing it.

Of course, they HAVE to give something.. so they give the equivalent of a pat on the head and a token amount just so they don't get vilified...

So two things: 1) The campaign needs their cash .. and 2) The industry needs to see that the campaign is important enough to the bigger companies that they get behind it all the way..

That's why I think Berman, the ITA, and whoever else from the campaign the manufacturers will listen to need to work to convince them how important it is.. and if they don't convince them to get behind the campaign in a meaningful way, as was the case for round 1, then they've already failed at one of their most basic tasks.

[Robbie]

But they did get behind it in a meanigful way...they raised over $400K and only half of that was spent. There's still money left over in the kitty. The problems regarding this years campaign were not money related.

That aside...if they don't think it's "worth their while" why should they invest?

Would you have them abandon their judgement to placate yours?

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

But they did get behind it in a meanigful way...they raised over $400K and only half of that was spent. There's still money left over in the kitty. The problems regarding this years campaign were not money related.

Well since you were there .. why don't you tell us: What was the internal goal for fundraising for this effort?

You sound like they were satisfied with $400,000.

If that's TRUE, and $400,000 exceeded their established goals - then they're idiots. Plain and simple.

If it's FALSE, that the goal was higher than $400,000 - then they failed in their first crucial objective and that set the tone for the entire debacle.

If they had NO target or goal established - then they should just close the association and go find something else to do.

That aside...if they don't think it's "worth their while" why should they invest?

Would you have them abandon their judgement to placate yours?

That's the thing. They didn't think it was worthwhile, so they didn't invest.

They just threw the ITA a bone. Nothing more. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

They DIDN'T abandon their judgment.. And I, for one, recognize that their judgment is better than mine.. I paid close attention to what they did and acted on my own behalf accordingly.

[John]

I think it was a smart move to test the waters before jumping all in.

I'm positive that $400K was not the goal, but it was all that was put up. I think the way Berman had pitched it was, give us this much & we will do this, give us more & we will do more.

I think it's great that there is money left over. The Industry made a small splash, now they can look at what needs to be changed before they drop a cannon ball & make a huge splash.

[Robbie]

The stated goal was to raise $250K.

The fund raising efforts exceeded everyone's expectations.

Jeff...so they didn't abandon their judgement- you abandoned yours, or rather, let them decide for you.

If don't have confidence in your own judgement, what makes you think your judgement is accurate now?

[sunsally]

We've had this discussion in other threads many times.

The ITA, as an organization, is almost completel subsidized by vendor money. The costs to exhibit at the trade show are the largest contribution to the budget.

Salon owner participation at the tradeshow, and memberships, are a drop in the bucket - in comparison.

While the Berman money was "separate", if you add up the total funding, you will still see, proportionally, the largest contribution came from vendors.

The goal was met - and exceeded. You can continue to argue that the goal SHOULD HAVE BEEN something else, based on some desire for a "Got Tan" type campaign of the sort that costs "Got Milk" $11M or $55M or whatever the crazy number it was that I presented before. But this was not supposed to be that (which, while catchy, has not been that effective in increasing milk drinking by the way), it was supposed to be a way to create discussion and start "changing the debate" about UV exposure.

Tanning salon owners are seen as less "admirable" right now than used car salespeople and tobacco companies. "Got tan" just isn't going to do it unfortunately!

Research is slowly coming out that supports the cause. As that continues to happen, the initial campaign will CONTINUE to "have legs" even as new phases roll out.