Thoughts on the Berman Campaign...

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nothing useful to add?

That implies you already delivered something useful.

Trust me, you didn't

Aside from a few childish comments like the ones above, you've actually contributed a tremendous amount of information and useful opinion to this thread... based on reading many thousands of posts I can tell your words carry weight here..

We'll just "agree to disagree", as they say.. I just cannot look past a company like Australian Gold/ETS who in court filings have said under oath how they've spent over $1 million dollars without even blinking to protect their profits (fighting diversion, and that amount was from the Hatfield case a few years ago and has of course grown since) .. and yet the entire tanning industry, which is the hand that feeds them, is in a very serious fight they can only manage to find $25,000 or whatever to help "save" it..

Like I said I just view that as a strong indication that they don't feel the campaign is truly important to their strategy.. and it's just in my personality to ask myself why.. I'm sure others will offer a myriad of explainations but this is how I interpret things..

If I'm wrong I can live with that.. it's not the first time, won't be the last time..

[EliteMike]

Jeffk, look how far ETS got with that 1 million dollars, diversion is as strong as ever for them.

[Robbie]

Jeff...please don't let the gravity of my wisdom and previous contributions deter you from a good fight. My "childish" remarks are never personal and always a sign of endearment (just ask my arch nemesis Drew )

That said, I can't help but shine the light on your consistent error. Once again...ETS didn't give as much as you say they should have.

Why don't you post the amounts you think each of us should pay. Don't be shy...you haven't been thus far.

I guess you're the Obama of the boards, decreeing who should pay more. Soak the big companies.

Your very own welfare plan. You pay nothing---the big boys should pay...they have more than enough (based on your analysis of their previous expenditures).

Don't you see something fundamentally wrong here with your expectations of how others should spend their money?

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Jeff...please don't let the gravity of my wisdom and previous contributions deter you from a good fight. My "childish" remarks are never personal and always a sign of endearment (just ask my arch nemesis Drew )

That said, I can't help but shine the light on your consistent error. Once again...ETS didn't give as much as you say they should have.

Why don't you post the amounts you think each of us should pay. Don't be shy...you haven't been thus far.

I guess you're the Obama of the boards, decreeing who should pay more. Soak the big companies.

Your very own welfare plan. You pay nothing---the big boys should pay...they have more than enough (based on your analysis of their previous expenditures).

Don't you see something fundamentally wrong here with your expectations of how others should spend their money?

I think they should pay $35,000 .. $5,000 more than the 2nd highest donor .. just so they can get their name atop the donor list.. I have a feeling they'd donate $25,001 - but then that would be too obvious.. $5k is a nice round number..

(But then again I've proven I know nothing about assessing motives)

Aside from that potential strategy, they should pay what they think is right. And that's what they did. Just enough to not get called out by the industry, but not enough to truly affect the bottom line for their shareholders. Basically it was a token payment to not piss off salon owners that are part of the ITA. It was a nominal payment to protect their profits.

It was smart.

But I don't believe I've ever said AG/ETS or anyone else should be responsible for funding this campaign. I said much more funding is NEEDED from the manufacturers in order for it to succeed.

But then again I also said I was going to try to leave this topic alone but I cannot. So what do I know?

I accept that you disagree with me on what AG's motives were because let's face it, I am speculating.. but I don't see how it's an unreasonable position to take that they just did what was in their best interests.. If it was profitable for them to put in 10 times what they did, they would have. Whatever makes them the most money is what they'll do.. investing more heavily in the Berman campaign isn't what they thought would generate profit for them..

Maybe this time around they'll reach a different conclusion.. maybe they won't..

[Kathe]

Personally I don't think it's money or the lack thereof that's the problem. We are not going to change the publics perception of indoor tanning without 2 things:

An open debate with credible doctors who support vitamin D and indoor tanning that is played out in the media and the salon owners on the ground educating one customer at a time to the benefits of indoor tanning with respect to vitamin D.

We can each do our part by helping to fund efforts to change awareness and also by working in our salons and in our areas to educate.

Robbie I am very interested in what you are planning. I'm still not sure about going to Nashville. I have no new beds to buy and just don't know if I want to be away from the salon just to walk around a trade show floor.

[Robbie]

Kathe…regarding your two things…the first will take years, if ever. The second is illegal.

I agree that funding efforts to change awareness is wise. Educational efforts are risky if health benefits are the topic.

Nashville is always a good way to recharge the batteries

[Robbie]

Jeff…it seems you have everyone’s motives figured out.

How feeble your criticism is. Doesn’t all life require that it act in accordance with its best interests?

Your high criticism is that AG acts for what’s best for them?…acting in their own best interests? This is wrong?

Socialism runs through your veins. The strong should pay while the ungrateful weak hurl insults from the sewer.

I was right about you. You’re voting Obama aren’t you?

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Your high criticism is that AG acts for what’s best for them?…acting in their own best interests? This is wrong?

You did not comprehend what I wrote.

I was right about you. You’re voting Obama aren’t you?

You were wrong about me. Neither the jackass or the elephant can, or will, get a vote.

[Robbie]

more abstention?

[JeffK]

Originally Posted by Robbie

more abstention?

No sir.

[uv-PaUL]

He's waiting to see who ETS votes for, then he will act accordingly.

[Robbie]

...but only if he thinks they really mean it.

If he thinks they're doing it for show, then he'll abstain.

Determining one's "real" motivations is his expertise

[JeffK]

Haahahaha.. touche..

Nice, nice.. got me good what can I say.. very well done guys..

Or like, could you imagine if I was like this somewhat insecure guy.. and like I gave oh I don't know -- just for talking -- let's say, like $30,000... just as a totally random amount.. to like a campaign..

But then... haha omg .. the campaign, it basically did nothing meaningful.. so it was like I blew that money for nothing at all.. lol.. and I felt kinda stupid about it so I would have to just come on here and make fun of other people to feel better about it and just to save face I'd invent that I got some kind of marketing education out of it or something stupid like that... hahaha..

You guys would REALLY have fun with me then I bet..

[solarmeter®]

They had a better spokesperson on call - waiting in the wings - with a tan too. But they fell $150 short of the fee needed for this person. The buck-and-a-half shortage was blamed on no contribution from JeffK.