According to my research, there are at least 11 states and Washington D.C. that regulate indoor tanning for minors. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Washington ban the use of UV tanning devices by anyone under the age of 18. Other state laws combine various restrictions. At least 41 states regulate the use of tanning facilities by minors. Does an under-18 tanning ban really hurt the industry? IST Magazine reached out to some experts and various salon owners around the country to get their thoughts on bans and how they are affecting the industry’s present and future.
John Overstreet, Executive Director of the International Tanning Association (ITA), says the bans affect the industry in a number of ways. Teens under the age of 18 comprise anywhere from five to 10 percent of the salon customer base, depending on location and business model. Losing these tanners impacts the bottom line of indoor tanning businesses more directly than it would other typical small businesses. According to Overstreet, in a service-based industry such as tanning salons, costs of doing business cannot be reduced in the same manner as other retail operations. For example, a tanning facility’s fixed costs such as payroll, business loans, rent, insurance, utilities, equipment leases, etc., do not decrease as customers decline. In contrast, in most retail businesses – such as a widget store – as sales decline, the widget store can reduce its fixed costs by purchasing fewer widgets. In practical terms for indoor tanning businesses, this means 100 percent of decreased sales comes out of profit, he explained.
“There is no science to support the premise that UV exposure is any more damaging to people of a certain age group than another,” said Overstreet. “But the ban is an implicit statement that it is. This industry rightly believes that our enemies are pushing the government to destroy us. They are using the government to put restriction after restriction on tanning businesses.” And while each restriction is not a big problem, taken together they are, he stated. “We also know from experience that our detractors will not compromise or ever leave us alone,” he added. “We have tried time and time again to work with these people and no matter what the deal, they come back the next year with the same agenda.” But even more important to Overstreet is the fact that the industry strongly supports parental consent and it is a very slippery slope when government starts taking away a parent’s right to make very basic parenting decisions. “Is the next step to ban teens from sunbathing at public beaches and pools?” he asks.
“This industry rightly believes that our enemies are pushing the government to destroy us.”
John Overstreet, ITA
Are tan bans based on sound reasoning? Jerry Deveney, Vice President of Business Development for Four Seasons Sales & Service weighs in. He says lawmakers in the states that have imposed bans believe that they are acting on behalf of their constituents who see a potential risk to minors who visit salons for UV tanning sessions. “We realize that tanning beds are not toys and they have to be used in accordance with FDA guidelines,” Jerry says. At the same time, he points out that if lawmakers view a risk associated with UV exposure, then all situations in which people under the age of 18 are exposed to UV should be treated equally. “An afternoon in the summer sun could potentially expose a person to more UV light than that of a typical tanning session,” says Deveney. It is his opinion that lawmakers should make it unilateral. While a sunbed’s UV output is regulated by the FDA, minors are free to spend countless hours at the beach on any given day. “If the regulation of tanning salons is designed to limit UV exposure to minors, then all UV exposure should be treated equally,” he states. Many jobs require people under the age of 18 to work outdoors. Kids who play Little League and soccer spend hours out in the sun. “How can this side of the equation be ignored?” he asks.
In Illinois, legislation is already in place to ban UV tanning for persons under the age of 18. “In our state, the fight is over,” says Don Kermath, owner of Classic Tan. The law went into effect January 1, 2014. “We fought the legislation because teenagers are going to pursue a suntan, indoors or outdoors, said Kermath.”Any ban on teen tanning will drive kids to seek unsafe alternatives.” According to Kermath, the professional indoor tanning community promotes and teaches the Golden Rule of smart tanning, which is: Never sunburn. He believes that salons are part of the solution in the ongoing battle against damaging sunburns and in teaching teens and adults how to identify a proper and practical life-long skin care regimen.
Kermath said he feels that the tan ban has negatively impacted the industry. “First, it propagates the lie that sunshine is inherently bad for us,” he says, “when in fact, too little sun exposure is worse than getting too much and just the right amount is necessary for life.” He also believes that regulations give competing businesses – cosmetic dermatologists – an unfair advantage, as they are still allowed to use UV light in their facilities to treat people under 18.”I believe that was the main reason for the teen tan ban — to give cosmetic dermatologists an unfair competitive advantage,” he said.
“One thing is for sure – the tanning industry will never be the same.”
Don Kermath, Owner
Classic Tan – IL
Are bans good or bad for the industry? “Like sunshine itself, the ban’s affect on the indoor tanning industry is a paradox,” Kermath said. “The ban is bad because it propagates the lie that sunshine is bad for us. The propaganda, in turn, reduces demand for UV services.” On the positive side, he believes the ban might expand the market for additional services offered in salons such as spray-tanning and teeth-whitening. In either case, Kermath said the bans have changed the indoor tanning industry landscape. He believes the trend toward fewer, more professional tanning facilities will continue at a faster pace and that many primarily female-owned businesses will close, while the larger, mostly male-dominated chains and franchises will control the industry. He also believes the end result will be higher prices on services and fewer facilities offering them – more money for less convenience. “I don’t know if the teen tan ban is ultimately good or bad.” said Kermath. “One thing is for sure — the indoor tanning industry will never be the same.”
According to statistics, many salons have closed their doors in the states that have banned the use of UV tanning devices by anyone under the age of 18. The state of California has seen the biggest drop with 400 salons closing over the last five years. In Illinois, 230 salons have closed in that same period, 256 in Texas and 122 in Washington. Other states that have seen a high number of closures is Minnesota with 106, and Louisiana with 84 closings. In Nevada, 109 salons have gone out of business in the same five-year period.
“Why regulate something that is already regulated?”
Zach Neugebauer, Owner
Year Round Brown – SD
One state however, South Dakota, has successfully fought against legislation banning tanning for minors for the last ten years. The most recent bill failed in committee in late February, according to Zach Neugebauer who owns the seven-salon Year Round Brown chain. He said they have fought the ban successfully due to a number of committed salon owners who are diligent year after year and reach out to their senators and representatives for support. Nuegebauer said a major point in their fight against a tan ban is that salons’ insurance providers already include a clause in their policies that requires parental consent for minors, and a vast majority of salons already do that. “Why regulate something that is already regulated?” he exclaimed. He also said he has no problem with a minor having to obtain a parent’s consent to tan. In South Dakota, a minor can own a gun, drive a car, join the military and get married without parental consent, so why would the government regulate tanning? he asks.
Neugebauer said he continues to fight against a ban because it ultimately interferes with and alters consumer behavior. As an example, he mentions that Pepsi and Coca Cola pay thousands of dollars to offer pop machines in schools, as studies have indicated that by drinking it in their younger years, chances are the consumers will drink it for the rest of their lives. His advice to salon owners in other states when fighting a ban is to get more involved. “If you want to stay in this business, everyone has to step in and do the legwork and send letters to your representatives,” he said. “You have to fight!” ■
