On the way to work, I regularly pass a large complex of townhouse apartments geared primarily for University of Florida students. On the roadside as I pass, I see a small sign that says "$799/Month"; this obviously refers to the rental rate. A few feet past that sign is another: "Free Tanning". Hmmm...
Unless someone just decided to donate their tanning services out of the goodness of their heart, I don't think that the advertised "free tanning" is all that free. Most likely, the "services" are included in the $799/month rent that EVERYONE has to pay, whether they want the tanning or not. So instead of there being "free tanning", instead there is "not-free non-tanning" at these apartments for the majority of (level-headed) residents who choose to forgo this unnecessary and potentially dangerous abuse of their skin. To be sure, those who do use the tanning facilities there will enjoy the effect of reduced rates as the costs are spread over everyone, users and non-users alike. But that still isn't "free tanning".
Speaking of tanning, I cannot fathom why deliberately exposing oneself to harmful ultraviolet radiation is still considered to be a healthful activity in some quarters. I think people should instead enjoy being whatever shade of brown they already are (and we are all, except for albinos, various shades of brown) and get on with more substantial aspects of self-presentation (e.g. personal hygiene, smiling more, speaking positively). While preserving their skin (and life) in the process. Besides, haven't these "tanners" ever heard of cosmetics, which can change skin tone without the harmful and often permanent side effects of tanning? Oh well, to each his own, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Indeed, my father always taught me that nothing is "free": it's always incorporated into the price, or you pay for it in some other way.
ReplyDeleteResearcher Dan Ariely does a lot of work studying choice, "the power of 'free'," and other such things. He's found that people will give up a truly good deal and accept a bad one if they think the latter includes something "free". "Buy two and get one free," has been shown to be a far better marketing approach than "1/3 off when you buy three," or even "Three for the price of two."
My personal favourite is the "free loan" that you can often get these days when you buy a car. If you opt against the loan, they'll give you "$2000 cash back" instead, so the loan actually costs $2000 (equivalent to a 3% to 5% interest rate), but that's hidden amid the "free".