To start, the biggest difference that I have found is that AANR is commercial, and TNS isn't. AANR makes their money from their affiliated clubs. Many of these clubs either require you to pay AANR membership dues (ex. Blue Lake, Turtle Lake) or charge you more for not being a member (most others). I'm not sure if these additional charges go to the resort, or go to AANR / TNS. It's fair to say that AANR gets some money from each person that pays to stay at a resort, either directly or indirectly through the resort's partnership. It is unclear where this money actually goes.
TNS, on the other hand, doesn't want your money. Seriously, it says that right in their Network Resource Guide: "What we do not want: Your money. We're not interested in lining our pockets at the expense of your group or club." They get their money from voluntary memberships (which the group/club gets commission from) and donations. When they work to promote nudist rights or save a beach from being closed, people send them money, and it's clear that the money is going to a good cause.
Now that I've outlined the clubs, let's outline the people. Alice only likes going to "Bare Resort", which is AANR affiliated and costs her $10 for the year. Bob prefers to take the free route by hanging out at "Free Beach", but will give his $1 to TNS since it's still open because of them. Carol just likes to be naked, and will go to either "Bare Resort" or "Free Beach" as her $4 budget allows.
On the issue of saving public lands and keeping the right to be nude on them, the following chart shows the payoff for the two organizations, with the Nash Equilibrium (best, most profitable option) highlighted for each group.
In plain English:
- If either club opposes keeping "Free Beach", it will be closed and AANR will get all the money.
- Nudity has a lot of pressure going against it, so if both organizations go neutral the beach will be closed eventually, and AANR will get all the money.
- If one organization supports the beach, and the other goes neutral: Alice will go to the resort, Bob will go to the beach, and Carol goes to both by splitting her money among them. (Actually, one trip to the resort costs her $2, and several trips to the beach costs her the other $2.)
- If both support the beach, more might pop up. Alice goes to the resort, but Bob and Carol go to the beach. Carol doesn't go to the resort since she has a larger selection of nice free beaches.
How accurate is this model though? The people represent the nudist community fairly well. Alice doesn't like the dirty beaches, and enjoys a weekend of luxury instead despite the cost (or she lives at a resort full-time). Bob is poor and prefers the cheap social nudism. Carol represents the nudists who enjoy a variety, or who are simply between the two other extremes. Which category do you fit into?
For organizations, TNS's NAC is obviously pushing for the legal rights of naturists and in support of free beaches. They ask for donations at the end of every post, where AANR doesn't. Has AANR ever actually gone against nudism, as predicted by the model? It turns out the answer is yes! Wikipedia points it out (source is gone, but covered here) that AANR attempted to exclude only AANR members in a nudity ban. In other words, nudity would be banned for everyone that isn't an AANR member at an AANR club. Although nudists were disgusted with AANR's move, it was actually in AANR's best interest to create a commercial monopoly on nudity. I've heard of other cases similar to this, but the one example above should be sufficient for the point I'm trying to make.
It is my hope that nudists do not fall into a social trap. AANR might be affiliated with the best clubs that many enjoy, but supporting AANR could eventually lead to less naturist rights and higher club prices because of their commercial interest and ability to obtain a monopoly. Personally, all my naturism money is going to TNS, and I don't see a reason why I should change.
Back to my original question -- are the two types of nudism (resorts and free beaches, with AANR and TNS respectively) good for our rights? Probably not. AANR is sucking up most of the money, which limits what TNS can do in fighting for nudist rights with the smaller income. However, they have a unique balance right now that shows slow progress, which is far better than an AANR monopoly.
I believe that the progress could certainly be better -- imagine an organization with AANR's income and TNS's philosophy. TNS itself is capable of becoming such an organization, but is not in the position to obtain it just yet. How can they get there? I have no idea -- I need to learn more about them and put more thought into it. I'll need to improve my model, figure out a way for TNS to change the game, and identify another Nash Equilibrium for them to transition to. (Only transitions between Nash Equilibriums are successful, otherwise one side is going against their best interest.) I'll let you know if I ever figure it out.