1 May
2014
1 May
'14
2 p.m.
Thought-provoking feedback so far. A few devil's advocate points.
(a) If it's the case of a dance that's already failing to thrive, then why should
other organizers feel responsible for not conflicting? I mean, there must be reasons why
it's failing to thrive. Perhaps it would be better in the long run to have that dance
die altogether.
(b) There are plenty of business models that use the cooperative model (versus cutthroat
competitive). Still, I don't quite see the parallel in terms of not competing. I
think starting a brand new series (which may or may not succeed, by the way!) in possible
competition with an existing series is not at all like, for example, the cutthroat methods
of Whole Foods moving in next door to the local food co-op (which had been thriving, but
just can't compete with a giant like WF and subsequently goes belly up).
(c) One could also say, if the new series does succeed and ends up bringing in lots of
new dancers (as Jeff K pointed out), then it actually could improve the standing of the
existing series. (By raising the profile of the dance form in the area, by having the
existing series be an alternative to the new one, etc etc.)
(d) If we want to mutually support other organizers, is "not-competing" the
best way to do it? If we prop up a losing proposition, then what does that do for the
organizing skills of those (possibly ineffective) dance organizers? Should we instead
encourage (or, by competing, make it necessary for) them to re-think and re-envision their
approach to improve their chances of success?
For the sake of discussion,
Chrissy Fowler
"Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free" ~
Rumi
chrissyfowler.com
belfastflyingshoes.org
westbranchwords.com
1 May
1 May
3 p.m.
Chrissy,
Your points are indeed thought-provoking. It is kind of hard to detect why dances
struggle (I don't like to use the word "fail") to generate a lot of
dancers. Many dance series I have seen have actually started to gain dances. One time I
called at Princeton, and Bob Isaacs told me that it went from a one-line dance to a
three-line dance, and they did absolutely nothing to change their dance to cause this to
happen. Other series, like the dance in Annapolis, went from a struggling dance to a
thriving dance, due to a change in venue and a change in organizers (and thus perhaps a
change in dance focus too).
To me, these struggling dances are part of my community, and I try to support them when I
can. I realize that they may be local bands that aren't as "hot" as the
national bands, and the dancers there generally are a lot of new-ish dancers to perpetual
beginners. But the way that these dances get better is us, the community, support them.
If we run a dance opposing another dance series, that alone can harm the other dance
series.
Most often it's a one-shot challenging dance that competes with a local series that
sometimes attracts experienced dancers. I would venture a guess that challenging dances
don't bring in very many new dances, and I worry that those experienced dancers that
help these local dances go to the challenging dances, leaving the existing series with
much fewer regular dancers that help the newbies there.
Very infrequently do I see new dance series popping up to compete against existing series,
and if they are they are either a) a different form of dance, like squares, or technos, or
English, or family dances, or b) at least 90 minutes away so that it doesn't really
draw from the same pool of dancers except the small subset that live equidistant from the
two. Those things do more to raise the profile of dancing in the area and I consider that
a good thing. Special "hot" dances that compete against the local series, I
believe, tend to hurt the local series.
Perry
________________________________
From: Chrissy Fowler <ktaadn_me(a)hotmail.com>
To: "organizers(a)sharedweight.net" <organizers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:00 AM
Subject: [Organizers] to conflict or not to conflict?
Thought-provoking feedback so far. A few devil's advocate points.
(a) If it's the case of a dance that's already failing to thrive, then why should
other organizers feel responsible for not conflicting? I mean, there must be reasons why
it's failing to thrive. Perhaps it would be better in the long run to have that dance
die altogether.
(b) There are plenty of business models that use the cooperative model (versus cutthroat
competitive). Still, I don't quite see the parallel in terms of not competing. I
think starting a brand new series (which may or may not succeed, by the way!) in possible
competition with an existing series is not at all like, for example, the cutthroat methods
of Whole Foods moving in next door to the local food co-op (which had been thriving, but
just can't compete with a giant like WF and subsequently goes belly up).
(c) One could also say, if the new series does succeed and ends up bringing in lots of
new dancers (as Jeff K pointed out), then it actually could improve the standing of the
existing series. (By raising the profile of the dance form in the area, by having the
existing series be an alternative to the new one, etc etc.)
(d) If we want to mutually support other organizers, is "not-competing" the
best way to do it? If we prop up a losing proposition, then what does that do for the
organizing skills of those (possibly ineffective) dance organizers? Should we instead
encourage (or, by competing, make it necessary for) them to re-think and re-envision their
approach to improve their chances of success?
For the sake of discussion,
Chrissy Fowler
"Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free" ~
Rumi
chrissyfowler.com
belfastflyingshoes.org
westbranchwords.com
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
Organizers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers
7:36 p.m.
I think this is as much a question about relationships as it is the success
of any particular series. In my experience, connecting with other
organizers is really the best way to get to know their preferences and
discuss challenges and goals.
For example, there is a monthly dance about an hour a half down the road
that has adjusted some of their dates to better match with a local
college's schedule. Sometimes it conflicts with the monthly dance I host,
but I would rather see that group look after the ongoing health of their
local series than avoid a conflict at all costs with ours. The overlap in
attendees is minimal, so my regret when the dances do conflict is mainly
that I would like to go to both.
When I hosted my very first dance, an early mentor who hosts a series three
hours away decided not to put on a last-minute special event he had been
considering in deference to ours. That might not have made much of a
difference in attendance, but it sure was a nice gesture.
On the other hand, I have heard of people at a different dance suggesting
that a conflicting series be started because the existing hall had kept
filling to capacity.
In other words, I see this as being case-by-case, especially since there
are often factors such as venue and talent availability that can limit
which dates a particular event could be held.
Peter
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Chrissy Fowler <ktaadn_me(a)hotmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Thought-provoking feedback so far. A few devil's
advocate points.
(a) If it's the case of a dance that's already failing to thrive, then
why should other organizers feel responsible for not conflicting? I mean,
there must be reasons why it's failing to thrive. Perhaps it would be
better in the long run to have that dance die altogether.
(b) There are plenty of business models that use the cooperative model
(versus cutthroat competitive). Still, I don't quite see the parallel in
terms of not competing. I think starting a brand new series (which may or
may not succeed, by the way!) in possible competition with an existing
series is not at all like, for example, the cutthroat methods of Whole
Foods moving in next door to the local food co-op (which had been thriving,
but just can't compete with a giant like WF and subsequently goes belly up).
(c) One could also say, if the new series does succeed and ends up
bringing in lots of new dancers (as Jeff K pointed out), then it actually
could improve the standing of the existing series. (By raising the profile
of the dance form in the area, by having the existing series be an
alternative to the new one, etc etc.)
(d) If we want to mutually support other organizers, is "not-competing"
the best way to do it? If we prop up a losing proposition, then what does
that do for the organizing skills of those (possibly ineffective) dance
organizers? Should we instead encourage (or, by competing, make it
necessary for) them to re-think and re-envision their approach to improve
their chances of success?
For the sake of discussion,
Chrissy Fowler
"Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free"
~
Rumi
chrissyfowler.com
belfastflyingshoes.org
westbranchwords.com
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
Organizers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers
3888
days inactive
3888
days old
musicians@lists.sharedweight.net
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Chrissy Fowler -
Perry Shafran -
Peter Clark