With the economy the way it is. Are dance teachers planning strategies to combat the situation. For instance a shared lesson with three couples instead of one.
A competition. Get more people to attend by dropping the admision fee.
How does a 100 at $1 sound instead of 10 at $10. Do we see the logic behind this.
The above sentance touches on something Ron Montez wrote when he said promoters have a captive audience where the competitors are the audience and the audience are the competitors give or take a few relations. Nothing is being done to get the general public to the events thus promoting Ballroom Dancing. The article can still be seen I believe..

That situation has been in place since day one .It has managed to survive for 70 plus yrs .

Ive run numerous comps,in many cities, and advertised to general public.. the result, by and large, is always the same.. no interest.

The "entry " at door fees have become quite expensive, and the average onlooker canot justify the expense.

As to Rons suggestion,,, a dangerous move to make if one had volume ( 100 people for e.g. ) at $1... you do the math .
The way to possibly increase numbers ,is thru the existing market , by means of " packaging " at lower costs .

If they want their studios to increase their numbers then studio owners need to promote the development of amateur couples.

Having partners makes folks much more eager to sign up for classes and private lessons (although it takes a good instructor to teach an amateur pair).

***I had a nasty paragraph about pro/am in here but decided to give it a rest.***

The comments about public interest in ballroom nothwithstanding, dance studios need to market themselves as centers of high-energy activity. They need to learn to use loss-leader programs such as Saturday and Sunday classes for kids and teens to develop their future audiences and pull in the parents.

To do so, though, studios need to get the young guys. I can't believe that the ballroom industry in general is letting the images of such macho figures as Evander Holyfield, Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, Hector Castroneves, Apollo Ohno (???), and Warren Sapp go to waste without widespread public saturation. Maybe ABC is limiting their use.

Studios can alter their entire pricing structures to encourage attendance at classes and parties by couples instead of individuals. By developing those couples, studios will solidify their futures.



jj

My wife and I are "competing" in a fund-raising event called "Dancing with the Geneva Stars." It is a competition, pitting six couples who are well known in the community. Residents vote for their favorite couple at $1 a vote (they can vote as many times as they like), and the money goes to cultural arts and educational causes in town. From what I can tell, it is gaining some steam and getting a lot of recognition in town. Aside from the charitable cause, I bring this up for a simple reason -- for the most part, these will be "regular" folks doing routines in costume and character, and it will mostly spark interest for others to consider it. The studio we attend is sponsoring the lessons for all of the competitors. My wife and I may be more advanced than these other couples (I qualify as a "Star" in town, I guess, because I write a local column in the newspaper), but it really has nothing to do with skill level. It's about getting money raised through votes. But this is a concept that can spark interest for others. The dance studio stands to gain at least a few more couples signing up for lessons -- who might not otherwise be exposed to ballroom dancing in any fashion.

Totally agree. I recently started dancing. Of course there are way more women than guys at socials and most are very fit and attractive yet my guy friends think they're too cool to learn ballroom. I'd like to say "their loss" but really it's all of our loss... the industry would be much livelier if there were more younger guys. If I had a partner or partners to split the cost of lessons with I would take a lot more and if there were more guys the group lessons would be more balanced, socials would be better, etc.

When I wrote that a 100 through the door at $1 is equal to 10 at $10. I should have said that properly catered for that could mean also 100 Cokes as well as 100 Hamburgers as opposed to ten of each. I think we can all work out which in the long run is the most profitable. Where I live the cost of admission to a competition is getting ridiculese. In the long run they are pricing themseles out of the market. How parents with two children who dance can afford this beats me with the cost of lessons and costume added to the bill.