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 <[email protected]>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 > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers >
