How does Arthur Murray contribute to ballroom dancing?

[DanceMentor]

I was recently privy to some inside stories about what goes on at a couple of Arthur Murray studios. Here are some random "achievements":

1. Student has been taking 16 privates per week for several years. They recently tried to social dance outside of Arthur Murray, and were very uncomfortable because they had rarely ever danced with anyone but their teacher.

2. Student won one of the most prestigious competitions in the US for Arthur Murray and same story. They don't know how to social dance. Additionally, outside of Arthur Murray competitions, they are finding that students with a similar level of experience are leaps and bounds beyond their level of technique.

3. Student has been with Arthur Murray for 20 years. A few years ago they started social dancing outside of Arthur Murray. They wanted to do some outside competitions too, but they were told would be against the rules.

4. Student has traveled extensively internationally with their teachers. Generally, these trips are $20,000+ each.

All of the above are wealthy lady students. None of them are married.

I am aware of a few men and at least one couple that takes lessons. I don't know of any children (maybe a couple of teens whose parent(s) take lessons). Mostly, it seems to be lady's who are wealthy and generally are divorced or widowed.

What is noticeably absent are average people who just want to learn to dance. It doesn't seem they are producing people who will learn to dance well, and then go out in their community and spread this wonderful gift, so that it might grow and prosper.

What exactly is Arthur Murray doing to help dancing be something that is treasured and respected?

Maybe you have some stories that support the above, or maybe they draw a contrast. I would love to hear them.

 

[atk]

Your post seems to cherry pick a very small number of uncited examples and pose a question with clear implied answer. The only points I see in your post are

1. students who focus on competition and do not learn to social dance do not social dance well.
2. you question the value of AMDS

Are you truly looking for counter-examples? The tone of your post (and history of this subject on DF) seems to imply that this will be a bashing thread, not a conversation-seeking thread.

 

[stash]

I don't think it's just students of Am. I think you could find students at private studios who only dance with their teacher ever, can't social dance either.

Overall I believe AM does bring a household name to ballroom dancing and definitely gets people's feet in the door. And those who seek outside guidance I believe would be in it for the long haul anyway than just the students that stick with one teacher.

But if that's what a student wants, only to dance with their teacher an no one else, who are we to judge... If they realize they aren't getting what they want, they have to seek other teachers.

 

[MaggieMoves]

Overall I believe AM does bring a household name to ballroom dancing and definitely gets people's feet in the door.

Agreed entirely here. While I do have some harsh criticisms against franchises, they generally do a great job of teaching the basics of social dancing.

A wealthy friend of mine competes at all the AM events... And secretly takes lessons outside of the chain to maintain a competitive edge. According to her you can compete in events outside of AM, but you need to essentially pay for any lost lesson sales that teacher may incur plus a premium per heat danced.

16 lessons per week is crazy.... Especially at what they charge. There is a point of diminishing returns to any instructor.

 

[Leanna]

It's a really good question. I have been an AM student for 6 years, am by no stretch "wealthy" (I have taken between 2 and 4 lessons a MONTH across those 6 years!) and have a few good, and negative, observations.
On the pro side:
1) AM is a known name, and (at least our studio) does GREAT with getting people up and dancing comfortably quickly. Great for the newbie who wants exposure
2) they have organized group classes and practice parties- but you can choose to do them, or not. Your friends may simply have decided to opt for private attention from a teacher, with no interest in cultivating social dance, but the opportunity IS there.
3) they have a decent number of teachers to dance with at social "dance parties" who are encouraged to dance with more than their students.
4) they have a really interesting syllabus! When you get into the more "competition" levels (silver), the syllabus is far more interesting than others!
5) it has the opportunity for great social camraderie.

Now, the cons- at least from my experience (and you certainly mentioned a few very real ones):

1) you can't compete at ANYTHING but Arthur Murray events- which are INSANELY expensive.
2) in general, lessons are also about twice as much as outside teachers. With that, though, you could argue it includes the group and practice parties if you take advantage
3) teacher turnover SUCKS. And they throw new teachers in fast. So teacher quality varies. I've been lucky because my instructor has been teaching there 8 years, and the owners of our studio are US 9 dance champs (and coach around the world), so quality has been pretty good- so I've been told by my outside instructor! But I know that is not always the case.
4) their main goal is to shuttle a lot of people in and through, not to really get high quality at the upper end. It's a sales model, not a quality training/nurturing advanced students model- unless you are a REALLY WEALTHY student. Very few people stay past early silver because once you get there, you WANT to do more, but their goal is to sell to as many people on the lower end. Their sales focus can be a little transparent and tacky sometimes (mindlessly complimenting, using some sales techniques, etc)- I pretty much called them out from the start and they stopped doing that with me...
5) In general, they keep you working on a level and you are restricted to that level in comps until you test out. Most at the higher levels start to get wind of the fact that to move faster or cultivate more technique or better open material, you gotta move on.

My experience has mostly been good, but I also CHOSE to always do social dancing outside, and focus on learning how to "listen" to the lead so I can follow effectively. The cons led me to start taking lessons with a pro outside a little over a year ago and do other comps, though. He's doing a lot with me on detail with competition and higher level fine-tuning I did not get with AM. And, I'm finally at that point where I don't get as much from full AM experience that I've decided to leave.

But I think to say it's a non-contributory model is unfair and biased. You have to know what you want to get, and keep your eyes, and options, open! Smart consumerism. For some, that isn't necessary - the exceptionally wealthy, or the folks who just have the goal of a little fun dancing and kind words from their teacher! Your friends may be both of those (16 lessons a week sounds like they just like to feel special- how could anyone benefit from that much a week?)...

Just my long-winded opinion I've spent a lot of time thinking about recently!

 

[MaggieMoves]

You really can't compete outside an AM competition with your own instructor? I've heard otherwise but generally they only offer it to the select few that have been going there for years. I see one or two AM students at outside comps in a year. Granted the last time I saw one was at Empire Dancesport 2 years ago...

 

[Mengu]

I'll add a tiny bit of anecdote to Larinda's Wisdom (since anecdotes are how this thread started). Owners of the studio I go to got their start at AM, and have been running a successful independent studio for 35 years. One of the owners was my instructor when I first started dancing, and his work ethic has been my model and expectation from every instructor since (and few have lived up to it). He has also organized and taught ballroom at local middle schools for two generations. And while his current students are all social dancers, he organizes ballroom competitions as well. It also happens my current instructor (whom I've taken lessons from for over a decade) also got her start at AM. As a student I've never stepped in the door of an AM studio, but from what I can see and hear, AMI teaches great business sense and has grown some great instructors, studio owners, and members in the ballroom community.

 

[Generalist]

The type of people that go to AM are ones who want to learn dance but have very low confidence. They get comfortable dancing in that closed environment so it suits them OK as long as they don't venture out into the real world.

I'm knocking people that go to AM if that is what makes them happy, but it does seem they are willingly being exploited.

 

[s2k]

Continuing in the anecdote spectrum: I'm at an AM studio, and they have three instructors who are on the NDCA pro/rising star circuit (one is with a different pro and the other two are a couple themselves). These pros also take their students to Capital, Embassy, USDC, Millennium, Emerald, etc, so I'm confused as to the "AM students can't dance competitively anywhere other than AM events." Perhaps it's just each franchise owner gets to make up their own rules? (And these students win, or are often on the podium - as do the competitive pros).

And let me tell ya, even at the lowest levels of social dancing, the owners/instructors are creating dancers with good frames and technique. They have a hand in every student's training. And while I'm sure the students are paying for it (the good Lord knows I am!), there's also not nearly as much student turnover as I've seen at other independents where I've taken lessons or used as a practice space. It's consistently been the same faces as long as I've been there, with new students, often.

The ladies who compete pro/am with their pro do spend a lot of money to do so. It's my understanding that they don't get an itemized list of the expenses but instead it's similar to, "Want to go to Embassy? Okay. We've picked this level for you, and this number of dances, and the price is $7,000." And it is understood that this fee is non-negotiable.

If I were to go back to pro-am, I could not afford to do so at my studio. However, I see far more positives at my studio than the negatives I've seen posted here.

 

[MaggieMoves]

I really think they get a worse rap than they deserve because they explicitly cater to new, social, and wedding lessons. Nothing wrong with that as they've carved out their niche in the ballroom industry as a result of it.

Many of us who have been dancing for years are beyond that point.

 

[PaulBunyon]

My city has a fairly large Ballroom dance community. There's two AM studios and one FA studio and eight(+) independent studios. The franchise studio's are invisible in the local dance "scene". I don't see them present at dance events. There's probably 10+ dance events a year that occur that have no affiliation with any studio or the USA dance chapter. I will make it to many of them, I have yet to meet or dance with someone who introduces themselves as being from one of the franchise studios. While in contrast there's always at least one independent studio with a dancer's night out group and some independent instructors out "mingling" marketing themselves. There's a local Ballroom Dance Event Website and the Franchise's make no effort to promote themselves or their events on it.

I suppose it's probably the same beyond the ballroom dance biz. The local McDonald's is invisible to the regional restaurant community members I suspect.

 

[Dancing Irishman]

Larinda, I will say it's possible but unlikely for a pro to succeed in industry w/o being a world-class competitor or trained by a franchise (and without ever targeting new, social, or wedding students). My coach is neither and he's been very successful in my estimation - I don't think he ever has free lesson spaces that don't get booked. He's definitely an anomaly and a skilled salesman who worked for a large corporation while an am competitor (not in sales, but I suspect he learned some stuff about how to run a business). I do see a lot of semi-aimless independents, but I think it's possible to get good mentors and have a successful teaching career without going the AM route.

This naturally depends on your definition of "world-class." My coach was a US Amateur finalist and is currently makes a semi or final in US pro rising star events.

On topic, AM trains a lot of instructors in the local scene, and was how a lot of folks who are still dancing got their first intro to ballroom. I would bet they're a net positive to the community, but there are some folks in my city who would disagree (non-competes are a nasty business practice, even though I understand the reasoning behind them).

 

[MaggieMoves]

That is the bulk of the industry right there, the bread and butter.

As a studio owner, what percentage of the lessons would you say these students make up?

Guesstimating from my end of things I'd put the number between 30 and 50%.

 

[DanceMentor]

Your post seems to cherry pick a very small number of uncited examples and pose a question with clear implied answer.

Yes, a little because I seem to have come across multiple examples in the last week, and I'm sure there are exceptions, hence this post.

The story that really struck me was the lady that was taking the 16 lessons per week. I asked her why she spent so much, and she told me just wanted to have someone to travel with. Then she had some financial trouble, and near the same time her teacher moved away.

Her friend who is also an AM student told me and I paraphrase: "they really know how get into your personal life and manipulate your emotions so that you will buy more lessons".

What seems somewhat evident is the business model revolves (mostly) around the male being the salesman and the female being the customer. There are certainly other business models that do not rely on this unbalanced strategy. It seems to me it might be healthier for the dance industry if more focus was placed on producing good male students too, including amateur couples. It seems obvious that places in Europe for example, do just fine under a more balanced model.

 

[atk]

What seems somewhat evident is the business model revolves (mostly) around the male being the salesman and the female being the customer.

Is there a gender imbalance in the general ballroom student population in the area from where these examples are taken? What about in the studios you observed? Are these examples exceptions for their areas? In my area, there are far more women interested in ballroom than there are men. As such, it would be prudent for a studio to maintain sufficient staff to meet the needs of their customers, and the demand imbalance naturally leads to a supply imbalance.

In a microcosm, male teachers tend to sell to female students. The culture of the dance style (to the limited degree to which I have observed) is that men usually lead and women usually follow, and that same-gender dancing is unusual. This, again, naturally makes the microcosm of a single male teacher and his students to of course be 'the male being the salesman and the female being the student'.

Are you,perhaps, observing the general imbalance? I'm sure that topic has come up, several times, here, over the years and would seem relevant to link...