The Business of Pro-am

[DanceMentor]

I want to pose a question:
If the business model for a studio, competition, or a Nation comes to rely too heavily on Pro-Am money, will the quality start to suffer over time?

The simple point to make here is the Pros are spending more time dancing with students and less time dancing with their partner. And in more recent years, the same can be said about amateurs.

And I don't know all of their stories, but I am aware that Victor and Anastasia for example don't spend a lot of time dancing with students (I think zero Pro-Am). Could it be they are so good because they practice more together and less with students?

How many pros in the top 6 right now we're trained mostly inside the Arthur Murray or Fred Astaire organizations?
(Assuming a few more in rhythm, but very few in standard)
How do those numbers compare with dancers who were trained elsewhere and then came here later?

Are the dancers in countries where Pro-Am is less part of their business model producing better dancers? (Ex. Russia, Italy, Ukraine)
Of course, I know many come to the US after they get a name for themselves (but perhaps fewer recently).

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a Pro-Am dancer! Just posing this question... If you don't dance with your partner is much, will the people who do on average dance better than you?

It might even be said that Pro-Am students who take more lessons do better than those who don't.

Does the model inherently weaken the overall quality over time?

 

[scullystwin42]

I think it could impact quality, however, I think the difference in the age when dancers start is more of why the quality seems to be better in Eastern European countries. They start younger, they are competing at a younger age, and there appear to be more support for youth amateur dancing (i can't be sure, but it certainly seems that way). On the way up, they don't have to support themselves with pro-am (i assume) as well. However, I have seen some of the WDSF pros now have am students they compete with - so if the level starts to drop from there, your hypothesis might be proved.

My opinion is that it's the earlier start, the support available, and (it seems to me) a higher level of respect for dance as a sport. Those three things aren't really available in mot parts of the US as they seem to be in some other countries.

Of course, my conclusions have not been fully researched, hence, it's my opinion.

 

[rels77]

One of my teachers is from Ukraine and he’s a top 6 couple (and was a national champion in another style as well) and he and his partner both have a ton of competing students. He had 5 students on Latin day alone at usdc. Where he was also competing

 

[DanceMentor]

One of my teachers is from Ukraine and he’s a top 6 couple (and was a national champion in another style as well) and he and his partner both have a ton of competing students. He had 5 students on Latin day alone at usdc. Where he was also competing

Top 6 in the world?

 

[rels77]

Top 6 in the world?

Was world top 6 in 10 dance, us 10 dance champ and now smooth too 6

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

You know you're addicted to dancing when...

...you haven't had a lesson in over 4 weeks because "real" life got in the way; and your next scheduled lesson isn't until next week; but nonetheless, you drove by the studio today [because] you just felt like you needed a quick hug from your dance teacher.

(And his look of delighted surprise was worth driving down those couple extra side streets.)

Bringing this over from the “addicted” thread….

I tend to be very cynical, so my first thought about Pro’s reaction when he saw me was to assume he was thinking, “oh good! This income-producing student, who regularly signs up for mini-matches and Fun Fridays and showcases and even a few big comps, is NOT quitting dance! After a five-week break, Studio Mgr & I were starting to wonder if we’d lost a reliable paycheck.”

And then I chided myself on my cynicism, and reminded myself that I am FAAAAAAAR from the biggest spender in the studio - there are students who have taken lessons there for 15+ years, and who regularly spend 4 or 5 times as much as I do every year. The amount I spend is a mere blip in the studio’s overall budget.

But maybe a hefty dose of cynicism is useful as a reminder that this is, bottom line, a business relationship. Pro hasn’t missed PNP-the-person; he’s seen many hundreds of students come and go over 25 years of teaching, and doesn’t get attached to any of them because he knows all student relationships are transitory and all students are replaceable. If he has missed anyone (and that’s a big “if”), it is PNP-the-eager-student, to whom he recently said, “I have never known a student who loves dance as much, or as unconditionally, as you do.”

Hmph. Whatever. Regardless, I have definitely missed having lessons, and am excited about returning to (the business of) them next week.

 

[joy]

It is a business relationship, and also a bunch of other wonderful things.
Part of wisdom is being able to hold multiple truths at once.

People are complicated and inconsistent.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

If the business model for a studio, competition, or a Nation comes to rely too heavily on Pro-Am money, will the quality start to suffer over time?

I would note that the alternative to having "Pro-Am money" is not having some other kind of money, but just having less money overall.

Are the dancers in countries where Pro-Am is less part of their business model producing better dancers? (Ex. Russia, Italy, Ukraine)

By WDSF lights, perhaps. However, that might be attributable to the best WDSF coaches being on the (European) continent. The classically best couples still train mostly in England, and spend most of their time there. Back when Japan was breaking into the top six, I think pro-am was already popular in Japan, though I don't know that their top professional couples were the ones doing pro-am.

Could it be they are so good because they practice more together and less with students?

There might be more complexity to it than this. I recall one US amateur Standard champion who thought his partner danced worse with him at competitions where she also danced pro-am with her pro. Her pro had been top 3 in the world, so he was no question better, but it may be that her dancing "adjusted" more to his style of leading and thus away from her amateur partner's style of leading when she competed with both in one day.

So it's possible that dancing - for the pro, perhaps casually - with amateur students who know only his style of leading doesn't really affect the pro's dancing negatively.

 

[lucia_l]

I want to pose a question:
If the business model for a studio, competition, or a Nation comes to rely too heavily on Pro-Am money, will the quality start to suffer over time?

That depends on how you define quality.

Will their attractiveness to students who are mostly interested in social dancing suffer? Probably. One reason is that if they are relying "too heavily" on Pro-Am money, their pros are probably off competing with Ams on the weekends. That will likely translate into no dance parties or few irregular ones. And some Ams may feel "pressure" to compete. They may feel this even if the studio insists there is "no pressure" because the "buzz" around the place is constant announcements of upcoming "opportunities" to compete.

Will their attractiveness to Ams who want to compete suffer? Probably not. It will likely increase. If the studio relies very heavily on pro-am competition, they will likely try to attract and succeed in attracting pros who want to compete a lot and often pros who do well in competition. From the point of view of those who want to compete, this is improved quality.

The simple point to make here is the Pros are spending more time dancing with students and less time dancing with their partner. And in more recent years, the same can be said about amateurs.

Ok... so I clearly didn't grasp what you meant by "quality".

I don't see how a studio relying on pro-Am competition money would result in the pros dancing less with their pro partner. Or.... if you think it meand they dance less with their pro partner, I guess my question is "relative to what".
As far as I can see: Those pros who compete pro-pro will continue to practice. If the studio relies on pro-Am money, the pro partners will tend to have opportunities to compete on the same weekends when their students compete proAm. So pros at a studio that relies on the "pro-Am" model will-- generally-- have a greater opportunity to practice and compete with their partners than at a "social" model studio.

Of course Pros who don't compete pro-am won't be practicing with pro-partners.

Generally speaking, pros who teach at studios that don't do much "Pro-Am" compete less -- because they focus on social. Those pros are often expected to attend the social dance parties at least some of the time-- they can't compete on those weekends. So it's most pros at socially oriented studios who generally practice a bit less with pro-partners.

Could there be an exception if the studio uses the money generated off the back of the "social" pros to subsidize their "show piece" pros who then get to do nothing but practice with each other and compete? Sure. Lucky you if you get to be one of the subsidized pros whose job is to enter competitions and win!

And I don't know all of their stories, but I am aware that Victor and Anastasia for example don't spend a lot of time dancing with students (I think zero Pro-Am). Could it be they are so good because they practice more together and less with students?

Well.... if someone can swing a gig where they get to dance with their pro-partner a huge number of hours, never dance with students and have no other time consuming tasks, that would be great. But pros generally need to make money somehow. For most pros that's either teaching students, running the studio, or working as coaches for other couples. Alternatively, they could work as stock brokers or inherent a fortune from their parents.

But with respect to a studio business models, money comes from students, parties etc. The business model has to bring in money. So I'm not entirely sure what other business model you think will result in tons of more competitive pros.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a Pro-Am dancer! Just posing this question... If you don't dance with your partner is much, will the people who do on average dance better than you?

Of course pro-pro competitors need to dance with their partner a lot. But I'm not seeing why you think a pro working pro-Am will dance with their pro-partner less than under some other business model.

It might even be said that Pro-Am students who take more lessons do better than those who don't.

Yes. Generally, pro-am students who take more lessons do better than those who don't. But it's their performance is not a strict function of number of lessons. Other factors matter.

Does the model inherently weaken the overall quality over time?

In the end, compared to what model? I mean... if we compared it to the Unicorn model of there being a huge pot of money to fund prizes for pro-pro competitions such that the top 40 pros in the country could focus on practicing together, traveling to competitions and paying for coaches, then, yeah, the "Pro-Am" model will probably result "lower" quality of competition. If we compare it to all pros needing to work 40 hours a week flipping burgers for cash and then wedging in competitoin on evenints and weekends, the Pro-Am model probably results in better quality pros.

 

[Misspendragon]

It might even be said that Pro-Am students who take more lessons do better than those who don't

What matters primarily is the amount of practice and not the amount of lessons. Ideally, a student can have several lessons a week and practice daily, but ultimately, practice matters more.

 

[Misspendragon]

I want to pose a question:
If the business model for a studio, competition, or a Nation comes to rely too heavily on Pro-Am money, will the quality start to suffer over time?

The simple point to make here is the Pros are spending more time dancing with students and less time dancing with their partner. And in more recent years, the same can be said about amateurs.

And I don't know all of their stories, but I am aware that Victor and Anastasia for example don't spend a lot of time dancing with students (I think zero Pro-Am). Could it be they are so good because they practice more together and less with students?

How many pros in the top 6 right now we're trained mostly inside the Arthur Murray or Fred Astaire organizations?
(Assuming a few more in rhythm, but very few in standard)
How do those numbers compare with dancers who were trained elsewhere and then came here later?

Are the dancers in countries where Pro-Am is less part of their business model producing better dancers? (Ex. Russia, Italy, Ukraine)
Of course, I know many come to the US after they get a name for themselves (but perhaps fewer recently).

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a Pro-Am dancer! Just posing this question... If you don't dance with your partner is much, will the people who do on average dance better than you?

It might even be said that Pro-Am students who take more lessons do better than those who don't.

Does the model inherently weaken the overall quality over time?

At my ex studio, the competing Pros/studio managers danced daily about three hours in the morning/midday, then they completed some administrative work, and then they taught either a class or students. They also worked out sometimes in the morning, before practice, or on their day off. I don't think they would have danced more or better without teaching, BUT they do not have as many students as other Pros who do not compete, and they only teach mid to late afternoon and evenings (and even that not every day).

 

[lucia_l]

....BUT they do not have as many students as other Pros who do not compete, and they only teach mid to late afternoon and evenings (and even that not every day).

I do think the pros competing pro-pro seriously do often teach a fewer than the ones who are not competing pro-pro. This falls under the "only so many hours in a day" category.

If you look at the "best pros" prizes at competitions, those pros are rarely competing pro-pro. So they can really rack up hours teaching students which, if they are at a studio with a pro-am model, can translate into lots of entries at a competition. I admit I don't know the precise formula for "best pro" prizes. Maybe it's partly how much students win and partly how many entries. But I know you don't win "best pro" if you don't have a lot of entries.

To win "best pro" you usually need to set aside time for practice. One way or the other, that's going to cut into other activities which usually involves number of hours working. I guess if you had a generous trust fund it could cut into hours arguing with strangers on the internet, but that's not the main thing it cuts into for most competing pros.

 

[Steve Pastor]

Are the dancers in countries where Pro-Am is less part of their business model producing better dancers?

Country?
Normally I don't comment in the Ballroom section because I'm not involved with it in any appreciable way. But just this morning I ran across notes I made from a 1981 masters thesis on the country Western dancing in Los Angeles of the recent past there. Heifetz concluded that people seemed to be most interested in having an enjoyable time. Yes, country now has its own pro-am, etc. but there are LOTS of places where "producing better dancers" is a very low priority.

(Again, only commented because I saw that note from 1981 just a few hours ago.)

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

I guess if you had a generous trust fund it could cut into hours arguing with strangers on the internet,