Should Ethics come first in MJ Businesses?

[Gus]

Warning: Please don’t post personal comments or accusations here. I would like this thread to be for open debate, not figure pointing. If you do want to name names, please use the ‘War and Peace’ thread.

Its been covered as part of some other debates, but the root issue hasn’t been addressed. IMHO the conflict comes about because of the conflicting ideas about a MJ club. There is still a feeling that dance clubs are a ‘public service’, there for the fun and enjoyment of the dancers and shouldn’t be sullied by the concepts of filthy lucre.

When I first got into the game the principle was very much that ethics were of primary importance. There was certain types of behaviour that were very much unacceptable, touting for business at a competitors venue was one such area, whether it by flyering or by accosting people within the venue. Also, a club’s venue was sacrosanct. If Club A held a dance night at venue Z, then no other operator could hold events there.

Of course, to a hardened businessman viewing this from the outside, these ‘ethics’ may seem somewhat naive …. But its the way that things have been done, till recently. If the gloves were off, it would be extremely easy to ‘take out’ a competitor a la Microsoft. Say, for the sake of argument, you wanted to take over the Crewe venue run by Dance Roc (hypothetical club). Me, being Mr. Nasty would probably;
• Book all weekends I could at the venue to dilute the revenues Dance Roc could earn
• When Dance Roc did put on a weekend event, make sure I has a competing event on
• Start a competing night nearby on the same night costing far less and importing the best teachers and DJs
• Flyer the car park and hand out flyers whenever I could
• Make sure I have ‘plants’ attending the club telling the punters just what a cad Dance Roc was and how good my nights were.

How long do you think Dance Roc would last before it folded and me and my evil minions took their club over.

So … if its just business … alls fair? Could someone put forward a cogent argument why I shouldn’t go out and beat down Dance Roc? Isn’t all fair in love and war …. and business?

[Baruch]

Could someone put forward a cogent argument why I shouldn’t go out and beat down Dance Roc? Isn’t all fair in love and war …. and business?
Well, part of an argument anyway.

If you (hypothetically) went head-to-head with them in this way, you'd probably find that although you'd get some of their punters, others would stubbornly refuse to come to your events because of their perception of dirty tactics against "their" class on your part. On the other hand, if you were to open on a different night in a different venue, word might well get around and you'd get more of their dancers coming to your events as well as the other club's events. Plus you'd be able to build up your own dedicated group of regulars on top of that.

[under par]

I'm suing the bloke at Crewe because I thought of the term Dance Roc before he did!

On a serious note, hard nosed business practices as described will be way above the head of most of the newbies you are interested in. Holding on to your dancers will require more than being a bastard to your competition.

The serious jivers will be aware but will hold their cards close to their chest and go where ever they want to go to dance.

I hope Gus finds a few punters soon:worthy:

[bigdjiver]

In the recent Apprentice series the way to victory was to put a pretty lollipop which would cost 60p to £1 in a sweetshop into the hands of a young child, giving the parents the choice removing it from the child or stumping up £2.50. The apprentice with a problem with this went out. That is part of the reality of business.

The ultimate form of competition is war, which is why there are laws. Often the only way to succeed in an ultra-competitive environment is to bend those laws as far as they can be bent. the reality of ultra-competitive environments is that in the short term all parties lose. Too often even the winner loses. In nature many of the battles within species are so ritualised that the winner is decided without serious injury to either party. If pursued to the limit too often the contest ends with the loser dead and the "winner" dying.

I believe that the MJ market is nowhere near saturated. I would guess that a high proportion of the population has never heard of MJ, and that there is no justification for ultra-competitive actions. At this stage I believe that all parties show be seeking to grow the MJ population with cooperation and seek to establish slightly different identities for themselves, probably at the venue level. These identities can be through music and dance style, or social grouping factors.

All of the churches in Bedford that I know of say that everybody is welcome, but if you walk through their doors you find very different congregations.

[StokeBloke]

You have failed to factor in the human aspect. People like beautiful people. If you think might is always going to win out, look at Burton-on-Trent. Want 2 Dance is tiny in comparison to Ceroc. But look at the sell out freestyles they have and the busy as hell week nights, in the face of 'bigger' competition. The main difference being that punters are drawn to beautiful people.

[LMC]

On a serious note, hard nosed business practices as described will be way above the head of most of the newbies you are interested in. Holding on to your dancers will require more than being a bastard to your competition.
Not just newbies either - :yeah:

Since I'm not a shareholder in any dance business, I couldn't give a toss "who" is running it. I care more about the quality of my evening/weekend - both in terms of good organisation and 'content' - people to dance with, music and venue. Limitations in one might be made up for by extra-high quality in another. Cost is a factor of course - I'll happily pay Jive Addiction's weekender rates, but wouldn't pay that amount for a Ceroc weekender (except possibly Blaze). But when there's only a couple of quid in it, quality will win out for most people I suspect.

Having said that, sharp practice in *any* business may come back and bite you in the arse sooner or later. Sitting on your laurels as king pin - ditto (witness success of Jive Nation in London - a fairly saturated market - two venues, regular freestyles and a weekender in the space of just over six months - because they are offering something different, and IMO, of an pretty high standard).

[fletch]

You have failed to factor in the human aspect. People like beautiful people. If you think might is always going to win out, look at Burton-on-Trent. Want 2 Dance is tiny in comparison to Ceroc. But look at the sell out freestyles they have and the busy as hell week nights, in the face of 'bigger' competition. The main difference being that punters are drawn to beautiful people.



and true beauty shines through.:hug:

and Nikki who runs Burton is TRULY a beautiful person go gal :clap: and i'm so glad things have worked out for her :flower:

:hug: :hug:

[timbp]

How long do you think Dance Roc would last before it folded and me and my evil minions took their club over.


The more I think about this, the more complex it seems.

When I started dancing, I went to the venues that were most convenient to get to, avoiding those advertised as having the best dancers (because I didn't want to embarrass myself in front of the best dancers).


Your flyers might attract me. But they might make me feel only good dancers should go to your venue

When I had progressed further, my choice of venue depended on convenience (including venues advertised as having the best dancers), teachers I liked, and people I liked.


I would probably try your venue, especially if people I knew were going there. But if I didn't like the teachers on the night I went, it would be harder to get me back

Now my choice is a complex mixture of teachers I like. dancers I like, convenience, and space on the dance floor.
If you attracted most dancers to your venue, I might realise the other venue has lots of space on the dance floor, and I would probably suggest to my favourite partners that we go to the other venue (depending on who is teaching, of course).

[bigdjiver]

...Also, a club’s venue was sacrosanct. If Club A held a dance night at venue Z, then no other operator could hold events there...I do not understand this one. To me it is the equivalent of me opening an antique shop next door to an antique shop, and would benefit us both in the long run. Anybody I attracted to my night should be able to see their posters and shift nights if it suited them better, or know where to go when they were ready to dance two nights a week. People go to a venue because of the people that they meet there. I would not expect to acquire many from the existing venue unless it was truly dire. I would expect to have a hard time retaining members because of the easily accessible alternative with more experienced dancers.

[stewart38]

Warning: Please don’t post personal comments or accusations here. I would like this thread to be for open debate, not figure pointing. If you do want to name names, please use the ‘War and Peace’ thread.

Its been covered as part of some other debates, but the root issue hasn’t been addressed. IMHO the conflict comes about because of the conflicting ideas about a MJ club. There is still a feeling that dance clubs are a ‘public service’, there for the fun and enjoyment of the dancers and shouldn’t be sullied by the concepts of filthy lucre.

When I first got into the game the principle was very much that ethics were of primary importance. There was certain types of behaviour that were very much unacceptable, touting for business at a competitors venue was one such area, whether it by flyering or by accosting people within the venue. Also, a club’s venue was sacrosanct. If Club A held a dance night at venue Z, then no other operator could hold events there.

Of course, to a hardened businessman viewing this from the outside, these ‘ethics’ may seem somewhat naive …. But its the way that things have been done, till recently. If the gloves were off, it would be extremely easy to ‘take out’ a competitor a la Microsoft. Say, for the sake of argument, you wanted to take over the Crewe venue run by Dance Roc (hypothetical club). Me, being Mr. Nasty would probably;
• Book all weekends I could at the venue to dilute the revenues Dance Roc could earn
• When Dance Roc did put on a weekend event, make sure I has a competing event on
• Start a competing night nearby on the same night costing far less and importing the best teachers and DJs
• Flyer the car park and hand out flyers whenever I could
• Make sure I have ‘plants’ attending the club telling the punters just what a cad Dance Roc was and how good my nights were.

How long do you think Dance Roc would last before it folded and me and my evil minions took their club over.

So … if its just business … alls fair? Could someone put forward a cogent argument why I shouldn’t go out and beat down Dance Roc? Isn’t all fair in love and war …. and business?

Well they never have

In 1994 a well know rival was putting fliers on peoples cars at Guildford ceroc etc etc

We had in Camber 2004 a well know operator acting under hand

Whats new, there were no good old days, well maybe in the 80s ?? ?

[Rocky]

There were good old days... where people from different dance backgrounds and different organizations had respect for each other. That's still partly true today, but unfortunately ethics plays a very small role in the MJ scene now.

Partly, this is because punters are not terribly loyal: first and foremost they dance based on convenience - How close is the venue, can I get a baby sitter, what are my work schedules, where are my friends going? etc. It doesn't matter if you run the best venue in the area, if your potential customer works late on a Monday they have to go somewhere else...

Secondly, they danced based on a group culture: This means that cliques and groups CAN make or break a venue. But unfortunately the groups go where they perceive other groups of similar abilities will be and also to venues that suit their particular needs. Ethics doesn't come into it for the majority: if the venue is good and the music is good they will go, doesn't matter to them how it was set up and on whos feet they have trodden.

Once they move on the venue will struggle, and by definition that means they will not return - lots of venues have gone this way. This is a fact of life, trouble is if MJ organizations continue in this vein without putting anything back (:whistle:) then the gloves will be off for everyone. If your business thrives on the back of someone elses, then you could hardly complain if another company uses the same tactics on you, could you?

What we are seeing in MJ is a classic 'S' curve whereby we are reaching a point in the centre of the curve. This happens when more companies jump on the bandwagon and open up the market, and in doing so this attracts more members of the general public. Overall this is a good thing: more choice means more new people dancing, and more competition means providers have to work harder to improve standards.

There is a few more years of this growth left and then, inevitably, there will be a consolidation period, and with it a number of failures.

The winner(s) will be those with imagination, with clout, with money, with tried and tested systems and those with an emphasis on quality control. You can judge this even now by looking at a company's ongoing development, looking at it's successes in opening venues and, most importantly, in building it's customer base.

[StokeBloke]

An excellent and insightful post Rocky!

[Rocky]

An excellent and insightful post Rocky!

Thank you Stokey Blokey! But I bet DS won't think so:rofl:

[philsmove]

Often (but not always)”A Club” is run by and for its members, normally making a big profit is not a priority, that said a Club cannot survive if it makes loss so it must try and make at least a small profit

However normally (but not always) a business wants to make a profit and usually, the bigger the better

Ethics is a very vague and emotional term, most business men I know abide to some sort of ethical code but the code varies and the most successful and happiest, one I know, works to a very high code

Over the years my own industry has seen its fair share of “Mr. Nasty’s” none manage to stay in Business long

To see what happens when you play Mr. Nasty, watch “lock stock and two smoking barrels “

[stewart38]

There were good old days... where people from different dance backgrounds and different organizations had respect for each other. That's still partly true today, but unfortunately ethics plays a very small role in the MJ scene now.





where ? when ? i can only go back to 1994, you talking about the 80s

[Rocky]

where ? when ? i can only go back to 1994, you talking about the 80s

No, it's around still... Val and I are both on very friendly terms with most of the other organizations. This is through our personal and professional relationships with these people - Rock Bottoms/Beach Boogie (Andy, Tor, Hev Mate, Rena, JB, Nigel and Nina), Joseph and Trish, Keith and Janey, Tony and Angie, Sarah Johnstone etc.

In all cases there is real respect for these people and for what they have achieved: they are all not only talented and hard working but also passionate about what they do.

They have mostly all taught at a grass roots level, taken risks to build their own businesses and have (and still continue to) inspire many people at all levels. They also continue to innovate and are great ambassadors for MJ. Respect to them all :worthy:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Thank you Stokey Blokey! But I bet DS won't think so:rofl:

Actually I do. You don't always talk nonsense ;)