2012 dance data and observations thereon

In order for Hong Kong’s dance activities to be digitally documented, “Hong Kong Dance Yearbook” (Yearbook) gathered and categorized factual details about dance performances in 2012. This article elaborates on the observations induced from the data processing exercise. The Yearbook makes the following assumptions when categorizing and comparing the information to compensate for the inconsistency in the format of and level of details available from publicity materials, the main source of information of this exercise:

1.      The Yearbook is aware of and supports that dance activities in Hong Kong go beyond those presented as performances.  “Performance” as the focus of discussion is for the fact that it can be participated by a party who does not act the dance itself. This to a certain extent reflects the relationship between dance partakers and the community.

2.      “Performance” data only include concerts that took place in “theatres” in conventional terms, or in a LCSD-managed venue, and audiences are required to pay for their entrance. Tickets for all the productions discussed in this article were sold through “URBTIX”, “Cityline” and “HK Ticketing” networks.

3.      The productions covered in this article should not be understood as the exhaustive list of Hong Kong’s 2012 dance productions. The Yearbook has no knowledge of productions that were not publicly announced or information of which not submitted to the Yearbook editorial team.

4.       The “audience count” is estimated by assuming 70% of the venue’s published capacity was filled in each concert. That figure multiplied by the number of concerts makes the total audience estimation of a production. The Yearbook does not factor in scenarios when the venue’s standard seating plan was altered for artistic purpose.

5.      The “average ticket price” is the average figure of all publicized price bands, while excluding exceptionally high price band (for example the $1000 VIP ticket of the Hong Kong Ballet productions). The “average” does not reflect the share of seats for each band and price discounts not factored.

6.      “Professional”, “Amateur” and “Students” (categories) are defined as follows:

                             i.                Professional: dance as a profession for the performers involved, who make their major source of income from undertakings directly related to dance (such as but not limited to performance, education, research.) “Professional” has no judgmental implication of quality, skill level, or audience expectation.

                           ii.                “Amateur”: the performers involved make their major source of income outside of undertakings directly related to dance. “Amateur” has no judgmental implication of quality, skill level, or audience expectation.

                         iii.                “Students”: Either the performers are full-time students or the performance is part of a dance-learning activity (such as but not limited to a graduation gala, anniversary performance of dance schools, competition, or winners’ showcase.)

7.      No year-on-year comparison will be made as only 2012 data is available to the Yearbook on publication.

Productions and concerts

In 2012 there were a total of 180 dance productions which were presented as 407 concerts. The distribution among professional/ amateur/ student is as follows:

Category	Number of productions	% of year total	Number of concerts	% of year total
Professional	80	44.4%	247	60.7%
Amateur	39	21.7%	49	12.0%
Student	61	33.9%	111	27.3%

There is an indirect proportion between the number of productions against that of concerts for both the Amateur and Student categories. The % share of production out of year total was higher than the share of concerts. One possible reason is that there were usually 1 to 2 concerts for Amateur and Student productions, whereas Professional productions could run for 2-5 concerts, or in cases up to 10 (for example 14 for “Nutcracker” by the Hong Kong Ballet and 9 for “Maze” by Passover Dance.)

LCSD (including Cultural Presentations Office, Festivals Office and Audience Building Office) was the largest presenter in 2012, presenting 25 productions with 68 concerts. Yet this concert total was lower than that of the three flagship companies (the Hong Kong Ballet, Hong Kong Dance, City Contemporary Dance Company) together (19 productions with 78 concerts.) Other major presenters, by the number of productions, were the mid to small scale dance companies and independent dancers as a unity, the Hong Kong Arts Festival Society, and the Consulate General of France in Hong Kong and Macau (presenter of “Le French May”.)

There were 14 productions in 2012 funded by the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, amounting to 73% of the 19 productions by the three flagship companies. However, only 35 concerts came out of the 14 productions, 44% of those of the flagship companies. To understand the difference in proportion, one could contemplate the relationship between ADC grant amount and venue rental, or the LCSD Venue-Partnership Scheme which was in effect in 2012.  

Ticket price

The variation of average ticket price among the three categories was slight:

l   Professional: between $25-$480 (exceptionally high ticket band excluded), average $210

l   Amateur: between $25-$380, average $158

l   Student: between $10-$380, average $130

While the ticket price for Professional productions was highest amongst all three categories, it was only 32% higher than that of Amateur. When one considers the high investment for large-scale productions or for bringing overseas artists to Hong Kong, one could see how the public money subsidy has made its mark on the ticket price.  Unavailable to the Yearbook are the demographic data of ticket buyers and the income-expenditure balance sheet of productions, so for now it is hard to make suggestions on whether Professional ticket price should be adjusted. Also infeasible by now is to estimate the contribution to audience building should the ticket price be reduced further.

Audiences

Please refer to point 4 in the first paragraph of this article for audience estimation assumptions. The following figures are complied according to such assumptions and do not necessarily equate to the actual number of heads inside the theatres:

Number of audiences, year total	274,730
	Total of category	% of year total	Average per concert
Professional	146,489	53.3%	595
Amateur	39,615	14.4%	808
Students	88,626	32.3%	798

One thing to bear in mind when looking at the above figures is that the ticket purchase motivation could be quite different for audiences in different categories. Productions under the Student category comprise of graduation gala, anniversary performance of dance schools, competition, or winners’ showcase. The performer count of these productions is high. Performers’ social networks may intersect but may not overlap, suggesting an ability to attract audiences from community segments who buy tickets for the sheer purpose of friendly support. The average audience count of the Professional category is the mid-point of productions with as many as over 1000 per concert, and those as low as 100. One can do a quick calculation here: multiply the audience count by average ticket price and one could almost visualize the triad of government grant amount, practitioners’ income and resources available for audience development. The dance sector may want to discuss what makes a healthy ecology and who should shoulder a higher responsibility, if any.  Regardless, it is apt to say that the audience count for the Professional category is low when one considers the total population of Hong Kong and its citizens’ participation in dance activities of various forms.

LCSD-organized fringe activities related to the productions described in this article amounted to 8 in 2012. These activities included but were not limited to master classes, seminars, open rehearsals, photo exhibitions etc. All being paid activities, 1300 people joined by paying an amount between $50 - $200. While there is no data showing whether these people ended up in the theatres, there was a growing trend of incorporating fringe activities in the overall dance publicity package.

Venue

The following table describes the distribution of performance venues among the three categories in discussion:

Venue	Professional	Amateur	Student
Grand Theatre, Hong Kong Culture Center	✔
Studio Theatre, Hong Kong Culture Center	✔
Theatre, City Hall	✔
Auditorium, Kwai Tsing Theatre	✔
8/F Platform, Sheung Wan Civic Center	✔
Auditorium, Tsuen Wan Town Hall	✔
Black Box Theatre, Jockey Club Creative Arts Center	✔
HKICC Lee Shau Kee School of Creativity	✔
Fringe Club Studio	✔
Theatre, Ngau Chi Wan Civic Center	✔
McAulay Studio, Hong Kong Arts Center	✔
Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center	✔
Sam Tung Uk Museum	✔
Xiang Hai Xuan Multi-purpose Hall, Nan Lian Garden	✔
Black Box Theatre, Kwai Tsing Theatre	✔		✔
Lyric Theatre, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts	✔		✔
Theatre, Sheung Wan Civic Center	✔	✔
Auditorium, Shatin Town Hall	✔	✔
Theatre, Sai Wan Ho Civic Center	✔	✔
Auditorium, Yuen Long Theatre	✔	✔
Auditorium, Tuen Mun Town Hall		✔
Ampitheatre, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts		✔	✔
Jockey Club Auditorium, PolyU		✔	✔
Tai Po Civic Center		✔
Southorn Stadium		✔
Y Theatre, Youth Square			✔

In 2012, performance venues utilized by Professional, Amateur and Student categories were readily distinguishable. But for a few exceptions, amateur and student productions took place in venues that professionals did not usually use. The same was true the other way round.  There was also a longer list of venues for professional productions. Generally speaking, venue decisions reflect the dynamics of rental, availability, facilities, and capacity, also the image of the production and the audience segment it is intended for. The 2012 venue utilization situation seemed to suggest a discussion about resources deployment and geographical audience development endeavor.

Dance genres and themes

Except for a few ethnical (Flamingo, Tango, Central Asia folk dance) dance productions presented by LCSD, the formal variety of professional dance productions is limited to ballet, Chinese or modern dance. This may has to do with the fact that for over three decades, there has been a professional dance company for each of these three forms, but a fourth one is nowhere to be seen so far. The HKAPA School of Dance also has streamlined its curriculum along those three forms.  Amateur category is the most “democratic” among all, with productions comprising different forms and no obvious predisposition to sought after.  Student category shows a preference for Chinese dance. This may be a combined result of the prevailing effort of community groups, a lower learning entry barrier, and higher acceptance among parents. While there is also a certain amount of ballet productions in Student category, one does not see much of sports dance productions.

Re-runs are rare in Hong Kong. The “Nutcracker”, “Giselle” and “Cinderella” of the Hong Kong Ballet should be regarded more as a 2012 version of a classical repertoire and not as a “re-run” per se. In 2012, “Evacuation Order” of the Hong Kong Dance Company and “Chopin vs Ca” by Unlock Dancing Plaza were re-run productions in its strict sense.

Other paid productions

One phenomenon worth noticing is that in 2012, a considerable amount of productions had their tickets sold through channels outside of the three major ticketing networks. They therefore fell out of the scope of the discussion so far. To all intents and purposes, they shared the 2012 Hong Kong dance scene and should be reviewed in order for a full picture to be presented:

Number of productions: 23

Number of performances: 54

(note: the above figures were collected through a call-for-information exercise. All fell into the “Professional” category except for one production/ two concerts.)

Venues: Jockey Club Theatre, CCDC Dance Center/ Big Tree Arts Center/ Pak Tin Community Hall, Shek Kip Mei/ Unlock Dancing Plaza/ Theatre Horizon/ OnandOn/ DanceArt White Box/ Hidden Agenda/ Loft Stage/Y-Space Y Theatre.

Except for OnandOn and Pak Tin community Hall, the other venues are small without any built-in audience block. Capacity ranges from 30 to 80 audiences per concert. Together, around 2000 audiences attended these productions in 2012. This is a significant amount that cannot be neglected.  Average ticket price of these productions is $100, apparently lower than those sold through the three ticketing networks.  Presenters might have reduced the price to compensate for the smaller production scale and reduced ticket purchase flexibility. They might also have passed on to the audiences the savings from handling fee. 

Hong Kong’s three major ticketing networks serve only the “formal” performance venues. To sell tickets of alternative venues, one has to look for alternative channels. But a situation that grew entirely out of needs may soon find itself symbolically significant. It implies a bottom-up, uprising demand for a broader “theatre” definition. Unable to take advantage of the publicity channels associated with the major networks, presenters make their most out of online networks such as facebook, email marketing and word-of-mouth promotion. These mechanisms in turn strengthen the bonding of potential audiences as they are built on people relationship. It definitely is worth the attention of all in the dance field to follow and investigate how this trend will evolve.