Does MiM/G7 violate antitrust law?

[Pete Freedman]

DCI IS THE CORPS.

The question is whether some corps are cheating other corps. The fact that there exists a league that has all the corps as members seems irrelevant, even if that league is the instrument of the cheating. In the NFL case, it didn't matter that they were all part of a league. The question should be: Has any drum corps lost revenue because the seven induced DCI to exclude them?

I mean, to say that Pioneer automatically gives consent to be excluded from shows simply because they are DCI members, and there are other directors on the board, and the board voted for it, is absurd.

Some of you have suggested that there is currently a truce on this in that everyone is accepting the current situation. But that doesn't mean they need to accept it. Maybe they just don't know they don't have to.

[BRASSO]

For historical perspective here, the G7 schemers initially threatened to bolt DCI if their demands for show selection, judge selection, venue selection, marketing control, fees control, etc was not implemented as they demanded.

The G7 capitulated on much of their orginal demands when they found that their was total unified DCI efforts not to capitulate largely to their demands. What subsequently resulted was the G7 giving up on their threats to go it alone outside DCI... a capitulation that the G7 mix of Corps in the TOC shows would be of their own choosing.... giving up on their demands that they alone would hand pick " their " judges.... and gave up seat control on the DCI BOD..... lost their quest to replace Acheson... lost their quest to downsize the DCI HQ... ,lost on their efforts to defund the Open Class Div..... among other things.. and in return, they won in negotiation the ability to set up a TOC ( with DCI input on its structure) and under the banner of DCI. So this is where we are today.

DCI is trumpted as doing better revenue, attendance wise the last few years. It is fitting that this is seen in the context that much of the initial demands from the G7 were largely rejected during this period of DCI's " increased growth ".

Edited November 21, 2014 by BRASSO

[perc2100]

This seems to expose, if true, that the Seven consider the competition to be more important that the increased gate at TOC shows. Unless your suggestion is that they wanted the practice time to present a better TOC show, it's likely that taking away time from practice jeopardizes the finals placement position of those who were grumbling.

That might hint that, even with the TOC "New" format, the payoff from playing, and placing well, in DCI's sandbox is a bigger payday than the TOC gate.

Purely supposition on my part. As I mentioned, I know of no one who has disseminated the TOC revenue and profit separate from other DCI show revenue.

Also, FWIW, I'm talking staffers & Caption Heads who's sole job is achieving perfection out of the members. That philosophy might run counter to the corps directors & corps BODs whose concern is the overall organizations' benefits.

Plus, it is all about competition, and with DCI being THE premier (only?) independent, summer marching arts circuit. It would be foolish for the corps to not put competition at or near the very top of priorities

[Pete Freedman]

First, anti-trust typically refers to restraints against fair trade that might harm consumers. That second part (might harm consumers) is important because those laws typically aren't (and shouldn't) be used to promote equal competition. A capitalist system recognizes that some competitors are more able than others. It's not against the law therefore to promote a product that consumers demand just because it might disadvantage a weaker supplier.

That's the case in the Coke/Pepsi example where those firms pay retailers for optimal shelf space. Their deeper pockets explain why it's easier to find Coke and Pepsi than it is to find RC or C&C Cola. It's also true in the case of concert promoters who bring us the same acts over and over while new ones who haven't found a ready market have to wait. And it's true in the case of DCI where the activity has created a venue for its highest grossing product - the seven y'all resent so much.

Which brings me to the second point. I don't think it's true that the seven keep all the TOC money. On the contrary, I think DCI keeps a large share of the proceeds, enough to be decisive in its fiscal health. Or to put it another way, a lot of corps not performing are earning via DCI from TOC.

HH

That's what I thought. But this paper talks about the various categories of nonprofit antitrust lawsuits, and they seem to have little to do with consumer choice. The nonprofits are cheated, so they sue.

As to your concert promoters example: Again, it's the difference between the promoter choosing the best acts, vs. some acts inducing the promoter to exclude other acts. I'm sure it happens, but it's probably illegal, right?

Finally, as to DCI keeping some of the money: If the excluded corps are satisfied that they are not losing revenue/exposure/whatever, then they won't sue. But I doubt Oregon Crusaders are breathing a huge sigh of relief because DCI itself got a cut.

[Pete Freedman]

For historical perspective here, the G7 schemers initially threatened to bolt DCI if their demands for show selection, judge selection, venue selection, marketing control, fees control, etc was not implemented as they demanded.

The G7 capitulated on much of their orginal demands when they found that their was total unified DCI efforts not to capitulate largely to their demands. What subsequently resulted was the G7 giving up on their threats to go it alone outside DCI... a capitulation that the G7 mix of Corps in the TOC shows would be of their own choosing.... giving up on their demands that they alone would hand pick " their " judges.... and gave up seat control on the DCI BOD..... lost their quest to replace Acheson... lost their quest to downsize the DCI HQ... ,lost on their efforts to defund the Open Class Div..... among other things.. and in return, they won in negotiation the ability to set up a TOC ( with DCI input on its structure) and under the banner of DCI. So this is where we are today.

DCI is trumpted as doing better revenue, attendance wise the last few years. It is fitting that this is seen in the context that much of the initial demands from the G7 were largely rejected during this period of DCI's " increased growth ".

Interesting history. It was clearly volatile behind the scenes. One concern about TOC shows is that more shows would lack any top corps and would not do well and might even fold. Indeed, the number of shows has supposedly declined over the last several years (from ~140 in mid-2000s to less than 110 last year. Is that right?). Obviously many factors can be involved there, but if the top seven all go to the same shows, that could cost the other shows significant revenue.

Didn't the seven specifically promise that they would do the same number of non-TOC shows? That the TOC would be additional shows? Specifically in response to concerns about other corps loss of revenue. It might have been in an interview with one of the directors, but obviously that's a promise without an enforcement mechanism.

[MikeN]

No.... the G7 did not " let "the non 7 Corps in the TOC shows. The inclusion was the aftermath of talks and then a negotiated settlement that was agreed to within the parameters of the DCI bylaws, and under an agreement that all the DCI Directors... both the G7 and the non G7.... signed off on.

Written negotiated settlement? When did this happen? Who put that together? First I've ever heard of it.

Mike

[garfield]

For historical perspective here, the G7 schemers initially threatened to bolt DCI if their demands for show selection, judge selection, venue selection, marketing control, fees control, etc was not implemented as they demanded.

The G7 capitulated on much of their orginal demands when they found that their was total unified DCI efforts not to capitulate largely to their demands. What subsequently resulted was the G7 giving up on their threats to go it alone outside DCI... a capitulation that the G7 mix of Corps in the TOC shows would be of their own choosing.... giving up on their demands that they alone would hand pick " their " judges.... and gave up seat control on the DCI BOD..... lost their quest to replace Acheson... lost their quest to downsize the DCI HQ... ,lost on their efforts to defund the Open Class Div..... among other things.. and in return, they won in negotiation the ability to set up a TOC ( with DCI input on its structure) and under the banner of DCI. So this is where we are today.

DCI is trumpted as doing better revenue, attendance wise the last few years. It is fitting that this is seen in the context that much of the initial demands from the G7 were largely rejected during this period of DCI's " increased growth ".

You've mischaracterized what actually happened according to what I've been told by people actually involved in the situation at the time. You make it sound as if it was a tough negotiation that ended as it did. It was actually two, separate events.

The Seven did not capitulate, they were over-ruled and actively removed from power on the BOD. That action alone removed their plans from consideration by the newly-installed BOD.

Some say the TOC was a consolation prize offered by DCI to allow the Seven to try their new format within the confines of the broader DCI tour. The "consolation" was provided via a vote by the then-new voting members.

I don't think the Seven ever dreamed that the remaining corps would seek legal counsel and quickly build emergency justification for removing the Seven from power. In many ways the actual coup was the legal attack and defense mounted by the O-15 corps to protect what they thought was the greater good of the activity.

[BRASSO]

Didn't the seven specifically promise that they would do the same number of non-TOC shows? That the TOC would be additional shows?

Yes, they did propose this in their Powerpoint Presentation. But for proper context, this proposal would only take effect provided all of their other initial demands ( called " non negotiable " at the time ) were to be met. Presumably, if their demands in total were not met, this particular proposal would become mute, as their threat to leave DCI altogether would be expected to take place and supercede this, thus making this particular proposal null and void, and essentially meaningless at that point.

Edited November 21, 2014 by BRASSO

[garfield]

There's a lot I don't know about how corps are assigned to shows, so I'm not sure about this one. It sounds pretty subtle though; that DCI isn't excluding the lower corps from TOC shows, but rather that DCI is transferring control of the scheduling to the G7, which then excludes the lower corps. That could be a distinction without a difference, as they say, especially if DCI in fact literally owns the show and/or literally schedules the corps. There is no actual sale of the show as an entity, correct?

You may be right about this, but it doesn't sound like something that would prevent the case from going forward, just something that might factor in the final decision. And I wouldn't think the G7 would want the case going forward to begin with.

If I remember, all of the now-TOC shows existed as shows before the G7TOC series. IIRC, those shows were then reserved for the Seven to produce at the exclusion of the O-15. As I understand the scheduling system, simply no other corps were scheduled by DCI to appear at the TOC shows.

Not sure what your RED comment means, but a show is "sold" to a TEP as is, after it invites a corps to consider the location, and coordinates others who've agreed to show. In that context, the "show" is, in fact, "sold" to the TEP.

[Pete Freedman]

You've mischaracterized what actually happened according to what I've been told by people actually involved in the situation at the time. You make it sound as if it was a tough negotiation that ended as it did. It was actually two, separate events.

The Seven did not capitulate, they were over-ruled and actively removed from power on the BOD. That action alone removed their plans from consideration by the newly-installed BOD.

Some say the TOC was a consolation prize offered by DCI to allow the Seven to try their new format within the confines of the broader DCI tour. The "consolation" was provided via a vote by the then-new voting members.

I don't think the Seven ever dreamed that the remaining corps would seek legal counsel and quickly build emergency justification for removing the Seven from power. In many ways the actual coup was the legal attack and defense mounted by the O-15 corps to protect what they thought was the greater good of the activity.

At this point it might seem petty then, for a lower corps to challenge the TOC now unless there is a movement to expand the number of TOC shows. On the other hand, each TOC show denies several other shows a top corps or two. If there are six TOC shows, then could that add up quick. If I were a director of a smaller corps, I'd at least want to be able to contain the number of TOC shows, and having the antitrust card in my pocket would be a huge help. And of course, if even a single corps believes they lose revenue because of the TOC shows, they could presumably challenge it.

Did DCI ever consider having prelims for the TOC shows? Let any corps compete earlier in the day, but only the top seven go on to the TOC final. They'd still get to have the same show without excluding anyone.