garfield Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 I think what I bolded is the big question, and we've already seen that DCI doesn't want to take many, if any, 'bold' steps towards change. Heck, the upper echelon directors tried to take slightly bold (relatively) steps of change and were met with bitter resentment not only from their peers, but a large swath of the vocal online fan base. In relation to that discussion (what DCI "Could Be" vs what DCI "IS"), did PBR change more than a business model to reach the mainstream? It could be they hit the right market at the right time, when the NASCAR-set was looking to fill other TV-watching time and PBR stepped up to fill that void. If PBR merely changed their business model (which, is obviously no small thing, but smaller than changing business model AND changing other aspects of the product), do you think DCI could make a similar with only a change to their business model? I really feel like they tried that, to a (very) small extent in 2005 when they went with ESPN: that didn't work out so well so DCI "retreated" back to their original(ish) model, focused on their online presence & running a smooth summer circuit, and that's it. "Finals can be no more than 90 minutes. Five corps, tops. Rebuild Saturday night to make that happen and we'll talk." Would they do it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 I'm all for DCI looking to every other successful enterprise for ideas on how to thrive at its mission. So could you or someone suggest one specific thing that PBR did that DCI should have done or should do? And is PBR really more successful? For instance, in the past 23 years, which organization has had more performers? Do we really measure success based on the number of performers? "We have 4000 performers. We just can't afford to build a tour for them to perform." I'd rather have 2000 performers and a growing activity than 4000 performers and a slowly dying one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I think what he is getting at is - what do you consider growth: fewer musicians with more eyes on them, or more musicians with fewer eyes on them? Naturally, the ideal is more musicians with more eyes on them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 there are a few reasons why there are big complications with the idea of 'buying' the DCI tour and trying to increase its market. but DCI-lite, 'Soundsport,' would fit this model really well. it can be year round. it only requires a modest sized venue. it has a greater potential to be 'dynamic' from event to event. a for-profit competitive mini-corps circuit, heavy on the advertising and head-to-head competition element, is a model that Could have legs If it could capture interest. I suspect that the founders of PBR said the same thing in 1992. And yet, here they are, $100million richer. Soundsport is designed to present amateur performers an opportunity to perform before a drum corps crowd with the noble hope that some of those will migrate, or morph into, drum corps marchers. Is that the event that will draw eyeballs to a live performance? Meanwhile, the DCI summer tour is down to just over 100 shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Thats a thought.. another could be to pair Ringling Bros, with DCI. Ringling gets the busses, drums, horns, and costuming, DCI gets the animals, fireworks, trains, & winter storage. And who gets to keep the clowns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 One key difference to take into account - PBR is not run by the competing riders like DCI is. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 Well, sure. I would start with copying THIS. Only one (and now retired) competitor is a board member of PBR. Unlike DCI, apparently championship bull-riders don't have the business egos that prevent them from making millions. I once heard a top corps director say he would never be a member of an organization in which he didn't have control. Maybe changing that viewpoint, and redefining who actually has the business acumen to guide the activity, would be a good place to start. One key difference to take into account - PBR is not run by the competing riders like DCI is. Mike Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I think one of the major factors leading to a differentiation between PBR and Drum Corps is the always-present spectre of inherent danger. In this, PBR could probably be seen as mirroring the huge growth of NASCAR during the 1980's and 1990's. Faster speeds...faster tracks...and a much, much larger amount of television coverage, either through carrying the races live or increasing video-bite reports of sensationalistic crashes and/or resulting death. We are an increasingly sensationalistic society, and the spectre of inherent danger certainly plays a rather major role in appeasing our taste for the sensational. And we must consider this: with each death or other tragedy over the past two decades of NASCAR racing, the activity has found more and more ways of making the cars safer. Modern fuel cells have diminished the likelihood of fires or flat out explosions common to the earlier era. And as the racing (and viewing) has become safer and safer, what has also been the prevailing trend of attendance at its' races? A very sure and steady decline. People will flock to the sensational, whether it be an automobile flying through the air and contacting a cement wall at nearly 200 MPH, or being rear-ended and exploding in a subsquent fireball..or a rider being trampled or gored by an out-of-control bull. Drum Corps (thank goodness) of course does not contain this. There is nothing about Drum Corps which is going to quench the societal thirst for the sensational, outside the sensationally incredible level of performance. Unfortunately, an exquisitely performed 2 1/2 octave sixteenth note run by 150 horns will never be front page material. As much as we might wish that society's finding as much sensation in a well-performed piece of music as it does in the onset of danger would increase, I doubt that is going to happen. And it is there that we are left scratching our heads. This wasn't phrased in the best way, I understand. Just too many factors in my mind all wanting to come out at once. Maybe I'll have it some other time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I think what he is getting at is - what do you consider growth: fewer musicians with more eyes on them, or more musicians with fewer eyes on them? Naturally, the ideal is more musicians with more eyes on them. more fannies in the seats & more musicians with coin to spare is the most ideal it would seem to me. That and an aging billionaire with a Charitable Remainder Trust Life Insurance Policy that has a Face Amount of 100 million dollars with DCI as the designated beneficiary- recipient of all the proceeds once the Insured has gone to his or her last rodeo. Edited April 17, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I think one of the major factors leading to a differentiation between PBR and Drum Corps is the always-present spectre of inherent danger. In this, PBR could probably be seen as mirroring the huge growth of NASCAR during the 1980's and 1990's. Faster speeds...faster tracks...and a much, much larger amount of television coverage, either through carrying the races live or increasing video-bite reports of sensationalistic crashes and/or resulting death. We are an increasingly sensationalistic society, and the spectre of inherent danger certainly plays a rather major role in appeasing our taste for the sensational. And we must consider this: with each death or other tragedy over the past two decades of NASCAR racing, the activity has found more and more ways of making the cars safer. Modern fuel cells have diminished the likelihood of fires or flat out explosions common to the earlier era. And as the racing (and viewing) has become safer and safer, what has also been the prevailing trend of attendance at its' races? A very sure and steady decline. People will flock to the sensational, whether it be an automobile flying through the air and contacting a cement wall at nearly 200 MPH, or being rear-ended and exploding in a subsquent fireball..or a rider being trampled or gored by an out-of-control bull. Drum Corps (thank goodness) of course does not contain this. There is nothing about Drum Corps which is going to quench the societal thirst for the sensational, outside the sensationally incredible level of performance. Unfortunately, an exquisitely performed 2 1/2 octave sixteenth note run by 150 horns will never be front page material. As much as we might wish that society's finding as much sensation in a well-performed piece of music as it does in the onset of danger would increase, I doubt that is going to happen. And it is there that we are left scratching our heads. This wasn't phrased in the best way, I understand. Just too many factors in my mind all wanting to come out at once. Maybe I'll have it some other time... What could present more edge-of-the-seat fear and danger than Hop pacing the sidelines at Finals? (/sarcasm) Edited April 17, 2015 by garfield 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.