TV Can’t Save Drum Corps

[Jeff Ream]

Except for the "packed houses" line, that's the second most rational thing I've read. Packed houses are totally possible, depending on where the events take place. Put DCI in markets where there's a drum corps fan base, and you can sell it. Put it in Minneapolis or Indy, and you probably can't.

(As an experiment, I'd be curious as to what would happen if DCI would take ONE year out and move Finals week to Madison or Philly or Pasadena again. If the paid attendance popped up 10,000 seats, would that give them the evidence they need not to renew the Indy deal?)

packed houses may be possible at smaller shows yes. But the ones where DCI has the mostskin in the game? The super regionals and Indy?

No.

Seats outside a certain area suck with todays design. Prices for those shows, and some local shows, even to sit out there are expensive as hell. $50 to sit on the 10 yard line and be able to hear half of theshow? No. The travel costs to getto those shows turn people away.

I can guarantee you if Finals week went west, attendance would increase. I think it would in Easttoo, but the West is a no brainer. But, then you have increased costs too

[Jeff Ream]

I didn't make my point clear.

Presuming that it can be made to work, who would the target audience be? What's the point? Is to sell entertainment to get BITS? Is it to appeal to kids to march? Is it to put sponsorship money in DCI/Corps pockets? What's the point? The goal?

I have a simple plaque that sits on the bookcase in my office. Four simple words:

"It Can Be Done"

I think it can be done (get on TV). My specific question is: Why?

Honestly...I'm not sure. We're band. We're the butt of American Pie jokes told since 1999. I'm not sure how to make drum corps more mainstream. The designers won't want to turn back the clock. We saw the Edge didnt get on tv for AGT.

The onlyu possible benefit for DCI getting on tv would be if it gained real world, blue chip advertisers that paid DCI $$$$$ like they do for sports. And given all of ther dissension within the DCI Board Room, they aren't going to spend the money needed to find the sales people that can do it.

Really, I don't see anything tv can do for DCI honestly. I think it's a ship that's sailed into the Bermuda Triangle

[Jeff Ream]

No. They know that attendance would be higher - but costs would be more dramatically higher.

Why is finals attendance such a big deal to you... especially you? You went on for weeks about how DCI needs to return more money to the corps. Now you argue against one of the methods of doing just that. Staging DCI in Indy cuts costs more than revenues, allowing DCI to return more money to corps.

Finals is not the only show on the schedule, or the balance sheet. Emphasis has shifted from finals to making major events lucrative throughout the season. This is one idea that top corps, other corps and the DCI office actually AGREE on.

If you are so determined to avoid a renewal of Indy as the DCI championship site, then do like Jeff Ream says and submit a bid. Otherwise, it would take a sea change to get DCI to sacrifice profitability just to boost in-person attendance at one specific show.

Finals is where DCI makes a lot of the $$ that goes back to the corps.But after 4 years, really the only thing that truly spiked the numbers a bit was a race atg the top. The Tribe has pretty much spoken onhow they feel about the facility and city. They are forever locked between 16-20k annually as long as they go there.

[Jeff Ream]

That is a lovely scenario. However, it is at the very least an oversimplification, if not a distortion of the nature of the Indy deal.

The DCI deal with Indy is a package deal which, in addition to the stadium use, also includes the DCI office facilities and all kinds of other provisions. The dollar value of the cost savings to DCI goes way beyond just the stadium rental.

I also quibble with your attendance projections. I could see a one-shot move probably selling 5,000 more finals tickets (8,000 if in a suitable California venue), but not 10,000 in my estimation. And keep in mind that those are one-year pops in attendance; the law of decreasing returns applies whether DCI stays at a site for a second year, or even if DCI constantly rotates sites.

So maybe we are looking at DCI paying $200,000 more in stadium rental and $100,000 more in other costs post-Indy, and getting (at first) 5,000 more finals fans at $50 each, for a net LOSS of $50,000 the first year, and bigger losses in subsequent years. Admittedly, this is still oversimplified, but it illustrates how the numbers incentivize DCI to make a deal like this.

Just to be clear, I agree wholeheartedly with this aspect of your POV (again, not the exact numbers, but philosophically). My gut reaction to the deal back when it was announced was similar to yours.

What you are missing, though, is that part of the whole idea was for DCI to shift emphasis from finals and spread it throughout the season. The strategy behind making this deal was to grow focus events all over the country and market them as destinations that the Indy-haters (among others) would choose to attend in greater numbers. All your bellyaching about lost customers, corps sales and DCI revenue at finals are compensated for by additional customers, corps sales and DCI revenue at other events. And the added benefit is that sales are now better distributed across an array of events, such that a problem with one event no longer threatens a 1993 Jackson style disaster.

If you want to see finals move around again, you will need to consider their whole balance sheet, and make a better case.

By the way, where is DCI supposed to get the money for this change? I recall you insisting that DCI should raise money to pay the corps more, raise money to hire some super-salesman-CEO, and raise money to get drum corps back on TV. This makes 4 major capital ventures you want now. Which should we do first? Could you give an order of priority for those? Thanks.

emphasis throughout the season though, honestly, does little for DCI. They get their set cost for a show. They run the regionals. None of them are exactly breaking down the doors with business.

[dieselfume]

Most of the discussion about TV seems to center on the concept of what TV can do for drum corps; more fans, more corps, more marching members. However, the real issue is what drum corps can do for TV, or more correctly, advertisers sponsoring TV fare. The purpose of advertising is to make money for the advertisers. Does drum corps offer a sellable product? Evidently, at present, what's being offered is not enough. Something has to be changed if the goal is TV coverage. Is drum corps ready to theme shows to specific advertisers? Is drum corps ready to restructure the basic eleven minute show? Whatever the answers are, the activity is, at present, locked in the trap of wanting change but not any discomfort associated with such change.

.

Again, the problem is not show location, ticket prices, G7 or any of the multiple "inside baseball" issues that dominate this thread. The issue is how does an advertiser/sponsor, not directly tied to uniforms, instruments or publications, make a buck

on drum corps. Revenue to the advertisers/sponsors will bring revenue to the corps. There is no other way, or leave drum corps in the boondocks of the entertainment industry and stop worrying about it.

.

[Pete Freedman]

Hi there. Nice topic.

I think several corps do create video content for their own promotional and motivational purposes. BD certainly does. So, here's the possible deal:

Get 3-6 corps to agree to the deal. Which is: Each corps agrees to submit 5-10 minutes each week featuring the same set of rookies (up to 3 or 4). DCI just puts these together with maybe some interstitial clips of a show and which corps are leading that week. This "show" is posted on Fan Network, so there's no need to make it network-quality. It's free, but advertiser sponsored. DCI and the corps split up the money somehow (it might not be much money, but hopefully enough to cover the bandwidth at least). People on both performing arts lists and education lists get a promo for it. It just might work. Minimal effort, fun for those involved, and the possibility that it could actually go viral (by drum corps standards at least). I mean, for once you can actually tell non-fans "this is cool" and have them agree. And it would give the performing arts and education folks a real hook into the activity.

Points / issues:

- No speeches by leaders. This is not about people talking about how wonderful drum corps is. It's about showing that fact. It's just people doing hard work and expressing their feelings about what's happening around them.

- Keep hammering on the theme of the work ethic boot-camp nature of drum corps. That's the thing that catches peoples interest.

[Slingerland]

Revenue to the advertisers/sponsors will bring revenue to the corps. There is no other way, or leave drum corps in the boondocks of the entertainment industry and stop worrying about it.

It's not necessarily about direct sales. Event or season sponsors are a little different than tv advertisers. Sponsors for athletic events and music festivals, etc, come on board because they want to have their brand be seen in the company of whatever the event or sponsorship is. Do they hope that some of that exposure turns into direct sales? Absolutely. Do they do so with the same mindset as a retailer who pays for a coupon to be inserted in the Sunday paper? Not really. It's more about doing public good and associating their brand with an event or concept that they think will have long term benefits.

(Boeing was a major sponsor of Lyric Opera in Chicago for several years in the early 2000s, but I'm reasonably sure they didn't think too many opera goers would be buying 767s as a result of that sponsorship.)

DCI doesn't really need advertisers as much as they need sponsors. But before they get there, they'll need to start putting some horses in the stable at the Board and management level who knows who to call and how to make the pitch.

[Fred Windish]

Slingerland -

As you know, I appreciate your contributions here, but once again, I request specific details. You, danielray, and others I can't remember right now, seem to suggest Dan Acheson is inadequate to manage this organization. You, danielray and others, really need to make a better case, and provide actual evidence Dan Acheson is not earning his keep. Dan's an easy target. I get that. However, I have seen no details to convince me Dan is the reason why our activity's durability is in the jeopardy you and I obviously recognize.

I am sure there are other "magicians" out there with impressive credentials. Credentials that read greater than Dan's. Now, how do we attract and pay for that level of brilliance? Also, should such a savior be out there for the taking, does Dan still have a valuable role in DCI? To me, Dan's a "keeper." He's done an excellent job.

Let's go right to the heart. Does Dan Acheson need to go?

I say "no."

[Slingerland]

You, danielray and others, really need to make a better case, and provide actual evidence Dan Acheson is not earning his keep. Dan's an easy target.

If you looked the totality of my suggestions/observations over the last several months, you'd see that i mention the Board of DCI as much or more than Dan Acheson. Dan's done a good job of keeping the doors open and the boat afloat, but despite a growth in gross revenues, there's been no growth in net revenues, and it's net that matters in the real world.

The organization needs a Board whose members have experience in produce bigger events with bigger fish, and that Board will make the call as to what kind of executive team can best achieve the goals.

All I can at this point is that right now, there's no one in the organization who has the experience of cultivating major sponsors at other events/sports companies. Getting someone on the team who knows how to do that will require a headhunter to find them and a commitment to paying the eventual candidate their market value. Guys who can bring in $200-300k sponsors can't usually be hired for $50-60k a year plus all the drum corps they can eat. It's going to take an investment all the way around.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Slingerland

[Fred Windish]

Slingerland,

You are giving me a mixed message. First, you suggest Dan has been good for gross, but not for net. That seems to suggest Dan has benefited from increased pricing, but has spent way too much in what he does, thereby negating any actual gain to the corps. I don't see that. I do agree the DCI Board is made up of the wrong people. You simply can not advance a broader organization with board members who have any sort of selfish interest.

Again, how does this organization pay for such an additional "genius" above and beyond what Dan provides? Also, I would like you to answer one of my questions. That is, does Dan need to go? Yes, or no?