The DCI 990s

[garfield]

That's where comparing numbers across organizations gets a little weird. I currently fundraise for a very large nonprofit, and sit on the board of a few smaller nonprofits. Those numbers really are upside down.

These numbers will never be released, but I wonder how many Friends of DCI members they have. There are quite a few DCI alums that've moved into lucrative positions after they age out...why not start a master participant database? Approach the younger ageouts for micro-donations. $25 bucks to fund...something. Instill the idea of giving back at a young age, and hook them before another organization scoops up their philanthropic dollars...

What I also want to see is DCI to roll out an enhanced Corporate Partner program. I take a look at the Corporate Partners page on the website and notice that they are doing great with support from music companies, and have very little outside of that. I'd like them to make a bit of an effort to build non-musical corporate partners in Indianapolis. Klipsch, the speaker manufacturers, are Indy based, along with a ton of other companies. With Finals based in Indy, put together a recognition concert Finals week for sponsors...get a few corps to pop in and play a tune or two and showcase the activity. Perhaps extend the sponsor showcase at Lucas Oil to include companies that might be recruiting for internships? Lots of kids that march aren't music majors, but are brilliant in other fields. Having the ability to recruit dedicated folks has to be worth something, right?

Free ideas. Steal away, any DCI fundraisers that might be reading...

Not only are Friends numbers released, they are listed in the annual program.

I did a study of the number of Friends members a couple of years ago and saw a marked decline in numbers and a definitive shift in giving levels from the lower levels to the higher. I'll see if I can find my spreadsheets...

I also have a friend who was an annual Platinum member, was and is VERY active in the activity and, for reasons I can't say here, decided to not renew his membership. He never got a note, a phone call, or any inquiry what-so-ever about why he didn't renew. I remember the phrase he used: "Institutionalized hubris in the E-Suite".

Edited August 22, 2014 by garfield

[ampfan]

Oops - I stand corrected! I'll go check them out. Thanks for letting me know, garfield.

Following up with lapsed donors is probably the worst part of fundraising, but is essential. You spend all of this time, energy, and money to land a new donor and then you let them walk away with...nothing? Mind-boggling.

Do you know anything about the makeup of their fundraising team? I just can't see them having a large staff.

[garfield]

Fan Network Expenses

2009: $259,736

2010: $258,595 (basically flat from 2009)

2011: $341,113 (plus $82,518 [32%] from 2010 and about the same increase from 2009)

2012: $294,534

Now this seems like a win.

Again, we don't know the details, but we all heard what a smashing success 2013's first-ever finals broadcast was, and it seems it could be equally enhanced as a program by significantly lower expense to produce it. If that nearly $50m in spending reduction from '11 to '12 is indicative of "start up" expenses that aren't repeated, the extra net from the '13 finals demand should really prove how profitable a good subscriber program can be. We'll know the details next year when the 2013 numbers are filed.

I believe that some of the DCI people named in this thread are due at least partial credit for the success of DCI's online content business.

[Precious Roy]

If that nearly $50m in spending reduction...

Asking as more of a "science numbers" person rather than a "financial numbers" person -- "$50m" in this case is 50 thousand? I've always seen it as "50k," whereas "50m" would be 50 million. Is the "m" (here) derived from the Roman numeral for 1000? Just curious.

[N.E. Brigand]

Asking as more of a "science numbers" person rather than a "financial numbers" person -- "$50m" in this case is 50 thousand? I've always seen it as "50k," whereas "50m" would be 50 million. Is the "m" (here) derived from the Roman numeral for 1000? Just curious.

Yes, garfield mentioned at some point in the past that In the financial field where he makes his living, "m" stands for thousand, not million. I believe "mm" is used for million. (And yes, it comes from Roman numeral.)

Edited August 22, 2014 by N.E. Brigand

[Precious Roy]

Yes, garfield mentioned at some point in the past that In the financial field where he makes his living, "m" stands for thousand, not million. I believe "mm" is used for million. (And yes, it comes from Roman numeral.)

Thanks for the clarification. That's going to take a bit of effort for my scientifically calibrated brain to adjust for.

[garfield]

Sorry, Roy. Yea, Brigand's got it right.

When I see three zeros, I think "m". Six zeros is "mm".

I don't know if it's based on the Roman numbers or not, I just know the bond market reference.

[garfield]

Wanna know how drum corps geeky I am? I have finals programs for each year going back to 1986.

DCI has been nice enough to print the names of all Friends members, and their membership levels, in each program and a few years ago I put together the summation just to see if FODCI was growing or shrinking.

Tonight I updated it with 2014's. Should be worth some discussion about development and donor costs and if/how they apply to FoDCI.

Based on the 2014 membership levels, Friends contributed $324,000 in gross revenue to DCI. In 2012 they contributed $336,000 in gross revenue, or 94% of the amount listed in that year as "Contributions and Grants".

Edited August 23, 2014 by garfield

[JohnD]

The Friends program appears to be much less of a philanthropic donor program than a 'gain access to better seats' program. There is no evidence of donor development, donor stewardship, or new donor acquisition. Most philanthropic programs that I've seen build on a 'pyramid' of donors that advance up the scale - whereas this chart clearly shows that this is not the case for the DCI Friends program. For the last several years, the largest number of "donors" are in the category that provides the initial level of "complimentary" tickets to championships.

It would be interesting to see what the actual value of these "donations" are, once the value of the associated benefits (e.g., tickets, Fan Network, etc) are removed.

I'm wondering if DCI has a specific strategy to build a philanthropic donor base - or if they're satisfied with simply providing a 'premium ticket club'.

For those that are members of the Friends program - do you consider yourselves "charitable donors" ... or do you consider your Friends membership as simply a way to get better tickets to championships?

[garfield]

The Friends program appears to be much less of a philanthropic donor program than a 'gain access to better seats' program. There is no evidence of donor development, donor stewardship, or new donor acquisition. Most philanthropic programs that I've seen build on a 'pyramid' of donors that advance up the scale - whereas this chart clearly shows that this is not the case for the DCI Friends program. For the last several years, the largest number of "donors" are in the category that provides the initial level of "complimentary" tickets to championships.

It would be interesting to see what the actual value of these "donations" are, once the value of the associated benefits (e.g., tickets, Fan Network, etc) are removed.

I'm wondering if DCI has a specific strategy to build a philanthropic donor base - or if they're satisfied with simply providing a 'premium ticket club'.

For those that are members of the Friends program - do you consider yourselves "charitable donors" ... or do you consider your Friends membership as simply a way to get better tickets to championships?

Interesting, as a conversation I had today with a knowledgeable source was specifically about this subject.

Back when I joined Friends in the mid-1980's it was, in fact, viewed as a "donor-development" program and I was solicited many times with encouragement to bump up to the next level. The incremental benefits were substantial enough to entice stepping up.

For most of the last 2 decades or so there has been increasing agreement by the directors that DCI should not be soliciting donations, or spending any development time or energy doing so. It is considered competition to the individual corps' solicitation efforts. The DCI office is essentially not allowed to direct any effort to developing the Friends program.

As personal evidence, other than getting a renewal form from one of DCI's nicest people and having a discussion many years ago with Dan A. during a Friends price increase, I have had no contact or solicitation from anyone at DCI. To their credit, I have always gotten great service from the current Friends coordinator. She's a peach.

Interestingly, if the above is in fact the status quo, I wonder why I've never gotten a contact from any individual corps for membership, especially when my, and every other Friends member's, name is listed each year in the program. Heck, why wouldn't one of the corps just get my name from DCI and solicit me directly?

Make no mistake, I do get solicitation contact from corps but only and specifically the exactly 4 corps to whom I've given a direct contribution. If the contention among the directors is that my Friends contribution come unsolicited across DCI's transom, all of my direct corps contributions were unsolicited, too, (because I particularly loved their shows) in exactly the same way DCI gets my annual Friends contribution.

I'm a Platinum member and here are the premiums I get:

Six 3-night ticket packages (typically in the exact seats I've always sat in)

The ability to purchase four more packages

Two show programs

Friends breakfast tickets for 6 on Finals morning (if requested)

A full-access Fan Network membership

I'm guessing the retail value of the above to be about $1650 (a close guess), making the net on a $2500 Platinum membership to be something in the area of $850.

It is my understanding that there have been three instances over the years where the BOD was asked to allow conversion of Friends to an actual philanthropic program with a premium ticketing service attached to it, and all three attempts were turned down by the DCI BOD. There are those directors who understand the proposed benefits to converting the Friends program into what everyone assumes it already is (a philanthropic endeavor) but, so far, the rest of the directors consider that philanthropic effort to be the domain of the corps.

I'll answer your last question, obviously, from a personal perspective. Yes, I feel like a charitable donor because I get a charitable deduction for the net value of my gift. I also get a couple of chochkies and, of course, the FN membership which is fantastic. and, at least, recognition if I ever call in to DCI for a problem or question. And, of course, I get tickets and I enjoy that perk two ways - great seat location and the benefit of seeing all the other Friends around me with whom I've been sitting for 25 years.

Edited August 23, 2014 by garfield