DCI World Championships Finals - Paid Attendance Figures

[Jeff Ream]

5 hours ago, Stu said:

Had to do a double-take on that one. Thought I read you got a 'Frisbee'!

no VK only had beach balls and some cool pants. God remember how in Zubaz were?

[cixelsyd]

12 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

I have no idea. I mean WWE claims 93000 still for an event in 87 that has been pretty much been proven to be 78,000

So because an entertainment medium based on fiction makes fictional attendance claims, therefore DCI must have as well?

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

So because an entertainment medium based on fiction makes fictional attendance claims, therefore DCI must have as well?

WWE isn't alone. Many sports teams have done it too

[Lead]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

So because an entertainment medium based on fiction makes fictional attendance claims, therefore DCI must have as well?

It has nothing to do with whatever you're calling fictional entertainment (FYI, nearly all forms of entertainment are fictional entertainment, save for music and sports).

It has to do with proper reporting and oversight to things like your state's Board of Accounts. Recordkeeping has greatly improved in just the last few years. Whereas to find accurate records you used to have to sift through boxes of paper files, stubs, and whatever, now you open a spreadsheet and CTRL-F to locate something.

It's not rocket science to think that the accuracy of these things for whatever event is highly suspect the farther we go back in years.

[Tim K]

When it comes to our memories of numbers, we need to be careful before we say we remember numbers as larger or smaller. Gillette Stadium in Foxboro where finals was held in 2005 is much larger than the old Foxboro Stadium where finals took place in 1994, but I recall the crowd in 2005 being larger but the numbers said the opposite, even if the 1994 numbers include marching members as some have suggested. Most likely the reason Gillette appeared larger is the space between seats. In Foxboro you were jammed in the place. Gillette is roomier. 

We also need to take some caution when looking at the numbers and not judge the health of the activity solely on these numbers. Take the early years in Indy--pretty low and not that convincing that LOS was the best venue, but when you also add in that this was also at a time unemployment was high and we were in a recession, that most likely plays a role in lower numbers. If there's a reason the numbers were so low in Orlando in 96-98, I've forgotten, but even though there are tons of hotels in Orlando, some are booked way in advance. Add to that the crowds and traffic. This likewise could be a factor. Numbers were very healthy in the 70's and 80's, but how many corps did we lose in those years, some of whom were the most iconic and beloved corps the activity has known. People have noted that recent numbers at finals, as well as regionals and TOC shows are healthy, but we also hear of declining numbers at smaller shows. 

Numbers are important, but they do not always tell the entire story.

[cixelsyd]

33 minutes ago, Lead said:

It has nothing to do with whatever you're calling fictional entertainment (FYI, nearly all forms of entertainment are fictional entertainment, save for music and sports).

It has to do with proper reporting and oversight to things like your state's Board of Accounts. Recordkeeping has greatly improved in just the last few years. Whereas to find accurate records you used to have to sift through boxes of paper files, stubs, and whatever, now you open a spreadsheet and CTRL-F to locate something.

It's not rocket science to think that the accuracy of these things for whatever event is highly suspect the farther we go back in years.

Please.  These are public events, attended by tens of thousands of people.  It is not hard to estimate attendance visually to within 10% accuracy.  If someone tries to exaggerate reported attendance by more than 10%, as in the WWE example, there are tens of thousands of witnesses that can call their bluff.

To my knowledge, no such dispute ever took place over the announced attendance figure for the 1981 DCI finals.  Until this thread, the only related debate was over whether the number represented paid or total attendance.  Even now, no one is specifically objecting - only casting general aspersions as if to preclude any acknowledgement of past successes by DCI.

[Lead]

2 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Please.  These are public events, attended by tens of thousands of people.  It is not hard to estimate attendance visually to within 10% accuracy.  If someone tries to exaggerate reported attendance by more than 10%, as in the WWE example, there are tens of thousands of witnesses that can call their bluff.

To my knowledge, no such dispute ever took place over the announced attendance figure for the 1981 DCI finals.  Until this thread, the only related debate was over whether the number represented paid or total attendance.  Even now, no one is specifically objecting - only casting general aspersions as if to preclude any acknowledgement of past successes by DCI.

I'll argue that all day. It's VERY EASY to look at a crowd in a given stadium and have wild variances on estimated attendance. I concur with Tim K - the newer stadiums look bigger but many times hold fewer bodies. It's all in how the sections are distributed, box seats vs. bench seats, etc.

[cixelsyd]

1 minute ago, Lead said:

I'll argue that all day. It's VERY EASY to look at a crowd in a given stadium and have wild variances on estimated attendance. I concur with Tim K - the newer stadiums look bigger but many times hold fewer bodies. It's all in how the sections are distributed, box seats vs. bench seats, etc.

It is always easy to create wild variances.  I will demonstrate.  I think there were 100,000 people at the 2017 DCI finals.  That was easy!

[Stu]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Please.  These are public events, attended by tens of thousands of people.  It is not hard to estimate attendance visually to within 10% accuracy.  If someone tries to exaggerate reported attendance by more than 10%, as in the WWE example, there are tens of thousands of witnesses that can call their bluff.

I attended the recent Thurs theater broadcast before driving to Indy for the Sat Finals.  I sat mid-way up the angled seating portion alongside six other people. In between SCV and BD I asked them to look around and tell me how many fans were sitting in the theater.  We all scanned the theater, there was ample enough light coming from the screen to view the seats and the consensus was around one-hundred ninety-eight.  After the broadcast I went to the manager and asked how many tickets were sold; he said one-hundred forty-six.  That is about a 30% variance of our consensuses in a rather small environment.  So, here are the options: a) we seven people collectively grossly miscounted, or b) there were more people in the theater than paid receipts because of various factors including 'just the tearing of tickets'.  But here is the thing: both options can possibly explain the mid-nineties and earlier DCI butts in the seats numbers at Finals.  People today tend to forget how really easy it was back then to slip around things prior to the modern electronic scanning of tickets, and back then there were comps and other wrist-band entries to the stadiums.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Stu

[cixelsyd]

How many jellybeans in the jar?  I said 388.  You said 450.  Therefore, all drum corps attendance numbers are completely baseless.  (Except the ones from 1997 on are absolutely exact, because my hearsay is reliable and yours is not.)

Does that accurately summarize this thread now?