Richard

Only because the judges article was blown out of proportion. I'm still not sure what more you want from DCI here...

ORLY?

They released an article on September 11 acknowledging the sound concerns, about a month after championships. What would you have considered acceptable? August? This is your example of DCI "bombing" and not owning up to it? Except the article with quotes from the judges explicitly discussed and acknowledged the challenging listening environment and the room for improvement. Nowhere in that article did it say that every seat in the house provided a great listening experience.

Out of curiosity, do you feel there is anything they should be owning up to now? If so, who should be taking responsibility and admitting a mistake?

+1

But what would it take to have them still be around? And how would that impact current/new fans and corps membership? No amps or electronics? G Bugles? Symmetrical drill? Grounded pit, etc? Each one of those changes surely drove away some segment of the fan base. But where are you going to find the membership to march a timpani? To high-step and perform low-velocity drill? To learn a brass instrument in a different key? To play mallets outdoors without amplification, when they've been playing with amps their entire high school career? Playing the "What if..." game is a dangerous one and you can't just say "well DCI should have just kept all their old fans while adding new ones." I don't think it's that simple. You can't please everyone, as Bob has stated, and trying to do so could be disasterous. Considering the positive news Bob has provided in this thread and the recent direction of the activity, how plausible (or productive) is it to say "DCI shoudla this and DCI shoulda that and we'd be SO much better off now"?

well this is where things really get messy when complaining about DCI. It's one thing to not like the product on the field or the instrumentation, but the prevailing wisdom around here seems to be that "I don't like it, my 8 friends don't like it, and 30 people I talked to don't like it so DCI is killing itself with stupid decisions". It's not enough to say "I don't like it because I don't like it", most feel the need to justify it by saying "I don't like it because....it's killing the activity! DCI is run by buffoons!" and then use every decision made by DCI as a potential point of contention to prove their point that DCI is doing it wrong. Some recent examples of this include: - Complaining about the decision to open the roof - Complaining about San Antonio being OUTSIDE of a dome Those are two things that many, MANY here on DCP have clamored for: drum corps outside. Then it happens and more complaints arise. It’s easy to find things to complain about and second-guess when you’re so actively looking for them. I listen to a ton of sports talk radio and the things people complain about are absurd, such as Paul Pierce and Terry Francona, proven champions, but those that don’t like them for whatever reason will second guess them and deride their decisions and actions at every opportunity. I see a lot of the same thing happening here. Whereas those that are satisfied with the product on the field and think the recent changes to instrumentation aren't a HUGE deal, think DCI is doing alright. Not great, but alright. How many people would put all these decisions made by DCI under a microscope if they liked more of the shows? Would you care nearly as much? Would you second-guess and complain as much? Perhaps some would, but not the majority. Really what I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of people who disagree with decisions made by DCI because they simply don't agree with them. If those people didn't have such a problem with the current product, I would be willing to bet they'd be considerably less critical of DCI. There are two predominant entities to DCI. One is member corps, who vote on rules and things like that. The other is the DCI organization, who's purpose is to provide competition opportunities at major shows to those member corps, promote the activity and maintain a judging staff. The second piece is it's own business, although it is interwoven with the first. However, the second piece doesn't determine show design, adjudication criteria or instrumentation (the things with which most of the malcontents have gripes). So it's an important distinction, because there are drum corps who do not use electronic instruments and design more "fan-friendly" shows, but they often get lumped in with "DCI" in such statements as "DCI is marching band", "DCI killed drum corps", so on and so forth. The first group can run their organizations in any way they see fit. If an individual is so opposed to what The Cadets or Blue Devils are doing on the field that they want to disassociate themselves with the activity, then that’s fine. But if that person cares about the activity, they will find other ways to support it, and support those groups that share their vision for what drum corps should be. The only other real recourse is to start your own corps, build it up and then you can run it the way you want. G bugles, acoustic pit, hell symmetrical drill and grounded pit too if you want. Will you be competitive? Probably not. Will you be a fan favorite? If you think that’s what fans want to see then they’ll surely support you, right? If you think that’s what kids want to perform then they’ll surely audition, right? If your fan support is so great, you’ve bought some of the used G bugles floating around out there and you haven’t spent money on amps or electronics, then you’ll be able to reduce tuition and encourage more kids to march there, right? Unfortunately, that’s beyond the realm of possibilities for most. So what’s left? Complain on the internet. Insinuate that you know what corps directors and the DCI organization should be doing better than they do. Profess that the activity is rapidly losing it’s fan base and is “dying”. There is a better way to “fix” drum corps if you truly consider it “broken” and headed down the wrong path. tl;dr version: the complaints about DCI leadership are unwarranted and largely driven by a general disagreement with decisions made and the product presented, more so than by legitimately poor decisions that are actually harming the activity. What a diatribe, eh? The thread that I linked to before has much much more information about what the numbers mean, look for the posts between myself and audiodb

Total show expenses were only $100k higher in 2008 than compared to 2004, whereas total revenue increased by $1.4m, regardless of the number of shows. More like the intelligence of the good ideas outweighs whatever ill-effects of amps exist by 91%. Regardless, amps aren't killing the activity. I don't think they're helping it either. They're just kind of there. I think it's worth noting that a lot of the good things mentioned (Fan Network, theater broacasts) were done by the DCI entity, and the "stupid" decisions were made by the member corps. Maybe the member corps should be feeling these ill-effects on their bottom line?

I thought the 24% was for one show specifically, and the attendance per show went down by some other percentage? I could be wrong. But you only believe that amps were stupid. And my contention is that how stupid could they have been given the state of the activity and the financial success it’s achieved over the years since that rule passed? Yes, DCI is doing a lot of other business savvy moves to enhance their financial position, but how significant can this loss of attendance be if they’re not feeling it in their books? Depends on how substantial this loss has been over the past few years and if it will continue at that rate or an increased rate going forward. If it’s ~24% as you say it is, then where the hell is all this revenue coming from? (see numbers below) Ask DCI? I’m not sure. Like I said, I don’t necessarily agree with it or think it’s a stellar move for them. But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt (especially considering it’s only an idea at this point!) You’re telling me ticket prices made the 400k increase from 04 to 05? The 100k increase from 05 to 06? The 400k increase from 06 to 07? The 600k increase from 07 to 08? They’ve also kept show expenses relatively steady despite adding more shows during that time period. From 04 to 08 DCI saw a 91% increase in show revenue. Assuming attendance dropped even 20% during that time period, they’d need to raise ticket prices (or otherwise increase merchandise/sponsorship income) by over 230%. I think my math is right. Is that what you’re saying? And if you think it’s closer to 20% per year over a 5 year period, then we’re talking about a total decrease of something like 67%. I think it’s safe to say the attendance fluctuations during that period are non-linear. Again, I see no cause for concern about DCI’s decisions in these numbers. You can claim that it’s plausible that DCI is losing a significant percentage of total fans while somehow offsetting that loss and making more revenue on top of that, but you have to connect quite a few (unrealistic, IMO) dots to make that happen.

Yeah, but those are just changes with which you personally (and others) disagree. You may think the product on the field is going to hell in a handbasket, which is fine, but many try to justify that opinion by claiming that those same changes will be the death of the activity (financially), which hasn't been the case at all. 2000-2003 the biggest change was any key brass, 2004-2008 the biggest change was amplification of the pit/voice. Revenue numbers during those time periods are strong, how much longer should they evaluate the financial impact on the activity?

...according to empirical and anecdotal evidence. And if there has been such a big drop-off (and I admit there has likely been SOME decrease in attendance over the past 5 years) without it affecting the bottom line in a significantly negative way, how does that make amps a stupid decision? It doesn’t make them a good decision per se, but certainly not the “stupid” decision that so many have decided them to be. To me, amps have been a negligible decision. If DCI did something that drove attendance through the roof while revenues shrunk, that is something I would consider a "stupid" decision. If anyone believes that raw attendance numbers are more important to the health of the activity than revenue numbers based on that attendance, you are certainly free to do so. But again, I just don't understand that way of thinking. (Obviously, attendance is important, don’t think that I’m saying it’s not). To move slightly back towards the topic, DCI looks to be alive and well and moving in the right direction to me, so I trust leadership to make appropriate decisions for the well-being of the activity (as they have demonstrated in the past). Do I think this judging change is a stellar idea? Not necessarily. But the doom and gloom is SO unwarranted (especially considering it was something that was only discussed!!!), as it almost always is. Call me a cheerleader or whatever, but I just don't see this falling sky that so many love to talk about, and I think some of these reactions are more than a little ridiculous and often completely unwarranted. I think I’ve asked this before but it’s worth asking again: to those distrusting of DCI leadership, what have they done in the past 10 years to make you so distrusting??

If that was the case (17th corps performs outdoors and 18th performs indoors), then the corps and performing order would have to go something like this: Perform : Placement 15 : 17 16 : 15 17 : 16 18 : 18 So, performing in the same environment, you’re saying that the 18th seeded corps would have otherwise outperformed and outplaced the 15th seeded corps, but because one was outside and one wasn’t, the 18th seeded corps got screwed. In “normal” situations, I think it’s pretty improbable that the 15th seeded corps gets jumped by 3+ corps, especially because they’re already performing after intermission. Improbable, not impossible, so I could see how DCI can justify this decision. Honestly I think the degree of impact could be greater in either situation, because of the number of captions affected by scorching hot performance venue compared to those affected by a subpar listening environment. Helllllllll no. I have no judging experience or expertise. Fair enough. 1. That’s a great idea that they’ll hopefully pursue. Maybe there are stadium rental fee issues? But if they’re doing the alleged sound tests and whatnot then they’ll probably have access to it anyway. 2. Perhaps they want the same day comparison. The judging panel between quarters/semis/finals usually sees relatively little overlap, and the judges that are used more than once will switch captions from show to show. Again, still not a bad idea. Exactly. I find it very hard to believe this is as big of a deal as some people want to make it out to be, just like many of the decisions DCI makes.

In DCI's Form 990s, I analyzed them here.

Sorry, what I should have said was that revenue numbers based largely on attendance at DCI-run events has steadily increased since the passage of the amplification rule in 2005, which, IMO, shows no signficant negative impact on the health of the activity. I know others believe that a steady increase in revenue from attendance/non-recording merchandise/sponsorships tells absolutely nothing about the health of the activity, which is an opinion to which they're entitled, I just don't understand it.

I think all he was saying is that it's a poor example because it's representative of a situation that does not exist in the current World/Open Class structure, so it’s relatively irrelevant. From 2000-2009, the average point spread between the 15th place corps and the 18th place corps at Quarterfinals/Prelims was 3.78 points. The closest was in 2005, where Cap Reg (15th) was only 1.375 points above Mandarins (who coincidentally tied for 17th and made semis anyway). So I guess it's a matter of there being more than a point's worth of advantage for the groups performing with the roof open/closed, and that's a judgment call. I have no idea how much the roof situation will impact the corps score on the field, but I'd like to think it would be less than a point, if anything. Also, think about it this way. If corps 14-19 are all bunched up heading into quarters, say within 2 points of each other. Presuming there is a significant impact on scoring for corps 14 and 15 which results in an undeserved advantage for those corps, than for it to have an impact on who makes semifinals corps 16-19 would all have to be decidedly better in a vacuum. Additionally, those corps (14-15) already had an advantage in say Bloomington, where they performed after the first intermission (I believe) providing them with more comfortable performance conditions. Lastly, the presumption that the roof will have an impact on scores discredits the judges’ ability to consider the difference in performance venue. It's as if you expect the music ensemble guy to say "well Colts you sound significantly less boomy and echo-y than Academy so I'm giving you a big spread over them because they obviously didn't perform as well." If anything, Academy in this example will have a better idea of how to adjust their balance for semis with a closed roof than Colts will. Also, the roof should have little bearing on GE Visual, Visual Performance, Colorguard, Visual Ensemble, Brass Performance and Percussion Performance. Do you think GE Music and Music Ensemble will have greater than a point’s worth of impact in the overall score? Enough to move a corps from 15th to 18th or vice versa? Conversely, a scorching hot performance field affects the members’ ability to perform across all captions. I think there are WAY too many mitigating factors here for this to have any significant impact on who makes Semifinals and who doesn’t. Impossible? No. Improbable? Yes.

Please explain to me where and when I have made irrational and inaccurate comments.

How so? If they're both making semis then flip flopping after quarters won't make much of a difference...

I don't follow. If 15 and 16 swap then they'll both be performing in the same conditions at semifinals anyway, right?

The impact on the activity remains to be seen as to whether those decisions (LOS and electronics) were truly "stupid". Amplification, for example, was also derided as "stupid" and bad for the activity but the activity has experienced no significant negative impact from that decision.

This implies that you believe the DCP community knows better how to run DCI than those that currently run it, which is a load of crap. I don't know enough about it to make a judgment, but I trust DCI leadership to do what's best for the activity.

You speak as if the article was written in stark contrast to the sentiments that there are acoustic issues to deal with in LOS. The article specifically acknowledges those issues! Nowhere does it say that it is the optimal listening environment and requires no improvement. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're claiming the following statements are contradictory: 1. There are acoustic issues that are being addressed (allegedly) at Lucas Oil Stadium 2. The acoustics of LOS (while not optimal) did not impact the judges' ability to adjudicate in 2009 I just don't see the contradiction.

If your post is indeed serious, show me a stupid change, with examples of how it has negatively impacted the activity and I'll show you 3 changes that are generally classified as "stupid" but have had no bearing on the health of the activity. Why does it seem like you think the decision makers at DCI are incompetent and continually make poor decisions? Do you have anything to demonstrate this other than the fact that you disagree with them?

So there's your answer to your question about conspiracy. Why would DCI publish anything? I suppose this article is only published so more people volunteer. Why else would they release it? Your logic is questionable at best, and perhaps they released it to address concerns of "how can they accurately adjudicate corps in that echo chamber?" That seems significantly more plausible to me than DCI trying to say "LOS sounds good. If you don't agree you're wrong" which appears to be your interpretation.

As usual, hyperbole is running rampant on DCP. Here are the quotes from this article: So draw from that what you will, but I don’t think anywhere in there are they telling you to not believe your own ears and that everything was “just fine”. All it says is that these adjudicators believed that, from where they were sitting, the listening environment did not hamper their ability to evaluate the corps on the field. But yet the prevailing opinion around here seems to be that “DCI published an article in which the judges say that there are no acoustic problems with Lucas Oil Stadium”. I’d encourage you to look at the results from the last 10 years and find out how often a drop from 15th to 18th has occurred, or how often a jump from 18th or lower to 15th or higher has occurred. I’d be willing to bet not often. So yes, it is hard to see how that could become an issue.

Because DCI doesn't want the public to know about this thread. It's a conspiracy obviously.