cixelsyd

No, that is not how any of this works. No competitive sport on Earth awards money to teams based on whether they "invested in their infrastructure". DCI corps do not "recruit and train" staff - they hire seasonal staff whose training and qualifications are developed primarily in other places. As for who built/founded DCI, only one-third of the corps currently enjoying the benefits of DCI were there in 1972. There is a bigger issue. What you refer to in your earlier post as "the benefit that DCI was originally designed to provide" was to make touring sustainable, even for relatively new corps like the SCV or Troopers of 1970-1971, by replacing the prize money status-quo with guaranteed appearance fees for all tour participants. We never really achieved that. Instead, we made it sustainable for a small subset of corps by building tours on the backs of a larger set of participating corps - "haves" and "have-nots". Worse yet, as the decades passed, the increasingly exclusive nature of DCI membership and the silly revenue-sharing formula of rewarding corps for competitive results of 40-50 years ago has essentially brought us right back to where we started - too little prize money lavished on too few corps, and no way for relatively new corps to make touring sustainable. Actually, they are not welcome to do that. DCI does not want any other drum corps leagues. And we have seen how cut-throat they can be when there is another drum corps league they want to bump off. Remember Drum Corps Midwest?

Already, the same poster calling revenue sharing a "relatively small portion" is now comparing it to something as essential as a "salary" the instant I suggest merely equalizing it across all corps. Thanks - that was too easy.

It is more effective to watch people campaign against equal compensation.

Look at the ends of your post. See it yet? I was going to say something clever about how part of the drum corps experience is learning how to motivate in all kinds of circumstances. But your last phrase shows you know this already.

Yes. And if you want to gauge the importance, suggest changing to equal compensation for all corps (WC and OC) and see what the reaction is.

1. Notice that I never said "no impact"... just not as big an impact as some are making it out to be. One reason is... 2. At the Western shows, there are usually as many open-class corps as world-class corps. SCV will go on after intermission at those shows. 3. If it is THAT BIG A DEAL, then DCI seriously needs to go to a random draw for performance order at shows all through tour. Appearing at 8:30 in the evening should not cause lack of motivation/confidence/excitement, nor should only half the 9:30 crowd be there. Better shuffling of performance order would address all of those issues. (It would also equalize the rehearsal time issue.)

Again, the "going on first" thing is not as big a deal as some are making it out to be. While they are not a member corps, they are still a world-class corps. Therefore, at western shows they will appear one hour earlier than they otherwise would have. In a few shows approaching San Antonio, there will usually only be one or two open-class/SoundSport groups preceding them. At San Antonio, they will go on first in world-class. That could be five hours earlier than where they belong. But for the entire other half of the season, their performance slot will be determined by their recent competitive placings. Back to business as usual in that regard.

1. There is nothing in Boston 2017-on that even resembles the preceding uniform style Crown maintained in 13-14-15. Shows are all different too. 2. The more ex-staff you have, the more likely another corps will hire them. 3. The premise that Crown is the sole source of the spring-train-at-a-college idea is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have heard since the last time woodwinds were proposed for DCI. 4. Well, it is a little funny, but not in the direction you intended. And it is mostly sad, the extent to which BAC lives rent-free in the heads of a few Crown supporters. For all of time, staff have chosen which corps they work with by their own free will. That includes staff moving from one corps to another, and staff working with more than one corps simultaneously. The ONLY case I know of where this irrational objection to staff freedom was lodged was regarding the Boston hires post-2016 season. And to be specific, not about ex-Cadets staff... only ex-Crown staff. You would think with the new Crown percussion team (formerly consultants with Boston), we would all have moved on from this nonsense by now.

... which is just a way of dismissing the idea of cutting costs. If you refer back to earlier posts, it is far more than just "line item B". There are a number of non-essential changes that have inflated the cost of drum corps over time, such as two-month tours, truckloads of pit percussion, the complete catalog of band brass instrumentation, unlimited electronics, props, etc. Without those costs, drum corps was far more inclusive, not just by cost-per-member, but at the level of having diverse corps in diverse communities, and many many more of them. Nor are they as small as they appear on the line item budget. As we keep pointing out, it is not just the purchase price of the equipment, but also the costs of transporting, maintaining, insuring, and accommodating it at venues not designed for props, tarps, gigantic percussion pit arrays, or the vehicles carting them on/off the field. If we refuse to address the costs we CAN control, we are really just dismissing the whole idea of controlling costs. That is why I included many more non-essential items in my list, which you did not address. The big one is what I called out as the "two-month tour" in oversimplified terms. In greater detail, WC corps spend 10-11 weeks in spring training and tour, both of which require all the expenses of operation except for the possibility of reduced fuel and vehicle needs during spring training. Options are limited by membership requirements to tour from San Antonio on, competitive incentives to enter earlier contests to get judging input, and a plethora of other factors. Yes, there is still one way that a corps can opt to do a shorter season and still compete against all comers on Thursday of DCI week (and Friday/Saturday if you qualify). But it is called "open-class", it is excluded from membership and governance, and it operates under purposefully harsher financial conditions imposed by DCI operations (i.e. many shows with no appearance fees). We have seen a bit of de-segregation between OC and WC in show lineups in the past couple of seasons. It is an incremental, but positive change. If I could speak to the next DCI CEO, I would ask for more of that, please. I am convinced the next DCI CEO will not have this on their agenda, unless a sweeping change of mission, bylaws and BOD composition brings a permanent end to the DCI dynamic of top corps setting the agenda for everyone else. World-class is still full speed ahead. Genesis cut their 2022 tour back as far as DCI protocol would allow. Jersey Surf cut their 2023 back farther than that, but appear to have made a deal to retain WC status in the process. SCV cut their whole 2023 season. And DCI sails on.

Here we go again. I am sorry, but being stuck with an expensive line item A is not a valid excuse to splurge on unnecessary line item B. This is hilarious. I just got through pointing out that it is unlikely that the next DCI CEO will have the opportunity to introduce a cost-cutting agenda. That actually makes it off-topic for this thread... and still, people have to jump in here and argue over props, of all things. I know. That is why I only addressed "cosmetic changes", not necessary things like member safety, food and insurance.

First and foremost, thank you for your tangible support of this activity. Scholarships/sponsorships are important acts of human good. The drum corps experience can totally change the trajectory of a life, so each sponsorship is like a lifeline. That said, there was a time when these lifelines were not necessary. Unheard of, in fact. Economically challenged communities had WHOLE CORPS of their own (sometimes plural). And dues were so low that everyone could afford to join. I wish the marchers of today could experience that kind of inclusiveness, instead of having to hear about it from their grandparents.

Sorry to cut you off in mid-sentence... but seriously, is it even a valid counterpoint to my cost concern? If line items A-D are bigger, then never mind how much line items E-Z cost, or whether they are even necessary? (That is just a rhetorical question, I guess.) I suppose it would seem that way, if this is the first time you are seeing it. But I have seen it dozens of times on this forum. And even though I know how hard they will argue, and how vacuous their rationale will be, I am still amazed with each iteration. Look, here it is: Oh, so it must be okay to spend $50,000 annually on props because we spend more on food. We NEED food. Although, this idea that prop costs are "controllable" is a fresh myth... especially while admitting that fuel costs are not controllable. Much of the cost of props is in transporting them.

My point was that with certain cost-added cosmetic changes, the activity has chosen luxury over inclusivity... and the proof of that is seen in the nature of the response (resistance) whenever the idea of trading luxury for inclusivity is brought up. I was going to let this pass - even as the topic of diversity came up here, no one seems the least bit perturbed about inclusion at the corps membership level. We all seem concerned that the top jobs, like this DCI CEO position, go more often to underrepresented groups. Meanwhile, the activity that used to be largely about offering incredible life-changing experiences to underprivileged youth no longer even penetrates the communities where it did all that in past decades.

Right on cue. See how the mere suggestion of cost consciousness brings instant resistance? Regarding props - even if they are magically provided free of charge, just the cost of transporting them is a significant burden for the corps. And no one talks about the added burden to the DCI office and others who have to address issues like participant safety, turf damage and stadium gate access for these absurdly large objects. My earlier post referred to the cost of "cosmetic changes". Fuel and food are not cosmetic - we actually need those things. Props are merely a recently added luxury. Some group of activity mover-shakers had the opportunity to choose between a more inclusive, cost-conscious activity and one with props, tarps, and unlimited electronics... and they chose the latter.

Ultimately, the DCI ED does what his bosses think his job should be. So far, his bosses have been member corps directors - in other words, the richest corps. Thus, the direction the DCI ED receives has always been overwhelmingly slanted toward adding expense to the activity, and simply executing strategies to make these additions a rich-get-richer situation for DCI and their top corps by negotiating special deals (they call these "corporate partnerships" or "tour partnerships"). For a DCI ED to focus on controlling activity costs, we need different bosses. And for that, not only would the composition of the governing BOD have to change to include smaller and less affluent corps... the mission and bylaws backing it up would have to change to maintain that focus.

Wait - the cost of housing is not affected by the length of the tour? Not affected by non-local membership? A corps needs 11 weeks of housing instead of 3 weeks because of those changes.

You were not alone. Many corps of that era had membership that was a representative sample of their local population. (This is back when many corps had local membership.) It could have been avoided by simply saying "no" to the cosmetic changes that have added to the cost since back in your day. It is absolutely baffling to watch people rally in defense of two-month tours, truckloads of pit percussion, the complete catalog of band brass instrumentation, unlimited electronics, props, etc., AND rally in defense of diversity, but only at the bumper-sticker level. Next time you all are wondering why olde tymers complain about all these "irreversible" changes... this is one good reason.

That seems to explain part of the challenge in getting diverse applicants. Rather than a glass ceiling, we have a glass panel at the entryway. You and Jeff Ream are just describing it from opposite sides of the glass.

I thought that is what leadership is.

That is a fair and reasoned stance. I think you can see this applied in DCI, by the manner in which the BOD function has been moved away from the member corps directors to an executive BOD where several corps directors serve alongside people in other positions in the activity, and several people from outside the activity. This part raises a bit of a concern, though. What portions of our activity constituencies are you referring to that "are not represented"? The one that comes to my mind first (open class) is probably tangential to the context of this discussion.

This is one of those good news - bad news situations. Bad news first... bear with me. For better or for worse, the member corps directors have governing authority over DCI. They want a CEO they can control. They need a CEO they think they can control, but who is actually adept at herding these cats without them even realizing they are being herded. Given that, it is extremely unlikely that DCI would ever make an outsider their sincere long-term hire for the CEO position. A look at the track records of DCI CEOs supports this. (Yes, I am saying that Sam Mitchell was never intended to be a long-serving/successful DCI CEO.) Diversity is not advanced by hiring people and refusing to allow them to succeed. Therefore, the true diversity prospects for this position will be limited to the existing pipeline of potential applicants already involved in the activity in some role. But there is good news. There are women in leadership positions in DCI and their corps. Roni Plousis is in the DCI executive boardroom. Sue Kuehnhold is the next most experienced and capable person in the DCI office after Dan Acheson. Just among the top 12 corps, we have two Vickis in leadership positions. SCV could raise that to three finalist corps with female leadership upon a 2024 return. Katherine Steinacker directs Battalion in open-class, and also serves as chair of the open-class advisory committee (essentially the OC BOD). And Genevieve Geisler was described in a previous, detailed post in this thread. There are likely many others in organizations serving marching band, winter guard/percussion, or related organizations. Of course, we would both like this list to be even longer and more profound... but I think we are a bit better off than "seemingly nonexistent".

Actually, it can open up again in just a year from latest hire... as happened in 1995.

So SCV will be a voting member... or not. They will get appearance money on tour... or not. Revenue sharing stays as is... or is lost for at least a year. They can fundraise... or they have to wait until cleared by the state. This is great news! Or a total disaster.

Good point. Most women are smart enough to turn down this job.

While that is true, I think either experience in, or a demonstrable understanding of the drum corps activity ought to be one of the prerequisites for the next DCI CEO. Also worth noting, the job is partly leadership (running the DCI office), and partly diplomacy (dealing with 20 bosses, the member corps directors). Not many possess strong aptitude (and perseverance) for both.