cixelsyd

So you are saying that DCI did what others suggest here, and hired a professional PR firm in pursuit of better marketing ideas than could be obtained internally. And this was already done years ago. Those who thought DCI gave no mind to refining their marketing message will be relieved to hear this. Thank you for providing that insight.

Since you are only interested in now and the immediate future, would you like to answer my questions regarding which path forward you recommend? Choices were: - rethink the concept of "haves" and "have-nots" - stick with "haves" and "have-nots", and focus on growing more "have-nots" before we run out - stick with "haves" and "have-nots", but replenish the "have-not" population by revoking member status of selected "haves"

Agreed. For a moment there, though, it sounded as if you were saying that non-finalists were not expected to tour. I would say that not only were they expected to - DCI relied on it. Having non-member corps involved in the DCI tour (at reduced appearance fee levels vs. member corps) is one of the strategies DCI has used over the years to maximize return to the member corps. This is one of the aspects of DCI operations I have in mind when I speak of "haves" and "have-nots". Now, those non-member corps are almost gone - and so is the additional audience and revenue of the 400+ corps activity vs. the 40+ corps activity. Should we be surprised by that? No. Look at the behavior of activity leaders. Some saw this coming; some even prepared business plans to do something about it. Others are in denial, and seek to assign the blame for this smaller audience and revenue by pointing their fingers anywhere away from themselves. Which of those "leaders" should we trust? And what should our path forward be? Is it finally time to rethink that model, or must we continue with "haves" and "have-nots"? And if so, should we grow new "have-nots", or turn some of our current "haves" into "have-nots" instead? These are the essential questions this debate boils down to.

The Knights toured to California in 1981, did 34 shows in 1982, and 36 shows in 1983. Evidently, they spent a fair amount of time (and money) on the road. Again, using your example of the Knights, who attended DCI Championships annually from 1976 through 1995 at locations all over the continent, there is obviously some degree of "national tour" involved in what they did.

How would any other corps be expected to compete with the finalists (or even show up at championships) if they did not engage in the national tour? Touring was not required of finalists in the first couple of decades of DCI. Whatever expectation there might have been was dismissed in 1972 when the Cavaliers and Argonne Rebels balked at supporting the Western tour. Subsequent finalists like Muchachos and Garfield Cadets refrained from bonafide touring even when defending their top 12 rankings.

From what I have seen, DCI is already doing as you suggest. If I am incorrect about that, what should they do differently?

You really hit the nail on the head there.

Now I am confused. Is Onyx "marching band"? How about Music City Mystique? I think "marching arts" is a better attempt at an all-encompassing term for drum corps, marching band, color guard, winter percussion, Drumline Battle, SoundSport, and related activities. How about you get my opinion first before you resort to the name calling? As far as I can tell, drum corps and marching band are two different activities. Drum corps are historically brass and percussion centric. Looking beyond our shores, the activities in Europe and Asia that call themselves "drum corps" are also brass and percussion centric. You will see a few band converts in Europe that are permitted to keep marching flutes or saxes in Drum Corps Europe competition, but the activity and its judging remains brass/percussion centric. Marching band, meanwhile, is a historically open ended proposition. Like the name suggests, the activity is intended to bring the instrumentation of the band out to a marching situation. Instrument selection, therefore, follows the custom established by pre-existing groups. In America, where school music programs emphasize woodwind, brass and percussion instruments, that means that woodwinds must not be left out. Some other parts of the world have approached "marching band" with a cleaner slate, and have a different take on things. For example, many Japanese "marching bands", including their dominant competitors, do not use woodwinds. Those groups have the same instrumentation that DCI had 10 years ago (they do not use A&E either). Makes you wonder what people would select for the ideal field ensemble instrumentation if we really did start with a blank canvas. But that is my point - these activities did not start from a blank canvas, and that is why they are different. Perhaps someday in the future, a philosophical shift will take place. Maybe drum corps people on all continents will abandon their brass/percussion centric nature, not just allowing woodwinds but mandating their use for full judging credit. Maybe marching bands will find the better competitive impact lies with brass and percussion, and will leave the woodwinds behind until concert season. Or, just possibly, these two different philosophies will continue to coexist. Looking at the reasons for their separate development, that explains to me why neither one has gone away just yet, so I do not see that changing in the immediate future. Okay, now tell me why I am an elitist snob for thinking drum corps and marching band are different.

Makes no difference, as you admit both the product and the experience are different. But since most first time viewers are not posting here, my statement about who says "band = corps" here remains true. The inability of first time spectators to recognize these distinctions is not unique to the marching arts. I still do not know which NASCAR division threw car parts into the stands Saturday at Daytona, and which had Danica Patrick as lead qualifier on the same track the next day. But I am not a NASCAR fan. Those who are know the difference. It is the DCI voting representatives who are, in your words, "hanging on" to that differentiation. I have no say in the matter.

I have been on this forum for some time. Yes, it is mostly you.

It is mostly you saying that. And if it becomes true one day, then the differentiation will go away. In the meantime, it appears that the member corps prefer to make that distinction - otherwise, DCI would have changed its name and marketing terminology long ago.

If I recall correctly, the rules specifically prohibit use of woodwind samples, and that is why we do not hear those sounds coming from synths at DCI events.

How does that help? If you showed your same "50 random people" a top BOA band and a top show band, would they choose any differently?

I agree with you that all the corps (OC and WC) would be better off under one umbrella now. But if there are groups who want to do something other than drum corps, DCI is probably not the place for them to do that.

If you waste a word of your marketing message on the "we are not dorky" argument, you have already shot yourself in the proverbial foot. Both feet, in fact. If drum corps sells best by being different from marching band, then let it be different. Just do it. No need to waste marketing money arguing about whether it has been done or not. Our current audience is well aware that drum corps is different from marching band. Always has been.

Consider the context of this thread, where people echo the G7 contention that all of open class and several WC corps should be removed from DCI because they would allegedly be better served by some other circuit. Never mind that this other circuit does not currently exist. Apparently, those corps are expected to create their own. So even if there were DCI corps that wanted woodwinds, and even if there were no circuits to serve them (which has not yet been established), why is that a problem? They can create their own circuit.

"Lower tier" corps do keep some of their kids. Some kids, however, want to place higher in the competitive hierarchy. When they see how little movement there is in the competitive placement order from year to year, they conclude that the only way to move substantially upward is to switch corps. The factors I listed explain why this practice has become more commonplace over the years.

It does not completely fall apart. Depending on school schedules and the summer rehearsal plans of individual bands, there can be conflicts between the DCI season and the often mandatory "band camp" of a competitive HS band program.

Okay - this much has been established. Then take that up with danielray and Slingerland. They are the ones contending that the top corps are not "teaching corps", and that education is not part of their missions. I am not yet convinced. At the same time, though - I think training is part of it too. Remember, there are a good number of kids going into WC corps with no prior drum corps experience; others coming from open class corps that did not have that "long season" to which you refer; but hardly any kids get into WC without prior training from a competitive marching program like HS band. That is due to a confluence of several changes that have taken place over time. a. The increasing time commitment and expense of the activity has led it to serve a whole different group of marchers. Where it once served to keep local kids off the streets, it now serves as an advanced program for worldwide music education majors (this is generalizing, of course). b. Travel is easier, especially for the changed demographic noted above. c. Alignment with the HS marching band activity has also changed the demographics of drum corps. Where members formerly ranged from 13 to 21 on an even distribution, drum corps now has more college aged marchers but less HS kids. d. The placement order of corps used to change. Now it stays so constant that a marcher can pretty much select their competitive outcome for next season by choosing which corps to move to. Combine all these factors at once, and it is no mystery why kids move from corps to corps. They are marching for different reasons, they invest a lot more time and money, and they have greater ability to comparison shop.

Well, which 7 corps are complaining that the current vision (which they were instrumental in creating) is unsustainable?

But we really are discussing money, not attention. And just how much money does the "work" of any particular corps bring into the organization? Pick any corps. Still cannot say? (And how much of the "work" did DCI do?) I am more and more amazed at the length to which your linguistic gymnastics will go in trying to cast DCI as the villain, shirking their sole duty to give money to top corps, and the top corps as underpaid workers who have somehow been wronged by the very circuit they created. I notice you once again saying that DCI should be "support"ing these corps, while we know that drum corps have always been self-supporting and always will be. Show revenue and recording revenue have never been enough to cover the whole budget of a corps. As for DCI payouts being "commensurate with the amount of money their work brings", how can you complain when open class gets $0? Well, since their business is drum corps, "growing the business" means more drum corps. Hard to imagine us going there right now, but you brought it up. Oh, so you want DCI to assist in creating a farm league with local level activity? Cool - tell me more.

What are you referring to? Once open class (or II & III, at that point) were relegated to the separate budget of $0, it is true that they decided to do away with appearance fees and just split any remaining surplus via a sharing formula after the season. Putting II & III on a separate budget of $0, however, was not their idea.

What does that mean? How does DCI "work with" the two different groups of corps? Would DCI be involved in choosing which corps pair up? Or would these be entirely voluntary affiliations, and you just want them shown that way on DCI.org? Nothing to pitch their members on? What on Earth are you talking about? Have you seen any open class corps lately? Maybe you are from Wisconsin, and are thinking that all open class corps are like Racine Scouts, struggling for even the minimum 30 needed to get on the contest field. But most open class corps have been getting bigger over the past decade. Evidently, they have something to pitch to prospective members after all. Maybe you are misinterpreting what you hear. The complaints about migration of members (and this applies to WC as well as OC) are not about the fear that the stepping stone corps will have no members, but rather, that the continual migration of members simply perpetuates the current competitive hierarchy. The real problems that endanger the survival of OC are lack of money and lack of people to run the corps. Every recent corps failure is attributable to those factors.

Then how do you decide who to direct that attention (money) to? Especially considering what you point out below -

I was responding to your alleged recruiting problem. Now it is a money problem again? You mean, DCI WC events? So you imply that open class somehow robs DCI of money that should instead be getting spent on promotion of the top corps (as if DCI is not already promoting the top corps). Tell me, then - how much does DCI spend on open class? Take a guess - you might get the last digit correct, because it is ZERO. Open class operates on a separate budget, which must be balanced. Corps do not get appearance fees. After all expenses are covered, the corps can split whatever profit is left (if any), but that is it. Oh, I see - the old "trickle down" promise. Remember what you said here - it is relevant.