cixelsyd

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.

That has been tried many times with feeder corps, and is still done by three parent corps today (four, if you consider Cadets/Cadets2 to fit that model). But again, you say this is something DCI should try - so again, I ask what should DCI do to make that happen? How would it be appropriate for DCI to initiate this plan? Should they make a 5-year business plan? Just tell autonomous corps to pair up? Draw names from a hat? How would that be an advantage to the WC corps? People tell me it would be a disadvantage to limit a top corps in any way from selecting the best auditionees.

Really? You could have fooled me. Ever since you started posting here, you have tried again and again to divide the DCI participating corps into classes, so that you could suggest brushing other classes aside in favor of dedicating more DCI resources to the top class. Just like the G7 proposal you said was dead (ha!). You have grasped at every conceivable straw to make your claim that some corps are so different from others that they must be segregated. Never mind that there are no clear distinctions on any of those factors (age, size, budget, extent of tour, etc.). Anyway, the only reason I uttered the words "have" and "have-not" was to point out that the only clear distinction we can draw between corps is the one concerning DCI payouts. Member corps get them. Non-members do not. Meanwhile, most people in this thread (even you) keep pointing out the quality curve that compels marchers to move from one ensemble to another as their abilities grow, acknowledging the value in the experiences provided everywhere on that curve. But at the extreme upper right of that curve, DCI world class still hovers around the 21 corps number they set for themselves in 1994. The next segment of the curve, open class, has dropped precipitously over that same time period from 50-100 corps to under 20. Which segment do you think needs the greater attention right now?

We have that already with high school marching band, DCI open class, and DCI world class.

I must have missed that press release. Can you post a link? That depends on how the "parent" intends to treat their affiliated corps, I suppose. But for now, let us assume there is potential for beneficial relationships. I think you have been around long enough to know that many more corps used to have feeder programs. Even among the remaining active DCI participants, it is interesting to see how many have had feeder corps or similar affiliations with other corps programs: Blue Devils Phantom Regiment Cadets Santa Clara Vanguard Cavaliers Boston Crusaders Madison Scouts Blue Stars Crossmen Colts Troopers Cascades Pioneer Spartans Stentors You would probably also be aware of the affiliation Madison Scouts had with Southwind and Capital Sound, and the affiliations of Cadets, Crossmen, Carolina Crown, Boston Crusaders, and even the all-age Sunrisers under the YEA! umbrella. Egos did not prohibit these things from happening. Still not clear what you are really suggesting. a. What type of relationship are you recommending? The days of kids staying with one organization for many years (even a multi-tier one) are pretty much over. And as others remind us, no organization owns a kid from one season to the next. Do you have some deeper synergy or resource sharing in mind, or was this idea only about movement of members between corps? b. How do you suggest making this happen? I doubt you want DCI selecting corps and forcing them to partner up.

So what would you like to do about that? Create a new division with a maximum age of 17 or 18? So what would you like to do about that? Impose a spending cap on all corps to remove that pressure? So what would you like to do about that? Cap staff pay? Likewise, there is no one-size-fits-all stereotype you can apply to separate these corps. Your attempt to equate open class to Little League is woefully inaccurate. Most open class corps tour to the DCI Championship site annually. All but one recruit members up to the prevailing DCI age limit. They all use the same types of equipment, and (by your own admission) all pay instructional staff. None of these elements can be used to make a hard-line distinction between open class and world class corps, like you could between Little League and collegiate baseball. Oh, there are two different types of corps out there all right. Haves and have-nots. Beyond that, after all this discussion, no other clear distinctions have been established.

Clinics come in all shapes and sizes. I have seen "clinics" which were really just opening the gates while the host corps rehearsed in the show venue. I have also seen coordinated campaigns organized by DCI, where group ticket sales and clinics were packaged together and aimed squarely at band directors, drawing busloads of their kids to events. The best examples included a major clinician (Michael Cesario, for example) and a world class corps devoting a couple of hours to breaking down techniques and demonstrating how they are taught and perfected. They would bring the band kids down onto the field, perform the demonstrations, and in some cases have the band kids get involved (i.e. march in the basics block right alongside the WC corps members). The whole presentation was designed to show these kids "this is how it is done, and you can do it too". Like most things, the vision of certain top corps is to commandeer DCI-coordinated efforts and run them as individual corps, every corps for themself. Several years ago, certain corps decided they would rather run their clinics independently, charge admission fees for their educational service, and thus use the program as a fundraising effort for their own corps.

That confuses me. You want Blue Devils, Cadets, and Carolina Crown removed from DCI? From the Blue Devils website, regarding System Blue: "a mixture of products, educational live events and publishing that will help develop a System of Excellence for band directors, teachers, staff, designers, performers, and marching members." Cadets are run by a parent organization called Youth Education in the Arts. No further investigation needed there. As soon as I got to the Carolina Crown home page, it said "Developing lifelong excellence in young people through a superior and challenging performing arts educational experience". I am afraid to look at any more corps websites, for fear you will want to throw them out of DCI too.

They are profitable, to the tune of the $2.5 million per year they give back to the corps.

Okay, then, since $100k is not real money, how about we cut DCI payouts to each G7 corps by $100k in 2013? Then we will see who thinks $100k is real money. To make your comparison more accurate, say I did make $100,000, and at the end of the year, after all my bills are paid, I have $25,000 left. I am supposed to pay any money I have left over out to my 7 ex-wives, but then a financial advisor suggests I should have a $5,000 reserve fund. The ex-wives are particularly belligerent this year, though, threatening to get me fired if I skimp on my payments to them, so I pay out $24,000 and only put $1,000 in reserve.

In the free market, corps could not make touring viable, so they created DCI to subsidize their own private "market" for member corps, within which annual touring could be done.

Now, that is just silly talk. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you make comments like that? I am sure you understand that unless every line item was in the tens of millions, that your "rounding error" comment does not apply. I cannot believe I have to explain this to you. But if the only purpose of DCI is to return cash to corps, holding cash in reserve is in direct opposition to that purpose (especially when 7 corps are screaming particularly loudly for more cash). Your characterization of DCI as "flat ####### broke" is misleading.

My general reaction to the video: meh. I am not opposed to the concept of spending more to make more, multiplying, and so forth. And the point about "overhead" was on target - people (including those on this forum) really need to look more closely at what that "overhead" is before passing judgment on the performance of a non-profit. That said, though, some other portions of the presentation did not close the deal with me. Okay, there is no reason why non-profit CEOs should take a vow of poverty, agreed. But the reality is that if you are running a charity, you must cope with public perception. The public thinks that CEOs of the top for-profit companies are overpaid. Therefore, they are not going to accept the concept of a non-profit trying to compete with that by offering top dollar for their CEO; donations will suffer. Considering the source (the presenter is a non-profit CEO), I am not surprised that he has not acknowledged this reality. Also, there was not enough talk about risk. Aggressive growth strategies come with greater risk. We should remember that each donor is performing their own personal risk-reward calculation in deciding where and how much to donate. Donors might think twice about a charity that pursues aggressive growth strategies. A culture of aggressive charities might scare off donors in bulk.

No name thread is complete without mentioning the Audubon Bon Bons.

Who says DCI is losing money? Your assertions are so distanced from reality, I am not sure how to respond to you. How can you say that the same organization that has made so many major rule changes in recent years, formulated a 5-year plan, abandoned portions of it in favor of pursuing ideas from a 7-corps self-conceived committee, changed the composition of their BOD twice, reconfigured their tour, payouts and show format for the TOC shows, introduced SoundSport and Drumline Battle, and improved their financial performance in the worst economy since the Great Recession, is a "stationary" organization? So in your view, DCI is the Titanic, and directors are bickering over who gets to be first violin in the orchestra that will go down with the ship. Because "the situation" they are dealing with is not financial - it is political. From the 990s: You are correct - that is an average of $100,000 gap between revenue and expenses. But that is $100,000 average DCI is making, not losing. This is getting tiresome. If DCI does not make substantial profit every single year, they are harshly criticized and declared "flat ####### broke". But if DCI does make profit, they are demonized for not paying it out to the corps because that is supposedly their only role in the activity. Obviously, nothing DCI does will placate the critics. Two of the principal demands of the G7 Report were to increase payouts to the top corps, and for DCI to develop some financial reserves. With the $100,000 per year DCI has been making, and the TOC shows providing double pay to the top corps, DCI is delivering on both of those demands despite the awful economy. The only reason we should be concerned, then, is if the G7 demands were misguided in the first place.

Some people do want their car washed, so they are getting something for their money. Tag day is the better example of a pure donation. And there is cause for concern, then. If they expect a marketing bounce, and it cannot be demonstrated that there was one (or that it was definitely from their DCI sponsorship, and not one of their other hundred marketing campaigns), then there is no reason to expect that sponsorship to last more than a season or two (like Circle K and Knights Inn). Coming from a background where people are required to demonstrate payoff, I also wonder whether any of these sponsorships are demonstrably profitable to the sponsor. Most of the justifications I have heard for them include other factors such as the name association with "community good", to which you allude. As long as that is a necessary factor in the decision making, I think it is fair to conflate "sponsors" with "donors".

So now we are back to seeking customers instead of donors?

The size of the market is not the only consideration. If it were that simple, you could make a killing running shows in those three cities. But none of them have a suitable venue available at a suitable price. Look where the 7 hold their shows, and you will see the same issues of venue suitability, availability and price affecting their show locations. Should there be, with the championship site in such close proximity? Well, that is quite a stretch to relate the findings of that survey to drum corps audience demand. I mean, most of us will agree that brussels sprouts are good for you, but how many of us eat them?

I am sure we will hear in a few more months. My point was that the 7 made it clear in their urgent January email that they could not stand being out of the kitchen a moment longer. They have had the opportunity to hire someone else to run the show for some time now, either via DCI or Music in Motion, Inc., but they never let go of the reins. I doubt they will be persuaded to now.

That will never happen as long as the 7 are in DCI. Half of their directors insist on being in the kitchen. Look at what is going on now. DCI was founded with this mentality, has operated for 40 years with this mentality, and shows no signs of changing that mindset any time soon. If DCI corps directors wanted out of the kitchen 40 years ago, they would have put their tour plan out as a proposal to VFW, AL, World Open, U.S. Open, etc., and let the high bidder run the shows and send them checks.

I thought only the open class corps and Pioneer had "youth", while most WC corps are exclusively young adults. This raises several questions. a. Which demographic are the sponsors really looking for? 19-21? Or 18 and under? (Or both?) b. If 18 and under are a vital part of the deal, maybe open class is of more value to sponsors than world class. c. Since WC is such a narrow age band, you might need open class to close this deal. No longer wise to remove them from DCI, then.

Show revenue is worth millions annually. Regardless of how enthusiastic you are about sponsorship, it makes no sense to dismiss the value of show revenue. Unless you count gross receipts from bingo (which is not what I would call "stable"), I cannot see how any corps (other than Cadets/YEA!) is getting "most of their revenue" from sources that have nothing to do with drum corps. Once you account for the most common drum corps related revenue sources: corps member dues DCI appearance fees DCI revenue sharing revenue from hosting DCI shows corps merchandise sales donations to the corps - you have already accounted for "most" revenue.

I know tour DVDs are either mostly or wholly produced by the corps (i.e. a videographer hired by the individual corps). Some of them include their final performance as recorded by DCI, though. There are many compilations on DVD, CD or online delivery service sold by individual corps, consisting of DCI recordings.

Not sure what the exact number would be. It is not just physical media and Fan Network for DCI, but also all the tour DVDs, compilations and Mediabox-type services that individual corps produce using DCI footage.