cixelsyd

- when Blue Stars were in the TOC series. Two preceding years, they got $110k. Fan Network revenue could be in a number of different places. Saw at least one corps that listed a separate line item for it in their 990.

Oh, "merchandising"? Yes, I am aware that there are cases where a corps makes more from merchandise than from appearance fees/revenue sharing. Your post made it sound like T-shirt sales alone were outpacing DCI payouts.

Your version of going back to what worked in the past? You are full of surprises today. This is a departure from the G7 stance. And IIRC, Daniel Ray has also favored bigger shows in bigger markets, so you two will have something to discuss. So to flesh out your recent suggestions, say we split the tour so that the top 18 do not all meet in one place until Indy. The San Antonio and Atlanta shows, which you contend are high-rent venues, would be replaced by lower cost venues. With the tour divided, maybe each of those Saturdays could see two focus shows staged in different locations with their respective halves of the DCI tour lineup. Top corps would be evenly distributed between the two tour branches. Your contentions are: a. Attendance/revenue in Indy will increase due to increased competitive suspense. b. Cheaper venues for the last two Saturdays in July might improve revenue. c. (my observation) Attendance at either of the split shows probably will not match Atlanta/San Antonio, but combined attendance of the pair might be greater. Lots of numbers to crunch, but the idea is well worth discussing. Not sure that level of detail is available to us. What are you suggesting? Do the Cavaliers eat that much more than the Bluecoats? Are the Cavaliers a bad insurance risk? I would at least expect that their food and transportation expenses would be very similar, and that therefore, the cost differences must be elsewhere. Then if there really is a corps making more money on shirts than shows, maybe they should get out of drum corps and focus solely on the T-shirt business. Who is declaring that the ideal? I do not understand why you keep doing this. Sometimes, you offer worthwhile insight. You could use your time to discuss that constructively and refine ideas into actionable suggestions. Yes, it is also fun to post zingers about T-shirt sales and make up strawmen about lower ranking corps - but that fun will only make people more resistant to your ideas.

Without putting up real numbers, we do not know that. San Antonio and Atlanta have drawn solid attendance numbers themselves. But more importantly, what were ticket prices? A full house in Whitewater at $3 a head does not say the same thing as 16,000 at $30-$55 each. That would also do away with the TOC concept. Surprised to hear that suggestion. That also is not entirely accurate. DCI provides a lot more to the corps than just that $150,000 in appearance fees and revenue sharing. They perform a number of services for the corps, sometimes entirely at cost. For example, the Fan Network costs are all covered by DCI, including licensing and administration, while the revenues from individual download sales go 100% straight to the corps. (Arrangements like this make it unfair to cast judgment on DCI based on the raw numbers.) Would $120,000 per corps solve everything for the corps who are complaining about the current financial picture? If so, looking at who is doing the complaining (the same corps who outspend everyone else), it appears that we might also ask about the possibility of them spending less. For a corps like the Cavaliers (based on the numbers we have available from the 990s), spending $120,000 less still permits them to outspend the corps below them.

A great excerpt from a great post: You have put some of my thoughts into words before I could figure out how. I have been increasingly mystified by this inexplicable expectation being repeated here that DCI should generate enough revenue to cover all the costs of the corps. Never mind that the corps ramp up those costs themselves (and fundraise to pay them), largely due to their own efforts to outdo one another. In explaining that, I realized myself that DCI drum corps is an amateur sport, and maybe we have all been losing sight of that amid our analogies to major leagues. Even that message does not seem to sink in with some people, though. They still approach this as if a drum corps can be made into a profit-seeking business, if only DCI could be tweaked to return more money to the corps. Is there any activity on Earth less likely to ever become a profitable endeavor? Any activity with such large teams (150 members), so much equipment, and so much travel all at once? If the drum corps had real profit potential, entrepreneurs would be forming corps left and right. Instead, we lose existing corps because we are running out of adults willing to run them. But where your post was such a welcome wakeup call was in reminding us that DCI drum corps is a youth activity. It does have an educational focus - always has in DCI. No wonder the G7 advocates in this thread poo-poo the idea of drum corps for the sake of education, and suggest that educational drum corps be removed from DCI and put in a separate circuit. The educational value of drum corps depends on keeping many things the way they are, or the way they have been. Many corps, many kids, a range of ages, and fair competition as part of the learning experience. The transformative changes they want would not be possible if education remains at the forefront. Before this devolves into a wish list for G bugles and flag presentations, let me just say I hope we can "go back" to having more corps. I was pondering why we ever had so many corps, given the list of challenges I made above (members, equipment, travel) - and then I realized that BITD, corps were based on smaller amounts of every one of those three resources. Of course, most of us would cringe at the mere suggestion that any one of those three aspects be cut back. I would not suggest it myself. But for the couple of people here who claim that running 150 member corps with our current equipment set through 8 week tours is unsustainable, when the same was not said about smaller corps with less equipment and shorter tours - well, they pretty much put this issue on the table themselves.

Sure, it is possible for a big spending 16-19 corps to match the thriftiest top 6 corps. The trend, however, is 5 of the top corps spending 50% more than what is typical of the remainder of season-long touring corps. Which accomplishes what, exactly? You seem to expect DCI to provide payouts that completely cover all the expenses this amateur competitive activity incurs. Even if we cut that activity down to 18 corps as you suggest, that is still going to run about $16 million, based on the data from those 990s. How do you realistically expect DCI to raise that kind of revenue? You would have to sell an additional 12,000 seats at every show to pull that off.

No one is suggesting that (especially the bread truck). As has already been demonstrated, costs vary quite a bit among the corps who tour all season. Regardless, if anyone has a problem with the cost/revenue balance, I think both sides of it ought to be looked at.

Now the kids belong to DCI? "Their kids"? Once more, since you still miss this point - DCI is an amateur sport. In amateur sports, the competitors pay part of the cost of participating. I do not see you railing about the Olympics failing to cover the costs of training, travel and all else for their aspiring amateur athletes. (For that matter, some pro sports teams operate this way too.) There is plenty of money to make DCI work. A few of the corps, however, may be spending beyond their means. Or the costs of the overspending corps need to be cut.

Well, why are people more likely to have heard of marching band? Is it because marching band has marketing genius that DCI just refuses to hire? Or is it because there are 100 times as many marching bands?

The payout for winning top prize predates the existence of all our current corps.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "buy their way in". For instance, the Blue Devils did not buy their way into DCI, and they would probably resent anyone saying otherwise. Are you referring to the practice of professional sports leagues charging an entry fee for expansion clubs? Also, how do you determine whether a DCI corps is providing revenue, or just another mouth to feed?

Okay. The NHL expanded to 30 teams; the NFL to 32. What about expanding DCI membership to 32 corps?

I think the first question that needs to be asked is whether the corps you now refer to as "part-time junior corps" are in favor of going to DCA.

Okay, we hear you. Must change. Change, change, change. What change do you have in mind?

Generally speaking, I agree. So you must see why turning open class over to regional circuits is a non-starter.

But that is the thing - in your language, DCI is essentially a major league of glorified bands. I know you have criticized the tone, but you seem to echo most of the concepts it contains. It was a very good tool for initiating discussion. That is true. What if one investigates their position with an open mind, explores every possible logical thread, and then concludes they are greedy? Attempts at humor aside, I am here to discuss ideas and see that they are properly vetted. I spent what seemed like a month playing the part of advocate for an idea I was undecided on (transfer fees), just to promote discussion of the pros and cons. I approach ideas with an open mind. But once they have been explored in sufficient depth, I form opinions and try to move forward. For instance, after all the transfer fee discussion, I see it would be a lot of sound and fury, but very little payoff at best, so my search for worthwhile ideas will continue elsewhere. There are aspects of the G7 proposal that I have formed opinions on. But if new logic is presented that trumps all I have heard previously, my eyes, ears and mind are open. How so? I just noted in an earlier post some of the recent changes DCI has made. Despite being financially handcuffed by the G7 fusses, DCI has made several significant changes that did not require costly upfront investments (TOC, combined prelims, new judging system, SoundSport/Drumline Battle). They have also made significant changes to their BOD, twice. You may want to see other transformative changes, but it is not accurate to characterize DCI as steadfast and unchanging. As I have pointed out before, the amount of money DCI pays out has never, and will never, "keep up" with the expenses of corps participating in the activity. This did not register with you, I guess, so maybe I can define this with greater lucidity. DCI is an amateur league. Maybe this is why some sports comparisons work, and others do not. In reality, what we have here is a rarity - a major league for an amateur sport. No well known precedents come to my mind. Anyway, it is the nature of this activity to be competitive. Since the stakes are so high (a world championship is on the line), and the activity is so resource intensive (150 players per team, long routines to learn, and all that equipment), it has always compelled some corps to extend their efforts into the realm of external fundraising as part of their overall effort to outdo each other. No matter what DCI pays the corps, the corps are still going to fundraise in their attempts to outdo each other. The same is true of other competitive teams of that scale or larger. Do you see any NFL teams giving up their merchandising, letting fans into the stadium or free, and just living off the revenue share the NFL pays them? No. Does that mean the NFL "fails to keep up with the expenses" of football? No. I would be very interested in growing the fan base. That is where DCI was going to focus with their business plan starting in the 2009-2010 off-season, just as the G7 dissention began.

(double post)

Well, for starters, only their 18 most successful stores should even be allowed to carry the name "Sears". And among them, the best 7 should get double the amount of support and voice in corporate decision making.

No argument here. By the way, DCI is doing something (TOC, combined Thursday prelims, new judging system, and now SoundSport/Drumline Battle). What do you think of those? Maybe not. But remember, it is the G7 Report that proposes to hurl most of open class overboard into regional circuits that no longer exist. If you want people here to open their minds to the G7, mentioning regional models or "tradition" (i.e. top X = member corps) is not helping your case. What you see here from the people following this topic long term is a desire to find some logic behind whatever "change" is being proposed, and (like yourself) a more intelligent discussion free from the emotional BS and fearmongering from the "DCI will self-destruct in 5 seconds!" crowd.

Dare I ask why? Dare I ask why? If I ask why, does that mean I just cast you as a villain? So who wants to sustain the current situation? I think everyone wants some sort of change. But it needs to be a wise, thoroughly thought out change.

If you say so. But why do you bring these tangential factors up? I thought you wanted the top 18. That will get you a 2 corps league (okay, 4 or 5 if you count their feeder units). Oh, here we go again. Wait. Why is it that the same people who say DCI should return as much revenue to the corps as possible, then turn around and criticize DCI for not having enough reserves? Per prior posts, I would ask whether that is a DCI problem, or a problem with the corps themselves. Actually, they mention that sort of stuff right on DCI.org, so I am not sure what your complaint is. They do not use terms like "semi-pro", however, because neither the corps nor their members profit from this endeavor. The DCI mission explicitly states that they should "showcase the top corps", and so they do. You may have a different suggestion on how to "showcase the top corps". But saying that the DCI model, top-corps-showcasing and all, is "broken" will not help your case. Oh, now we are back to the top 18. So in that case, the mechanism you would use to determine top 18 would be season average scores? I do look at things differently from most. But to clarify, if there is a tangible reason for having a separate competitive division, then it will make sense to me. Divisions with different contest rules regarding corps size, age of members, allowable equipment or length of show have all been employed at some time in the activity, and those are purposes I understand. Of course, those kind of divisions are all in the past now. Not sure what you mean by the DCM model being a bad fit for DCI. DCM just made their top 20 corps members based on prelim scores, much like DCI did with their top however-many for their first 30 years. The main difference was the DCM pay scale, which reflected corps size as well as competitive result. Had pros and cons.

Personally, I am not convinced there should be a set number. Over time, DCI and their corps have allowed that number to vary, so it would appear that they concur to a certain extent. But for the purposes of discussion, since 18 keeps popping up, let us proceed with that. You might be surprised, then. Personally, I am not convinced there need to be separate competitive divisions either. If corps are separated by member vs. non-member, and/or the WC tour vs. some other tour for the other corps, they are already separated. Whether we give those other corps separate sheets or a separate name for their "division" is immaterial in that regard. However, I understand the rationale of DCI and their corps in setting things up the way they do. I do not agree with every aspect of it, but I can support it. So I am open to discussion. Okay. I would like to clarify that rationale as well. Not if there is a sensible rationale behind it. We do this now, and no one is complaining that DCI policy is the equivalent of a middle digit in the face of Blue Devils B, Vanguard Cadets or any other open class corps. Now, about that rationale. Since "top 18" keeps coming up, would it be reasonable to conclude that you (and Daniel Ray) would be happy if DCI simply set the separation on that basis? I would think so, given that you both mention that number, and that you have expounded on the rationale that a singularly clear marketing message of "top 18" would appeal to major corporate sponsors. So if I jump ahead, the next question is how do we pick the top 18? This is why I asked whether you would prefer a promotion/relegation system or a combined contest like we have now. You also postulated a cumulative point system, which is an interesting thought, but I do not see how that could work if the top 18 are on a separate tour from the other corps. Thoughts are welcome.

Hard to say, as with the overall scores being announced, they would not be flying completely blind. But that is an interesting idea. Maybe DCI should try it, even if only for part of the season, to see what would happen. For it to work, though, the caption scores could not be released to anyone, even the corps staffs, so that leaks like the 1988 semifinal results do not happen.

Lower ranks? All 3 of those corps were finalists. As for corps at that level today, I would not consider "Avian" safe design.

I believe that is an admission that top corps spend more (no matter what Slingerland says).