Slingerland

A lot of them, actually. Baseball scholarships aren't nearly as plentiful or as generous as basketball rides. Are you suggesting that no one working with an Open Class or lower ranked WC corps is being paid? The numbers would indicate that they are. The numbers would also indicate that the available resources for those corps, and the average age and experience of their members would dictate that in an ideal world, they wouldn't have to try and beat performers who were both older then them, and organizations whose size and budgets are significantly larger.

Out of curiosity, how many of the teams in the LL World Series also play against NCAA Division 1 college baseball teams?

They don't "give back" anything to the corps anymore than your employer "gives you back" money when they pay you a sales commission you earned.

I stated a fact - that the corps' themselves have a much larger base of volunteers than DCI does. If you'd like to refute it, go ahead. Purely from a Board of Director levels, if there was an average of nine Board members for every World Class corps, that's 200+ adults with business experience or other related skills who are already involved in operations for drum corps. Each of those corps runs shows now, so they have people who know how to market and sell tickets. The skills for selling a regional show are already in the hands of the corps themselves, so an argument could be made that DCI is simply duplicating those efforts, but with paid staff members in their headquarters. DCI's either got to focus on doing a better job with a smaller number of projects, or get big enough to do a better job with the workload they've got. But the current situation isn't tenable. There simply isn't enough money coming in to make it work.

???? DCI makes almost 100% of their revenues from the gate. They make almost nothing from charitable support. If they HAD a base of support besides ticket sales, none of this conversation would be happening. No major sponsors, no major donors. Selling the corps' performances are about the only source of revenue DCI has. And for providing that sellable product, the corps get back 24% of what their work brought in. That doesn't strike me as a particularly great deal for the corps.

Actually no, I'm not suggesting that the G7 should do it. However I do think a case could be made that the Southeastern regional might be better produced by Spirit & Crown plus whoever else, the Eastern show by a group of Eastern corps, etc, etc, etc. If you want to look at this in terms we might be familiar with from our political discourse, it would allow the regional associations to be the laboratories of new ideas and approaches. Let four or five groups/associations try different approaches to how they sell the events, and see what comes out of it. I guess my overall sense is that DCI's been hit by a major case of mission creep over the years, and as usually happens, new projects got put on the the boards without necessarily creating the funding mechanism to underwrite those new projects in a way that would make them profitable. Perhaps if they had to go back to just focusing on the one big event, and doing a spectacular job of producing that, they could increase their overall financial impact by being able to cut back on a lot of other expenses that are duplicating efforts from the corps themselves. Devolve the financial and marketing responsibilities of the regional shows to regional associations made up of the corps themselves, and focus on the Big Ticket event, and they might be able to a good enough job there that Finals once again becomes a big thing, both from a publicity and from a financial standpoint. But right now, it's neither.

It's a little interesting to see a few of you commenting on the payouts to the corps as if that was somehow a sign of DCI's largesse. Paying the corps for their work is the primary reason for DCI's existence. End. Of. Statement. If only 24 cents out of every dollar created by the corps' efforts are going back to the corps, it makes me wonder if the G7 weren't correct in believing that another entity might be able to do this more efficiently. If DCI's current Board and staff can't find a way to justify growing the brand, the other option would be to specialize even more, which would allow for a greater focus on fewer activities. For example, DCI could limit themselves to producing one big contest every year (Finals) and producing the video content, and leave the rest of the season's shows up to other organizations. I'd imagine that some regional corps might be able to get together and produce the regionals on their own dime and time, which would remove DCI from doing anything except worrying about publicizing and selling the Finals week events. This would allow them to move some of the marketing expenses out of house, and let the corps who produce the events themselves utilize their larger volunteer pools (DCi doesn't get anywhere near the volunteer support that most of the corps themselves do). Either they need to step up to being able to produce on a bigger scale, or they need to be honest about their limitations and just do a better job of one or two big events. But at present, there doesn't seem to be any movement one way or another, and the current mix of activities doesn't seem to be able to generate nearly as much income for the producers of the product as one would think it should.

Ok, I'll bite. How much?

See "Money, Color of". If you get it by selling tickets vs getting donations, the money is just as green. Our own experience tells us that it's easier to get money from people by giving them something they actually want rather than standing on a corner and handing out a paper tag in exchange for a dollar bill stuffed into a plastic can. Drum corps did tag days and car washes back in the day. It's a primary reason most of those drum corps died. Drum corps will never see major donors just for the sake of doing drum corps. Its own alumni don't donate to drum corps - why the ___ would you or anyone expect John Q Public to do so? IN case you're confusing "sponsors" with "donors", be clear that sponsors are buying their connection with an event, and expect a marketing bounce in return. Drum corps, with some tweaks, could appeal to sponsors more easily than donors, since sponsors are really only interested in the eyeballs, demographics, and impressions, rather than looking for some sort of community good out of whatever they get to sponsor. Seeking 'donors' to support the drum corps activity directly is a waste of time. Trying to explain to someone who has 4 seconds to give you why this thing that looks like marching band, at the grassroots level, really isn't marching band is a waste of energy. If DCI has to do a better job of promoting the most effective messengers for what the activity looks like at its highest levels in order to increase the overall amount of cash available to the activity's directors, then that's what they should do. If you make an additional $5 or 10 million for drum corps, as a whole, it's still a win, even if some of the corps directors working at the grass roots and instructional corps level don't see their corps promoted in the same breath as anyone at the top.

Because the way to provide funds for the corps to do what they do isn't to appeal to the widows and orphans element of drum corps. Why? Because trying to communicate that message looks like this; "How is this drum corps thing different from my school marching band?" It's not really that different, at the external level, it's the internal dynamics that are different. "What do you mean 'nternal dynamics?' They play instruments on a football field." But unlike the band, the members have a lot more individual responsibility and there's a higher demand for them to work really hard. "So it's basically school band, but a little better? How much does it cost to do it?" Depends, but most of them are spending $1,000 - $2,500 a summer. "For band? Sorry, if they can afford that much money, they don't need my help." So sure, keep trying to sell that angle. Bake Sale USA, to the masses who aren't going to be moved by that message. How do we know this? Because that's the message that's been being peddled for the last several decades. The benefits of drum corps are real, but too opaque to effectively communicate to a population who doesn't have enough attention span to parse the details. But if you give them an actual product to see and buy, and you can target them with a more effective, more exciting pitch than is currently employed, you have the chance of getting them to SPEND money on tickets, rather than 'give' money as donations. In the end, the color of the money is the same, but it's always easier to get people to give money in exchange for a good or service than it is to get them to simply fork over money because your cause is worth it. The types of funders who support major initiatives in underserved communities aren't going to be swayed by DCI, but the corps themselves could shake some corporation funding loose for initiatives that would expand the activity's reach into underserved neighborhoods - IF they had a bigger base of funding (via product/ticket sales) for their core business operation. Providing that core financial support should be DCI's focus. == If the reason not to focus on the major metro markets for drum corps - New York, the Bay area, Boston, and Chicago - is that they don't have domed stadiums, that's not much of a justification. Most existing fans have to be convinced to go see shows in domed locations, since the acoustics are uniformly awful, and in the meantime you have tens of thousands of people who are already interested in drum corps in the major metros who are passed over with the major shows. That idea would make sense to absolutely no one outside the activity.

The five-year plan (if this is what you're referring to) was nibbling around the edges, and focused on bake sale initiatives. Why focus on Indy, San Antonio, and Atlanta (yes, I know they have shows there; it's a rhetorical)? Ever heard of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles? They're much bigger markets. (To show how goofy the current direction is, ask yourself; is there a major regional in the Chicago area? No. But there is a major show in that historical hotbed of drum corps activity - Minneapolis. As a general rule, you try not to move your product so far away that those who are most naturally interested in buying it have to travel long distances in order to get it. ) How many people paid anything for a drum corps related product last year? Maybe 250,000 unique individuals, if that? In a country of 300 million people. Well, given what the actual polling tells about about Americans' feelings about musical skills, it's hard to believe that the activity's penetration into the US market is anywhere near maxed out right now. You're confusing the "what" drum corps does from a capacity building standpoint with the "how" drum corps funds it. The "what" is inherent in the activity itself. If you put kids in a situation where there is a pure meritocracy (and drum corps does that very well), they'll learn the lessons of individual responsibility and of team building skills, in ways they don't often see in other areas of their lives. In order to DO THAT, the corps themselves need to have a reliable stream of income - that's the "how" of it. They're two different concepts, and DCI's focus should be on creating the opportunities for the organizations to realize enough income from their activities (the "how") so that the corps themselves can do a great job of providing the "what" to an ever-widening pool of young people.

Many corps have scholarship programs set up already (I contribute to one of them). If every corps - even the despised 7 - were able to generate enough of a return from their activities that they could afford to offer full-ride memberships on a larger scale, is there any reason to believe that they wouldn't? They would. Increasing their available funds by going bigger on the operations and marketing side would expand their ability to offer the service they do. The goal of any non-profit charitable organization is to change human hearts and grow human capacity.The belief that only those who are in the hellholes of the inner city deserve service is actually tied to the Puritan belief he mentioned that only some people are "deserving" of a charitable service. Giving young people an opportunity where they're required to expand their own capacity, as leaders and individuals, is a service to the society, regardless of the incomes of those kids' parents. A couple kids I've helped have gone on to be educators, two of them in inner city neighborhood schools. Those drum corps donations are having an impact in ways that go beyond just the day to day experience of getting on a bus and driving overnight to Akron. Creating a better, stronger organization to market the work of the individual service providers (the corps) would put the activity in a situation where they would have the financial capability to do more, and do it more efficiently. But the bake sale mentality will never do anything more than provide a loaf of bread for today's dinner.

Scale is the key here. As I've noted (and a few others), if DCI has to invest in a management team who costs a bit more than the current staff, but the new team brings with them the type of business contacts and experience that can increase the overall revenues significantly, the real expense of that move is relatively small. For ex, if they increase costs by $2 million, but realize an additional $3m in gross, $1m in net as a result, how is that a loss? Pure coincidence that he uses bake sales as his example of inappropriate funding mechanisms too.

And high school and college football appeals most to those who have the physical capabilities to play football. The cut and snippet style of some drum corps shows has nothing to do with "music majors" and everything to do with WGI, where that type of slapping together of musical snippets has been part of the landscape since the late 70s. I hate it too, but not because the source material is too highbrow. I hate it because it demonstrates that the musical designers have allowed their guard and visual staffs to convince them that inherently bad musical construction is acceptable. And the judging community seems only too willing to go along with it. So don't blame disconnected programming on "music majors" - we need kids who are more serious than not about their instruments in order to achieve what the corps achieve. Blame it on the guard staffs.

Fill us in. What IS going on now? The Board now has the 8+1 model - has anything significant changed in the last few months? No one in the G7 would blanche at the idea of a strong executive team coming in who could expand the market for drum corps and help the activity find major sponsors. It's dumb to think they would. If Gibbs and Coates and Hopkins got bigger checks at the end of the season, because DCI was more successful at shaking money from the trees, then they'd give a #### about how it happened. it would free them up to worry about their local issues much more than whether DCI was going to be able to break even for the year or not.

I appreciate all of your concerns, Dan, and agree that it'll be an uphill climb. In terms of what it would take to convince them that a strong executive division is in their own interest....well, we're wired to pack mentality. What you really need are 4 or 5 influential voices among the voting membership, representing a range of sizes and regions, who can serve as vote getters within their own constituencies. The corps are going to have to invest in personnel who can help them create a stronger primary product, a bigger range of participants and audience members, and the type of sponsors who can afford to underwrite the expenses of getting Finals back on tv. I kind of split the difference between Daniel and Jeff R here; I think the product is a weakness at present (sometimes, not always), and that you can't discount the need to appeal to adults too. The audience for pro skiing is primarily 40s and 50s adults, even as the participants are the ages of their kids. Because of that, you have companies like Red Bull AND Volvo signing up to sponsor downhill events, even though the two brands are selling to two completely different demos - the activity is what ties those two groups together. Commit to the idea of bringing in a strong leadership team with a proven track record (and I'd agree with Daniel that they'll have to be recruited; you don't want the guys who apply for the gig), and hire a headhunter who has experience filling those types of positions with other organizations. Then make sure you give the new team at least 3 years to start showing some results. But management by committee, with a relatively weak executive, has already shown itself to be a less than sterling success. It's not anyone's 'fault' - its just how it worked out. Time to try something new.

Then you'll see a group of corps - more than 7, no doubt - who'll decide that they don't want to be stuck on a ship that is going down, and they'll create something new to take DCI's place. The status quo really isn't an option, and neither is "growing" an audience from 25,000 at Finals to 15,000 at Finals, and sticking the suckers who show up with higher ticket prices to make up for the difference in sales volume. BTW, the cost per corps, if you divvy up by 40, would only be $5k each to bring in a director who could bring with him the contacts that help make selling and creating new markets for drum corps a reality. The current salaries would be deducted from any additional expense. Only some drum corps people would find the idea of spending an additional $200k in order to increase gross revenues by $4 or 5 million to be a bad investment. But businesses ARE the the people who work there; their ideas, their work, their managerial ability. Failing to invest enough to bring in the best people for the needs at hand is the type of mistake you don't get to make too often.

I'm not sure that I'd agree that for-profit is the best route forward, but if it did, this is certainly one option.

Outside consultants can be useful when you don't have the resources to do your own legwork or when you need an outside eye for perspective. But spending money on finding someone to tell them that they need to change things would be a waste of funds. They need someone who can actually devise then implement a plan for growth, not just tell them that they're failing to connect with sponsors and potential participants and audiences.

You won't hire those guys for what DCI is paying now, no. But there are plenty of non-profit organizations in the $18-30m range that have sports and arts events in their portfolios of activities. The CEOs at those organizations are typically in the $300k plus benefits and performance bonus range, not in the $1m range. The best can be close to $700k, but then again, those are the ones who are running $30m organizations; I'm pretty sure the member corps would be cool with paying someone that much if the person was able to triple the size of DCI from where it is now. Those CEOs recruit Board members who use their business and personal connections to bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars (each) in outside support for their organizations. That's the model to look at, not the PTA bake sale. If you think that the positive impact of what drum corps does and the potential appeal of the product is so insignificant that it deserves a bake sale mentality, then go for it. Oh wait, don't bother, you've already got it. Carry on. But it would be a good idea for the current Board to sit down with the member corps and have an honest discussion as to what the investment would look like to build something more substantial. First order of business would be committing to the idea of substantial growth - set a target for what you want in hard numbers re: audience size and revenues. The actual plan for achieving those results would have to be in the hands of the executive team they hire to do the building. And at that point, the corps themselves would have to agree to give over a lot of the power they now have in terms of product, tour schedule, etc, and trust that they've hired the right team to build the brand. If they do so, there's hope for moving forward. But if they continue to go with the relatively weak executive/strong Board philosophy, they're screwed.

There are several models out there, one being the "association" model (which is what the corporations known as the National Football League, the National Hockey League, etc are), where it's a collection of privately-owned or operated businesses who use a central organization to manage competitions, negotiate media deals, and share revenues that are created by the combined efforts of all the partners. Individual profitability via the route of maximized group effort is the rule of the day. They make money as a group with an eye toward distributing that money back to the individual partner organizations But there's another model of the for-profit 'league', and that would be NASCAR and the WWF (or whatever McMahon's wrestling league is called). In those cases, the league really is the product and the players/teams benefit from their work, but not (arguably) as much as the league owner does. I'm not sure that the latter model would be feasible with DCI, as it moves to far away from the original intent of the organization, which naturally aligns more with the NFL model. I don't think you'll find that much disagreement even among the two primary viewpoints in this thread that DCI would do best with a stronger executive/less-interested Board model. There's a process that would have to lead to that, however, and step one would be committing to bringing in a team at the top who had the contacts and experience to grow the league's revenues several steps past where they are now. The present Board members (some of whom are no doubt reading this thread) will have to acknowledge that none of them have the ability to be that guy (if they did, they'd be CEOs at $30m organizations, and not running $1m drum corps), and commit the organization to professionalizing at the top in a way that hasn't been done yet. And the member corps will have to be willing to accept that if they brought in an outside eye from the world of sports or event marketing, that she or he would likely want to make some changes in product that would take some elements of the product control out of the hands of the corps directors and their staffs. There's room for growth here, but it's going to require the current leadership of the corps and of DCI themselves to realize that they're going to need to commit resources to getting the type of league management who's not going to be afraid to push the corps to be more marketable than they are now.

A show about the Tri-Lateral Commission? Looks like an interesting idea for them, and certainly a move in a different direction from last year.

The only thing that matters is the amount of money DCI can disburse to the corps, since that's their primary purpose, as an organization (all the mission statement fol de rol notwithstanding). Is that number going up significantly these days? If they show another $1m in revenues but their expenses are up by the same $1m, and those additional expenses aren't shown as money that was paid out to the product makers, it's not really "growth" except in numeric terms. The Finals audience has settled in at 15-17,000 - better than Miami in '83, but not exactly stellar, Go ahead and discount Finals attendance as an important metric, but do so knowing that you mean you don't understand the idea of maximizing opportunities, since there are NO other nights of the year when DCI can realize so much extra money as they could by selling another 10,000 seats to Finals. Wanna guess how much more money DCI could distribute to each WC corps if they sold those extra seats? $25,000 each corps - for an additional expense to DCI of exactly $0 in stadium costs. Has there been a study commissioned to find out why more people aren't going to Indy? Has it been done and the organization decided to ignore the results? I don't look at a C student and think they're achieving all they can if I know for a fact that they could be getting Bs or As with a better attitude and a better approach. But believing that this is as good as it can get in drum corps is a big part of the problem with where things are now.

If the DCI corps aren't willing to accept the fact that they're never going to find someone capable of building DCI to the next level with what they're current paying for the executive team, then they will all deserve what they get. The type of stud who knows how to build an org like this won't work for very low six figures, when they can see $250k+ working for any number of already successful $18-25m organizations. If pointing out the facts of DCI's current status (negative to mild audience growth, no major sponsors, no television presence) is "insulting" DCI, then it's clear that one of the two of us is too emotionally invested in the situation, and I know it's not me. I just want to see the activity regain some momentum and increase the number of participants and audience members; I don't particularly care if someone else feels "insulted" when I point out that there are better, smarter ways of achieving that goal than lowering the bar so that everyone gets a medal at the end of the year.

Any conversation about basic models of corporate governance that brings in the Axis powers - even as a tangential issue - is a conversation whose intellectual value has dropped into the single digits. DCI could stand a strong central voice that knows more about the businesses of sports and event marketing than the corps directors do. Right now, they don't have that. Dan A did a great job of pulling the organization out of a tailspin, but there's no plan out there (and the old 5 year plan didn't do this) that would move the organization back in the direction of being able to fill 25,000 seats for Finals (making the organization another $600k+ in one night) or getting the product into the sites of the types of corporate sponsors who can underwrite the expenses of building the audience base. It's not unusual for companies to change leadership when the needs change. Right now DCI needs a growth-oriented focus, with a team at the top who has the contacts and the experience to move it to the next level. But they're unwilling to spend the kind of money it would take to bring in someone who has those skills. The G7 idea was dumb, but at its heart, it was right about the central issue; DCI's stuck in the mud, and it's not looking good that anyone will ever be able to get a few of the directors involved on board with the idea of aggressively pursuing new avenues of income and professionalism.