Fever Inactive for 08.

[Dale Bari]

So, probably a mistake, but I'm going to try again

Liam,

you ought to know by now that certain people have their tropes, their memes, and they play them for all they're worth. There are folks here who (whether through nature or conditioning) search out any possible combination of words that could be interpreted loosely as criticizing DCI in any way and try to knock them down. It's almost reflexive now, really.

What I am calling for is to stop looking at each corps "inactivation" as a seperate event but to look for the commonalities among them.

Unfortunately, your request for a search of "commonalities" begins and ends (for those folks I mentioned above) with "mismanagement". That's a nice comforting blanket for them to throw over the problems you seek to solve. And, as far as the "DCI is OK; individual corps are lousy" crowd is concerned, the individual corps will all "mismanage" their way right out of existence until nothing is left of DCI except for a few empty offices in Indiana.

As far as I see it, we have four types of people:

1. 
   1. those who believe DCI spells doom for corps ("Evil Empire", Hopkins runs DCI, etc)
   2. those who believe DCI is great and everlasting (corps have always folded, DCI is blameless, "individual corps mismanagement",etc)
   3. those who believe, while DCI is fine, drum corps is doomed no matter what. (Economics of drum corps are impossible)
   4. those who believe, while DCI has its flaws, whatever problems exist must be corrected to prevent doom
   (Some people do float between groups, because they haven't made up their minds on certain points.)
   

Groups #1 & #2 (the true mortal enemies here) can't be reasoned with. Ever.

Only #2 sees a bright future; #1, #3, & #4 all see the death of jr corps.

Only #4 sees a way to change the future; #1, #2, & #3 all see a pre-determined outcome.

While #4 disagrees with #1 & #3 on the ability of jr corps to change their fate, the others' fatalism also stops them from arguing with #4. (Why argue when all hope is gone?)

Therefore, Group 4's true conflict is with Group 2 over the actual direction DCI is heading. So, we witness the "we have to do something" vs the "don't change anything; it's all good" argument. While Group 4 doesn't hate - actually prefers - DCI, their criticisms of current practice irk Group 2, who see no wrong with it and see any criticism of the status quo as knocking DCI. IOW, from their POV, #2 views #1 & #4 as one and the same a lot of the time.

The movie "The Ten Commandments" has a fantastic scene early on where, as Pharoah brings a list of criticisms against Moses, a silent Ramses adds a weight on one side of a scale for each argument Pharoah airs. Moses has a single, great reply that quashes all the criticisms, which he visually punctuates by slamming a brick down on the opposite side of the scale. As these corps, like Fever, keep "going inactive" (such a euphemism), these little weights keep getting added to the scale.

Does the jr corps community have an effective answer, such that they can dramatically tip the scale in favor of DCI's survival?

[JimF-LowBari]

And, as far as the "DCI is OK; individual corps are lousy" crowd is concerned..

Had to laugh when I saw this because of all the times I've seen a knee jerk reaction given as:

"DCI is the individual corps"

Reply to all: Seriously, having been around when many Senior/All Age corps went under I know that there were many factors involved. But IMO, the biggest of all was cost and it's getting harder (hard Hell, impossible) to afford a full sized corps, especially a touring one. So is the answer to blame/insult corps when they have problems or is a better response to figure out how to keep Drum Corps alive. DCA had 13 corps show up in the early 1990s and I predicted Senior corps would be gone by 2000. Thank goodness, people in charge of DCA decided "business as usual" wasn't working and changed things around. Guess the people in Dales group #2 would have had problems with that.

OK rant and hijack over. But thinking about things that make us uneasy (like I think Liam is trying to do) is the only way to survive.

Edited April 29, 2008 by JimF-3rdBari

[Liam]

Dale -- nice post and thanks for the honest read of mine (and thanks also for only quoting two lines of my ridiculously long post )

I've read your post over 4 or 5 times, and I generally agree with what you've said. I guess I would be categorized in Group 4 of your universe, except that I wouldn't say necessarily that there are "problems" (as in something is currently being done wrong), but rather the environment is changing around us and we have to recognize that we need to change to adapt and grow. Semantics, perhaps -- I think in general we're saying the same thing.

It's funny that some (not all!!!) of the same folks who argue for constant change and "evolution" on the field, criticize any call for anything different to be done off it. Just "better management folks" are needed but not "better manangement ideas". I rarely, if ever, criticize the on field decisions (even though I have opinions and taste preferences, certainly) because I leave that stuff up to the designers and judges. Much like in my businesses, I leave the engineering up to the engineers because they know that stuff better. But that side of the business has to be balanced (and yes, sometimes overruled) by the "business" side of the business. Sometimes a business comes to a critical point in its path that it has to make an overarching strategy decision that affects everything -- engineering decisions, marketing decisions, hiring/firing decisions, product line decisions, pricing decisions, etc. etc. etc. It's not a condemnation of the past or a placing of blame or anything like that. It's a realization that for whatever reason (competitors, economy, societal changes, new technology, whatever) the company has to chart a new path to succeed. I believe drum corps is at such a moment. The on-field evolution has been phenomenal over the past two decades. It has happened throughout the activity because of a common goal of on-field greatness. It is now time, in my opinion, to undertake a similar renaissance plan for management structure/financial stability/growth in numbers/etc.

So I agree with your analysis. I also believe that the folks in all 4 of the groups you laid out hold a piece of the future. I believe we need to put the blame game behind us and all join Group 4 -- the future can indeed be bright, but not until we agree to define that light to which we are heading.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Liam

[audiodb]

It's funny that some (not all!!!) of the same folks who argue for constant change and "evolution" on the field, criticize any call for anything different to be done off it.

Quoted for eloquence.

[corpsvalues]

I believe we need to put the blame game behind us and all join Group 4 -- the future can indeed be bright, but not until we agree to define that light to which we are heading.

Hear, hear!

Kudos to you, sir.

[Tom Brace]

Dale -- nice post and thanks for the honest read of mine (and thanks also for only quoting two lines of my ridiculously long post )

I've read your post over 4 or 5 times, and I generally agree with what you've said. I guess I would be categorized in Group 4 of your universe, except that I wouldn't say necessarily that there are "problems" (as in something is currently being done wrong), but rather the environment is changing around us and we have to recognize that we need to change to adapt and grow. Semantics, perhaps -- I think in general we're saying the same thing.

It's funny that some (not all!!!) of the same folks who argue for constant change and "evolution" on the field, criticize any call for anything different to be done off it. Just "better management folks" are needed but not "better manangement ideas". I rarely, if ever, criticize the on field decisions (even though I have opinions and taste preferences, certainly) because I leave that stuff up to the designers and judges. Much like in my businesses, I leave the engineering up to the engineers because they know that stuff better. But that side of the business has to be balanced (and yes, sometimes overruled) by the "business" side of the business. Sometimes a business comes to a critical point in its path that it has to make an overarching strategy decision that affects everything -- engineering decisions, marketing decisions, hiring/firing decisions, product line decisions, pricing decisions, etc. etc. etc. It's not a condemnation of the past or a placing of blame or anything like that. It's a realization that for whatever reason (competitors, economy, societal changes, new technology, whatever) the company has to chart a new path to succeed. I believe drum corps is at such a moment. The on-field evolution has been phenomenal over the past two decades. It has happened throughout the activity because of a common goal of on-field greatness. It is now time, in my opinion, to undertake a similar renaissance plan for management structure/financial stability/growth in numbers/etc.

So I agree with your analysis. I also believe that the folks in all 4 of the groups you laid out hold a piece of the future. I believe we need to put the blame game behind us and all join Group 4 -- the future can indeed be bright, but not until we agree to define that light to which we are heading.

Liam and Dale...both great thoughts in this.

I would like to think I'm a group 4 person, however, many would paint me otherwise. What I would add to this echoes Liam's thoughts. External factors not recognized, not adapted to, not overcome will squash this activity. This is at every level.

For DCI...the Midwest has a strong advantage right now and the finals location in Indiana helps a great deal. The East Coast corps will suffer a bit more over the travel costs. Southern corps and especially the western corps will face greater challenges.

For DCA...the non NY/East Coast area corps will see greater and greater challenges in getting to finals unless bids are submitted to move the finals to other areas to help share the travel burden.

From opening up Alaska, draining the oil reserve, ethanol production, etc...none of this will solve the issue of too many vehicles running on high demand fossil fuels. And India and China's demand is ever increasing as well. Guess What? Africa is next with higher and higher demand.

So, what to do? I believe we have some of the smartest brains in the activity who post and or read DCP. So, remember the RAMD symposium? I know it had its share of crackpots...but what about a DCP Symposium? One topic. Drum Corps for the next 30 years.

Again, we have a wealth for folks with quite divergent opinions. Can we listen to each other? Can we build on ideas? Can we form a braintrust to benefit the activity, organizations, corps, members and fans?

Thoughts?

[Liam]

I believe we have some of the smartest brains in the activity who post and or read DCP.

Wait ........ what?!?!?

[Liam]

Seriously, Tom, excellent post ... and I agree that a new kind of discussion has to be had.

I think the most important and next step is to define the goals. From there comes strategy and from there comes policy and other day-to-day decisions.

What should the 5 year-10 year - whatever goal of drum corps be. I believe that the goals should be centered around growth. The on-field creativity stuff has advanced immensely and won't be put back in a box, but now, imo, it's time to turn the primary focus to growth. But we need to set specific goals before we start talking about specific plans.

As an quick example, let's examine these two growth goals:

Goal 1 -- In 10 years time, we have 100 corps participating at all levels at Finals.

Goal 2 -- In 10 years time, we have at least 1 competitive corps in each of the 48 continental US states.

So you can see, both of these are growth goals, but would each need a different strategy and attack plan to achieve. Goal 1 might encourage multiple corps under 1 umbrella that share resources, etc. Goal 2 might encourage more local/regional support and circuits. Or imagine a 3rd possible growth goal that targets not corps number increases, but member number increases. This might encourage larger corps sizes, for example.

(DISCLAIMER: I am not advocating or even suggesting any of these goals or approaches, simply showing off-the-top-of-my-head examples to point out the purpose and need for setting goals first)

Anyway -- I agree the discussion should be had. It should include anyone and everyone willing to drop all preconceived and/or historical biases and talk frankly and honestly. And the first phase of the agenda is to define your specific goals for the activity. What will we call success?

[Dale Bari]

As an quick example, let's examine these two growth goals:

Goal 1 -- In 10 years time, we have 100 corps participating at all levels at Finals.

Goal 2 -- In 10 years time, we have at least 1 competitive corps in each of the 48 continental US states.

I agree that a meeting of the minds may shake loose some useful and out-of-the-box thoughts. Just be realistic in discussing goals: at its height (1981-1982), DCI reached a maximum of 92 corps at Finals. Those numbers will be hard to reach, let alone 100.

To create an environment for smaller corps to compete regionally at first, before being exposed to a national-scale tour, having one corps per state in some regions (I'm thinking Northwest right now) may not be a realistic criterion. A better idea might be to seed smaller urban areas (50,000-200,000 pop.) that are reasonably close to one another.

[Liam]

Hence the DISCLAIMER

My ONLY point was that I believe we need to set some specific goals first -- whatever they are. They should be theoretically realistic, but not easy. "Stretch goals" they are often called. If you can get to 60 then your goal should be 80. Maybe you make 70 which is better than you would have had if your goal was 60, etc. (Again, only EXAMPLES -- there are lots of different ways to define "growth" other than just # of corps).

But it is imperative to have SPECIFIC goals, not just "our goal is growth". That doesn't mean anything and doesn't permeate down through your strategy to specific action steps.

1) Set specific goals

2) Develop a series of long-term and short term strategies to attain said goals

3) Implement and orient all aspects of your organization/activity to comply with those strategies as a path to said goals

4) Repeat

Edited April 29, 2008 by Liam