Would DCI allow a For-Profit corps?

[DrumCorpsFan27]

I'd like to see this happen... maybe ALL drum corps should be "for-proft." It would be interesting to see how a drum corps would create a product that a wider market would actually pay to see.

Nah, the elitists would never allow this. Why create something for a wider market when we can have our straight and narrow?

[Mark in AZ]

The scenario that was laid out does not make the corps "for profit." The scenario of a rich person paying for the expenses of the corps has been done before (Star of Indiana -- at least the start up) and would not necesarily make the corps "for profit." However, the real difference here is that the members are getting paid. I believe that this would make the corps a "professional" group. Does DCI allow for this? Many sports organization (such as high schools and colleges) do not allow teams with paid members. This means that they are "professionals." (Of course, this is open to debate when big time college programs pay for so much for their atheletes. However, they do not pay them a salary.)

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Two questions (not necessarily from the same train of thought, but I'll ask them both anyway):

1. What does fan support have to do with it?

2. What makes you certain they would win?

Just sayin',

Fred O.

P.S. I don't think DCI would buy it, either.

Fan support means money for that corps. Something a for-profit organization would be looking for.

Paying the best to be members of your corps would increase the chances of your winning, especially if you had the best staff to teach them. It's kind of like the Yankees. No guarantees, but in the long haul, the results should prove the system.

The question then goes back to your first question, is their enough support for a corps to pull that off (as there is for the Yankees). I tend to doubt it at this point. A single corps would have to bring in a minimum of a couple million to pull it off each year, for starters. I don't think that's out there at this time.

I don't think DCI would go for it either. If one or two corps became that strong, they could overthrow the DCI management.

[Dave]

The scenario that was laid out does not make the corps "for profit." The scenario of a rich person paying for the expenses of the corps has been done before (Star of Indiana -- at least the start up) and would not necesarily make the corps "for profit." However, the real difference here is that the members are getting paid. I believe that this would make the corps a "professional" group. Does DCI allow for this? Many sports organization (such as high schools and colleges) do not allow teams with paid members. This means that they are "professionals." (Of course, this is open to debate when big time college programs pay for so much for their atheletes. However, they do not pay them a salary.)

Would be interesting to know if DCI's charter addresses that...I don't think there's any legal issues that cover it (after all, if they pay the staff, the members aren't exactly a stretch). But, I can't think of any reason a person would want to try to hire members. Even the best-run corps aren't exactly pulling in huge profits, and drum corps is not a high-dollar moneymaking form of entertainment. So corps would be paying people to try to...win? Not exactly worth it from a monetary standpoint. You're not even getting real sponsorships, compared to the sponsorships you see in professional sports. Getting the seven people in my band down the road is an expensive enough venture when you're paying the members...I can't imagine what kind of money it would cost to fund a corps that was being paid to march and still participate in the DCI touring model.

[sky]

Good points all, Dave. I absolutely agree with you.

And to address some of the comments on corps' inability to compete for market share, advertising, etc:

Non-profits are "private" entities, not "public" (only government is public sector) even though much of their funding may come from public sources or from tax-deductible contributions.

They are, first and foremost, businesses...just as any for-profit in the business sector and must be run accordingly. This means that their marketing, sales and other business plans and strategies (mentioned in a few posts) need to be up to the level of competition of private enterprise or they'll go the way of many other corps and businesses --into extinction. Universities (someone gave the example of Harvard) and hospitals are clearly the leaders in the non-profit world in terms of financial and business acumen; success depends upon how well an organization fulfills its mission and, of course, how compelling or important that mission (or product) is to the broadest possible market.

Steve

Edited December 21, 2008 by sky

[silvertrombone]

The question is, "Would DCI allow a for-profit corps?" The answer is no, because a corps that was operated as a legally for-profit business would not be allowed to participate as a member (and I'm using member in the loosest possible sense, not the "made the top whatever" sense) of DCI the non-profit entity. For-profit or non-profit has nothing to do with how much money is taken in or paid out, it's the legal definition of the business. Now, DCI could probably hire such a group if it were so inclined to do so for whatever reason, but they couldn't allow them to be the same level of participant that the other 501©3 groups in DCI are because of the legalities involved. This is what I was originally addressing on the subject of people answering the wrong question. It's not "can a corps turn a profit," which has both a practical and a legal answer (both of which are "yes").

After all that I said, I can now say that the simple answer is simply, "No--DCI would not allow such a beast." My purpose was filling in some of the issues as to why such a thing would not work.

Now, fill up a 3-hour performance with a live DC with paid professionals doing all sorts of different performances and you've got something. Heck, just the "niche" market would pay to see such a thing in February me thinks!

As for the term "professional" coming into the discussion, professionals work for non-profit symphonies all over the country. Again, paid staff work for United Way, Salvation Army, etc. In this sense, the Dallas Symphony is no different than Baptist Men's Association or Boy Scouts of America. "Professional" has no bearing on the discussion until you start talking about paying members...a term that would be inaccurate at that point, I imagine. Performers, etc. But members just doesn't sound right for a professional ensemble.

The Dallas Cowboys are "professional" and for-profit. The Texas Longhorns are neither.

The Marine Band is "professional" and non-profit. Just some examples to chew on.

[Liam]

Dave and sky (Steve): I was half way through these posts when I started crafting my usual "not-for-profit definition post" that I always feel compelled to share when the common misconceptions pop up in threads like this. Then I saw your posts -- glad to see that I have help here!!! Everything you guys said was right on ....

I am curious, though (if a little OT), whether DCI specifically has a rule against paying members. I understand that the members get a "benefit" of education/training/etc whether or not they pay dues and I also understand the points that it would probably not be financially wise to try. Still, does anyone know if there is a specific rule about paying money (cash) to members to perform?

(There might not be, figuring who would ever do it ... still ...)

Edited December 23, 2008 by Liam

[Liam]

Also, as for the overall question of whether it could be done as a for-profit, I can think of several reasons to do it that way.

1. As a division of a larger entertainment company that produces broadway shows, etc. Like a division of Blast or something.

2. As a division of an instrument and/or music publishing company. The corps could acceptably run at a loss which is basically one big advertising/marketing expense for the companies equipment/music.

3. As a community outreach program of a large regional organization ... similar to companies that put together semi-pro baseball teams or the like. Most professional basketball teams in Europe are company-owned/sponsored, for example (or at least they used to be).

4. Not actually making a profit is no big deal as these can offset other taxable gains elsewhere in the organization. Large companies have money-losing division all the time that they keep going as loss-leaders for other products/division, as r&d, as marketing arms, etc.

I agree that it would be of questionable wisdom to start a stand-alone entity corps as for-profit because its unlikely that you would be any better off without the tax deductible donations and grants. But I think there would be very strong reasons to have a corps as part of a larger for-profit organization .... with one very convincing argument not to ... namely that DCI's 501c status does not allow it!!!

Good topic and not a bad idea at all. In fact it's such a good idea to mix for-profit and not-for-profit ventures that the tax law specifically forbids it so that not-for-profits can maintain some incentives for funding!!!

Now if you want to start a seperate for-profit circuit to attract new for-profit corps of the kind I mentioned ....

[sky]

After all that I said, I can now say that the simple answer is simply, "No--DCI would not allow such a beast." My purpose was filling in some of the issues as to why such a thing would not work.

Now, fill up a 3-hour performance with a live DC with paid professionals doing all sorts of different performances and you've got something. Heck, just the "niche" market would pay to see such a thing in February me thinks!

As for the term "professional" coming into the discussion, professionals work for non-profit symphonies all over the country. Again, paid staff work for United Way, Salvation Army, etc. In this sense, the Dallas Symphony is no different than Baptist Men's Association or Boy Scouts of America. "Professional" has no bearing on the discussion until you start talking about paying members...a term that would be inaccurate at that point, I imagine. Performers, etc. But members just doesn't sound right for a professional ensemble.

The Dallas Cowboys are "professional" and for-profit. The Texas Longhorns are neither.

The Marine Band is "professional" and non-profit. Just some examples to chew on.

Hi, Silver,

Yeah, fill in one issue and a load of others pop up...just like the potholes this time of the year.

Was reading your post and followed your logic all the way to the end, almost...

Sorry, but the Texas Longhorns (the university/team) are non-profit; the players are amateur (supposedly). And, as for the Marine Band - it's not a non-profit. It's "public sector," an arm of the government. The word "member" is pretty loaded in most instances and generally too vague: the member could pay, volunteer or be paid. But, you're right, there are two distinctions to be made: 1/ the organization: private, public or non-proit and 2/ the individual or member (see above).

SKY

Edited December 24, 2008 by sky

[JimF-LowBari]

And, as for the Marine Band - it's not a non-profit. It's "public sector," an arm of the government.

SKY

Hey Steve, kinda remember having this discussion with someone years ago about one of the Armys musical groups. Think the funding for Armed Forces musical groups falls under "Publicity" which means it's the same pots of money used to put "US Army" on the NASCAR racers. Forget how the Service Academies fund trips for their Drum Corps.

Geesh, too bad Cindy Crawford isn't on line right now as she grew up with a lot of this.

Edited December 24, 2008 by JimF-3rdBari