Newseditor44 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I thought we recorded the top 6 (well, the final 6 performances) live in 92 and 93. (Which meant my parents still got to see us in 92, even though... well, you know. ) If they were on delay, it wasn't more than a day or so, I'm sure. (Certainly not the months later situation it evolved to.) Actually, a friend of the family recorded 92 for us via satellite (pre DirecTV), so we even got some pre-show Goudy/Rondinaro banter. And my parents saw 94 live via a theater simulcast. The live broadcasts were dark from 1994-1998, returned in 1999. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blucoater Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 The DCI live broadcasts stopped (1980 or 81 if you'd care to split hairs) as home video was asserting its dominance in the US. Whether it was Reagan-era cuts to PBS or a far-sighted scheme by DCI to whet appetites for the albums and videocassettes, I don't think those days are coming back any time soon. PBS is basically a dried-out, dessiccated husk of what it used to be, and anyway, DCI obviously doesn't want to go the "coastal elite" route that PBS has been tarred with, choosing ESPN2 and the whole "Marching Music's Major League" concept instead.And we know how truly great that was. Short answer: DCI won't let you watch finals because they want you to buy the DVD of Finals instead. Time was, watching one (for free, maybe on delay) meant whetting one's appetite for the other (see the turnaround in fortune of the Chicago Blackhawks for a salient "sports world" example), but DCI apparently doesn't see it that way. Is my family the only one that was watching drum corp in 2006-2007 on broadcast TV? Broadcast exposure motivated my son and countless others to join drum corps. Closed circuit webcasts and dvd sales do nothing to expand the fan and participation base for DCI, it's preaching to the choir. There is a zillion cable tv channels with nothing but crap on. You can't tell me that offering the rights to broadcast finals to one of these channels for a price wouldn't make up for lost DVD sales. FIND A SPONSOR that will pay for the rights. FIND SEVERAL SPONSORS. Hell, IN and OUT BURGER sells enough product to Drum corps to make it worth their while.... As long as the DVD has enough content that's not in the broadcast, people will still buy them. I wonder if there are a lot of fans that want this to be some exclusive club, rather than trying to be a inclusive as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rondad@mybert.com Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 It seems to me that if they had closed-circuit for the finals rather than the quarterfinals, they would generate just as much revenue. If quarters are worth $15, I bet most viewers would pay $25 for Finals. I for one would never travel to Indy for Finals. I also won't pay $120 for a DVD set that isn't issued until 3-4 months after Finals. So from a revenue standpoint they would see positive revenue if I could pay to see Finals. And I bet there's another 5,000 or more folks just like me around the country. Do they really think that DVD sales and Finals attendance would shrink by the number of people who would skip them if they could watch Finals live? But I WOULD pay $25 to see Finals at the local theater - and I would go to BOTH quarters and Finals. Now if they think a lot of people would JUST go to finals and not quarters - but I have a solution there, too. Make Quarters a webcast just like Semi's. Or make Quarters a webcast, Semi's a cable/satellite PPV, and Finals closed-circuit at the movies. Price them quarters $15, PPV $25 (because more than 1 viewer can watch for a single fee) and $25 at the movies. I'm a Fan Network member, but I'm very disappointed at the video quality. I connect my computer to a larger TV and all I see are blurred blobs with legs. So I would absolutely buy a PPV or go to a closed-circuit performance. I hope that DCI is not broadcasting finals for financial reasons, i.e. they have done the analysis of various media distributions of finals and they've concluded that doing it the way they do now is the most financially successful. But if they are doing this only on a hunch or supposition that it will reduce the attendance at Indy, I think they have missed the boat. I think that they need to continue to stimulate interest - and EXPOSURE - to as many people as possible. Otherwise, in another 10 years the activity will be run by "Marching Band International." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rondad@mybert.com Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 According to the folks at DCI...ESPN owns the rights for 2009 so we will get the same package this season that we have the past three. What ESPN rights? They didn't broadcast finals last year at all - even delayed 2 months! They only did that for 2 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Is my family the only one that was watching drum corp in 2006-2007 on broadcast TV? Broadcast exposure motivated my son and countless others to join drum corps. Closed circuit webcasts and dvd sales do nothing to expand the fan and participation base for DCI, it's preaching to the choir. There is a zillion cable tv channels with nothing but crap on. You can't tell me that offering the rights to broadcast finals to one of these channels for a price wouldn't make up for lost DVD sales. FIND A SPONSOR that will pay for the rights. FIND SEVERAL SPONSORS. Hell, IN and OUT BURGER sells enough product to Drum corps to make it worth their while.... As long as the DVD has enough content that's not in the broadcast, people will still buy them. I wonder if there are a lot of fans that want this to be some exclusive club, rather than trying to be a inclusive as possible. Bottom line is this... it costs money to put on a television broadcast, and DCI was footing the bill for EVERYTHING. The ESPN show was nothing more than an highly-produced infomercial (no offense meant Tom). DCI paid ESPN for the broadcast time and for the cost of the production (which was up in the six figures). And I believe that ESPN also walked away with the revenues from ad sales. And from a production standpoint, the cost isn't cheap. It takes a VERY LARGE crew to put together a broadcast like that, and Tom hired the best people in the biz to help out, many of whom I would assume came at discount rates. By the time you put all of the expenses together, in this economic climate, DCI concluded that the ROI just wasn't there. It was the right call. But with the internet brings new opportunities and I'm guessing we will start to see some new ventures for the online audience in 2010 once the contract with ESPN expires. I've heard rumors that there will be much more from Championship week online next year. What that means exactly probably has not been ironed out. I'm guessing that DCI will probably investigate new avenues for a television broadcast as well, possibly on an outlet you might not have thought would ever be involved. making it easier is the fact that the Lucas Oil Field has a state of the art broadcast facility and control room, all with built in HD capability. I would think this would eleminate the need to rent an HD truck and crew which is VERY expensive for a week. But this would all hinge on the state of the economy as well. If the money isn't there, then it doesn't make sense to do it. Lot's of cool stuff in the future, you just have to be patient. For a lot of us, the television broadcast was the catalyst for us getting involved in the activity and I have no doubt that putting the show on hiatus was very difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) What ESPN rights? They didn't broadcast finals last year at all - even delayed 2 months! They only did that for 2 years... DCI signed a contract with ESPN giving ESPN the rights to DCI World Class Finals coverage through the 2009 season. What this means is that DCI buys the air time from ESPN and produces the show and hands it over to ESPN for broadcast. ESPN is nothing more than a host or an outlet for the DCI produced show. In 2008, DCI announced it would not be producing the broadcast. Despite that fact that DCI has decided not to produce a show, ESPN still owns the rights through 2009, meaning the World Class Finals (Saturday night top 12 show) cannot be broadcast elsewhere with ESPN's permission, and this includes any broadcast on the internet, live or taped. That is why you do not see ANY finals video online. DCI still holds the rights to broadcast the quarterfinals broadcast in the theaters. Edited July 16, 2009 by Newseditor44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicBobert Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 To be honest, I almost guarantee there was a provision for this in the Indy contract. There's probably a clause in there specifically prohibiting the live broadcast of finals, on TV, the internet, or any other form. If the city of Indy didn't include that in their contract then they're morons. The amount of money Indy will bring in in tourism is not only substantial, but regular due to the length of the contract. You can bet they had that income protected with everything they've got in the contract. Yes a live broadcast of finals would hurt Finals attendance. The hardcore fans would still go, but half the stadium would not. Disclaimer: I have not read the DCI/Indy contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) To be honest, I almost guarantee there was a provision for this in the Indy contract.There's probably a clause in there specifically prohibiting the live broadcast of finals, on TV, the internet, or any other form. If the city of Indy didn't include that in their contract then they're morons. The amount of money Indy will bring in in tourism is not only substantial, but regular due to the length of the contract. You can bet they had that income protected with everything they've got in the contract. Yes a live broadcast of finals would hurt Finals attendance. The hardcore fans would still go, but half the stadium would not. Disclaimer: I have not read the DCI/Indy contract. Why would you want to prohibit the very thing that would help promote your event/city, just for a few thousand tickets, if that? The number one objective for the city of Indianapolis is to increase tourism and get it's name out there. Having a TV show would do much more for boosting tourism for the city than not having one. It's two hours of free advertising to a national audience. It's showcasing their brand-spanking new stadium in HD. It's showing the world that not only do they have the Colts and the 500, but they are a town that loves the arts. If I were the city of Indianapolis I would be working to find a way to get the world championships back on TV. For Indy and DCI its not just about selling tickets.. People who are going to come and enjoy the show in person will do so regardless of a TV or internet broadcast. There is much more to all of this then just selling tickets folks. Think outside the box and the answers will come. Edited July 16, 2009 by Newseditor44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blucoater Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Bottom line is this... it costs money to put on a television broadcast, and DCI was footing the bill for EVERYTHING. The ESPN show was nothing more than an highly-produced infomercial (no offense meant Tom). DCI paid ESPN for the broadcast time and for the cost of the production (which was up in the six figures). And I believe that ESPN also walked away with the revenues from ad sales. And from a production standpoint, the cost isn't cheap. It takes a VERY LARGE crew to put together a broadcast like that, and Tom hired the best people in the biz to help out, many of whom I would assume came at discount rates. By the time you put all of the expenses together, in this economic climate, DCI concluded that the ROI just wasn't there. It was the right call. But with the internet brings new opportunities and I'm guessing we will start to see some new ventures for the online audience in 2010 once the contract with ESPN expires. I've heard rumors that there will be much more from Championship week online next year. What that means exactly probably has not been ironed out. I'm guessing that DCI will probably investigate new avenues for a television broadcast as well, possibly on an outlet you might not have thought would ever be involved. making it easier is the fact that the Lucas Oil Field has a state of the art broadcast facility and control room, all with built in HD capability. I would think this would eleminate the need to rent an HD truck and crew which is VERY expensive for a week. But this would all hinge on the state of the economy as well. If the money isn't there, then it doesn't make sense to do it. Lot's of cool stuff in the future, you just have to be patient. For a lot of us, the television broadcast was the catalyst for us getting involved in the activity and I have no doubt that putting the show on hiatus was very difficult. Wow, so ESPN saw no value in paying for the rights to the DCI finals, and yet they kept ad revenue? Sounds like a really bad deal for DCI. Especially bad as a muli-year deal. If they tried to pull that with the NFL, there'd be no football on tv. Look, you either believe DCI has value to a broadcaster or not. I believe it does. The key is finding sponsors who do too. DCI should investigate the Big Ten Network, I think the Universities are heavily involved in producing the sports broadcasts on those channels. A lot of the shows are produced at the schools and put on by students, and the programming is pretty light at this time of year. Doesn't Indiana University have a broadcast journalism school? You'd think they would be interested in being involved. By the way, I'm sure Lucas Oil doesn't just give away their broadcast facilities, I wonder what the rentals for that cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Wow, so ESPN saw no value in paying for the rights to the DCI finals, and yet they kept ad revenue? Sounds like a really bad deal for DCI. Especially bad as a muli-year deal. If they tried to pull that with the NFL, there'd be no football on tv. Look, you either believe DCI has value to a broadcaster or not. I believe it does. The key is finding sponsors who do too. Anyone have the rating numbers for the two ESPN broadcasts? Thought they sucked compared to ESPNs normal ratings which was a reason why ESPN didn't pay. Comparing the NFL to DCI with ratings doesn't work. More like comparing DCI to Australian Rules Football (ESPN used to put this on when they started out to fill in programming time). Don't forget folks, we may be passionate about Drum Corps. But there ain't that many of us.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.