Finally, DCI Acknowledges "Issues" At LOS

[Tom Brace]

I am not sold.

Acoustics were supposed to be considered in the stadium design.

Why even take a chance on another year of consideration over an issue that was not even supposed to happen? What are they going to do differently in terms of 2010?

And fans buying premium seats and sitting in front of the 20s is inexcusable. That is just plain inept decision making on the part of DCI.

I am not going to finals in 2010. I will not be sold on corporate propaganda and on the same promise that already fell through.

Is this rocket science?

I love it when small, little not-for-profit DCI is accused of "corporate propoganda. Lovin' it.

[Tom Brace]

There are several outs. DCI is not locked into anything. Contracts can be broken, negotiated, etc. If DCI wanted to leave, it would. But leaving now would be a knee jerk reaction and an idiotic business move. You've got what you got for the next couple years. Putting together a finals location takes at least a years worth of work, and that's after a location has been found and contracts have been negotiated. And on top of that, it costs more money when you decide to move a venue. The TV production will cost more. Extra expenses for staff and headquarters. Stadium fees. Travel... you get the point.

So here's an idea... instead of #####ing about it, how about try and look for ways you can be part of the solution. How about donate some time or send Dan a quick note expressing your concerns in a polite, dignified way. I bet you get a response within a day or two.

Most importantly, just look at the fact that DCI is actually working to address the issues the fans are complaining about the most. Give them a break and have a little patience. If you're really that disgusted with everything, then don't let the door hit you in the @55 on the way out.

Nice call Jason. You and I are in lockstep on this.

[Tom Brace]

That's pure semantics. When something sucks Drum Corps people usually realize it immediately.

That's so untrue. Once they put it on the field...in practice...for the first time...then yes. I would agree.

I can't tell you how often something worked so well in Pyware and then it got to the field in rehearsal...adjustment after adjustment and then...abandoned because it simply wasn't going to work. Looked great on paper or computer, but it wasn't until the kids got on the field that someone went, "Oops."

Same is true here. Indy has upsides. Indy has downsides. Same could be said about almost every location finals has ever been at. Name a finals location and I can name the faults with it. My possible exception may just be Kansas City.

[Tom Brace]

That is amusing, but it's actually a good sign that the survey was carefully designed by people with training and experience, who know what they're doing. Survey questions have to be worded neutrally for the data to be meaningful, and they shouldn't make assumptions without covering all the bases. You don't know, maybe a few people with hearing disorders did think the room was too dry. If the question was written as you might have preferred to reflect your feelings about it, such as:

Did you find the echo where you were sitting to be:

A. Annoying

B. Incredibly annoying

C. So bad you wondered if Lucas Oil was really RCA Dome 2.0

D. So bad that you think the alleged acoustic "engineers" should be hung from the rafters and forced to sit through the next Kanye West gig without earplugs

that's considered to be a leading question that doesn't cover all the answers in a neutral way, go figure, and poor survey design. This shouldn't surprise you, but most poll questions on DCP would not pass muster with marketing research people.

So do you think DCI hired a marketing company to develop the survey. Perhaps Mr. Jacobs called in a favor somewhere?

[Tom Brace]

Sure they are working on it but would love to see the acoustics out part of the contract. IOW - how does one quantify "bad enough" to be able to drop out of the contract.

Wondering since my agency has been burned on contracts in the area of "instant response in case of emergency". It may have been an emergency for my agency but wasn't for the contractor.

Hope it never gets that far but could get real ugly in court if one group (BOA/DCI) tries to use the "acoustics out" option and the other group doesn't.

But, as many point out DCI is BOA so why wouldn't they be consulting each other in this area?

[Tom Brace]

I completely understand and actually agree with your point (and Mr. Brace's), however, my post was in response to criticisms about criticizing. My goal was to express why people have a legitimate right to complain. People should be able to express their views, especially in a largely harmless format like this, particularly when those views are challenged. Certainly, that's one of the purposes of this planet, and we all agree that the very concept is supported by the First Amendment.

Anyway, yes, there are many ways that people can constructively deal with any dissatisfaction that they have, and my assumption is that any reasonable person will do that (or has done that) in any number of ways, dealing directly with DCI. Though I like to think of myself as one that never gives up, I am also keenly aware of when the battle is over and the war is lost. I experienced first hand how some very influential, in fact legendary people (DCI Hall of Fame members) were turned away by DCI for attempting to persuade them to not go down this and other roads. But we are now here. So be it. I'm still going to enjoy the corps, support those individuals and organizations that I choose to, and complain on DCP about DCI from time to time. I assume that's okay.

Having said all of that, perhaps DCI's attempts to finally ask its customers what they want will create a new approach to their strategic planning processes, even if it's only to keep the corporation (if not the junior corps activity) afloat. Time will tell.

You and I could have a great discussion about our versions of "what road DCI has gone down." I see this track as inevitable. And it comes down to one single restriction...the under 22 rule. If DCI were allowed members from all age groups, DCI would be much different. But, when you restrict the age to under 22, these marching members, their needs, the needs of their parents need to be focal in the decision making process.

I believe the directors of these DCI corps have, to the best of their abilities, taken the needs of their current and future drum corps marching members into consideration. And in this, as a fan, I have to take a back seat. I'm good with that. Other, all age circuits do not have to take this factor in consideration.

[corps-mudgeon]

So do you think DCI hired a marketing company to develop the survey. Perhaps Mr. Jacobs called in a favor somewhere?

It was administered by a marketing company.

[Tom Brace]

It was administered by a marketing company.

That's a good move.

[Phillygwm]

Why would that be in there? That has nothing to do with the concerns of the stadium. It will not help anything to muddy up the waters with mentioning factors of the activity not directly related to the issue they are trying to address.

I agree with Ed. The reason I won't return to Championships has more to do with electronics than with the venue itself. While LOS was far from ideal, I would have given it another shot.

I answered the survey but I'm afraid DCI is going to use LOS an an excuse for why attendance will be off next year (if, indeed, that is the case.) And that IS a big piece of the puzzle for most people, it's just not the entire reason.

[Phillygwm]

so is that first part just a hunch too or do you know for a fact that there are out clauses?

because if they have an out clause and don't take it....

I spent 3 days in that dump...the sound is the worst of the problems (and is not fixable) but it has many other problems too

Good question. I've heard a lot of people at and around the show who claim to know people who know the contract. But I regard that as a rumor because I have no reason to trust (or not) any of the people I spoke to.

What we DO know, is what DCI said last year, namely that there are provisions for correcting issues in the contract. Whether that's financial remuneration, or an "out clause" or something less tangible, who knows?