For-Profit Drum Corps

[bluecoats88]

well they came out with Shockwave after Blast, but I haven't heard much about it.

[Gator Eagle]

I hereby take this opportunity to again plug that dream of dreams for me...

To see the Hooters Drum & Bugle Corps take the field in all of their orange-clad, chicken wings and pitchers of beer glory.

Oh, the all-female color guard they would have...and they wouldn't even need to change their uniforms

[madscout96]

2) You'd have to shrink the corps a bit, to maybe 90 members (2 buses), or even less.

You'd definately have to do this (maybe it should be done anyway!)

If you think about the number of performers on the field vs. the number in the audience at a drum corps show, it's not a good ratio if you want to pay all the performers. At a typical Major League Baseball game, you have 25 players on each team, that are all paid a huge amount of money. Then all their staff gets paid alot too. And there are about 25,000 people in the stands who paid an average of, say, $25 each to get in. So they'll rake in about $625,000 a night, distribute that amongst the 50 players and they get $12,500 for one night's work.

Please excuse my math, it's approximate lol.

At a TYPICAL drum corps show (let's say 6 corps), you have about 130 players on each team, times six, that's 780 performers vs. baseball's 50! I'll be generous and say there are 8,000 people in the stands who paid on average $25 to get in. They rake in $200,000 total, distributed evenly amongst the 780 performers, and they get $256.41 a piece for one night. Pretty good, but of course the staff hasn't been paid yet, they haven't eaten yet, they haven't put gas in the vehicles yet, and they don't have housing yet! And this is for a show with 6 corps. What about a show with more? You'll have to get a ton more tickets sold. And sure, souveniers will bring in some money, sponsors can help pay for some equipment, but I don't think the current model could be able to pay its members, not even a little stipend.

You'd have to have WAY fewer total performers at each show, either with smaller corps or fewer corps (with longer shows). How many people were in the cast of Blast! at any given time? less than 50, I think, right? Compare that to 780, everyone gets more pie with a smaller group.

[Jeff DeMello]

Oh, Jeff...that is so far afield of what ultimately happened I don't even know where to begin.

Blast! took awhile to turn the corner and those involved with its creation and promotion had to have patience. But then it became a smashing commercial success and a testament to the saying that all good things come to those who wait.

Thanks, Mike. I was not aware of the "turn the corner" bit.

As far as a "smashing commercial success" ... well, let's just say I'd be interested in seeing the overall ROI before I declared that! If they did make money, more power to them!

[Jeff DeMello]

While that is true, non-profits have to be very careful where they garner their revenue. For example, they cannot develop an outside business in which employees are paid to generate corporate income; the IRS views that as non-related business income. So, non-profits are relegated to raising funds strictly through patron donations, through thrift stores, through membership dues, through ticket and souvenir sales, or where legal through Bingo. However, a for-profit company can diversify by owning various outside franchises, like Fast Food Restaurants, to generate great amounts of revenue from outside of the activities it supports. Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, also owns a multitude of shopping complexes in which he funnels revenue into the Cowboys. That process is illegal in the world of non-profit.

Sorry, Stu ... not true. Hughes Aerospace employed thousands and thousands of people, built satellites, airplanes, rockets, and they were a division of a huge Hughes Medical non-profit corp. It's completely legal as long as ALL of the profits are funneled back into the corp, and not dispersed to "stakeholders".

[Jeff DeMello]

I'm still confused as to this discussion. To use the example in this discussion, symphony orchestras pay all their performers, ranging from smaller ones that pay anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000 depending on position, to the best orchestras like NY and LA that pay their principal performers around $120,000 per season, so being non-profit doesn't preclude a drum corps paying performers--it would just mean that they stop being groups that exist to educate youth, and become professional groups. Even the most profitable (because remember, non-profits can make a profit--they just don't have to turn around and give it to a group of investors) and well-paying orchestras still run fundraisers and have donors, even though they make money on their performances.

So I guess my ultimate question is still, "What advantage would designating a corps 'for-profit' bestow on them that they don't have as non-profits?"

There is no advantage to being for-profit. The BIG disadvantage is that they would now have to pay LOTS of taxes.

[Stu]

Sorry, Stu ... not true. Hughes Aerospace employed thousands and thousands of people, built satellites, airplanes, rockets, and they were a division of a huge Hughes Medical non-profit corp. It's completely legal as long as ALL of the profits are funneled back into the corp, and not dispersed to "stakeholders".

We are actually in agreement. If you read my post correctly you would see the term (non related) business income. Somehow Hughes was able to convience the IRS that Rockets and Medical are somehow inter-related. Hughes Medical could not have opened say a chain of Fast Food BBQ Joints to raise money for their non-profit (unless of course they could somehow claim it was a health study on the impact of fatty foods :)

[Jeff DeMello]

We are actually in agreement. If you read my post correctly you would see the term (non related) business income. Somehow Hughes was able to convience the IRS that Rockets and Medical are somehow inter-related. Hughes Medical could not have opened say a chain of Fast Food BBQ Joints to raise money for their non-profit (unless of course they could somehow claim it was a health study on the impact of fatty foods :)

Actually, Howard Hughes donated Hughes Aerospace to his non-profit medical foundation (must have been a nice write-off!).

[JimF-LowBari]

We are actually in agreement. If you read my post correctly you would see the term (non related) business income. Somehow Hughes was able to convience the IRS that Rockets and Medical are somehow inter-related. Hughes Medical could not have opened say a chain of Fast Food BBQ Joints to raise money for their non-profit (unless of course they could somehow claim it was a health study on the impact of fatty foods :)

Think the relationship was that the non-profit HHM? (Howard Hughes Medical forget last word) owned/controlled Hughes Air & Space. Didn't matter that Hughes A&S had come first (actually Hughes Tool & die was first under Howies dad). The non-profit group can own company/companies that create a profit as long as (a certain percent) go into the non-profits operating fund.

Ford did the same thing with a medical facility/research place in Detroit (Henry Ford forget that name too). John D Rockfeller did it even earlier IIRC but but a while since I read about it and forget the details.

Think the key in the corporations is that the non-profits own a huge amount of the stock so they control/"own" the for profits. Yeah, I've read up on Hughes, Ford and JD Rockefeller for various historical reasons.

Edited May 15, 2010 by JimF-LowBari

[Stu]

Think the relationship was that the non-profit HHM? (Howard Hughes Medical forget last word) owned/controlled Hughes Air & Space. Didn't matter that Hughes A&S had come first (actually Hughes Tool & die was first under Howies dad). The non-profit group can own company/companies that create a profit as long as (a certain percent) go into the non-profits operating fund.

Ford did the same thing with a medical facility/research place in Detroit (Henry Ford forget that name too). John D Rockfeller did it even earlier IIRC but but a while since I read about it and forget the details.

Think the key in the corporations is that the non-profits own a huge amount of the stock so they control/"own" the for profits. Yeah, I've read up on Hughes, Ford and JD Rockefeller for various historical reasons.

This sounds like what Cook was wanting to do with Star and why he believed that corporate connections was the wave of the future. Am I understanding you correctly?