New tour concept for 2011 proposed

[dbc03]

Ahh, there we go. So there is no need for you to say "no offense" when clearly you were trying to offend me. Just stand by it. It's cool with me.

It's no problem that you feel that way, really. You only have what I post on DCP to feel the way you feel, which is fine with me. But I don't really think you can say for sure that's the attitude those corps directors who proposed this idea were trying to reflect. But like many people have said before, its better to get more details before you try labeling people.

So call me arrogant if you wish, doesn't really matter to me buddy.

Don't worry it isn't really arrogance since we really are better than everybody else

[fecontra]

Oh baby.... Reduction in Force'd (yep long time gov't employee here)

Saw rif and thought of when where I worked was under BRAC (Base Re-Alignment and Closure Committee). Best defense when you think you might lose your job is to show to the public how important you and your employer is the community at large. Might be a lesson here for the non-G7 corps.

I am a dinosaur with 32 years of continuity ( although i have been out-sourced in-sourced and co-sourced ) in the private sector ( it used to be called fmp - force management protocol ) - at least i have two pensions already and a modern 401 thing going for me!

I wonder how many of the pro George-7 are sycophants sent to influence the discussion.

I applaud DCP and DCW for getting this out there - IMHO - with just the salient facts and let folks decide.

[kickhaltsforlife]

Ahh, there we go. So there is no need for you to say "no offense" when clearly you were trying to offend me. Just stand by it. It's cool with me.

It's no problem that you feel that way, really. You only have what I post on DCP to feel the way you feel, which is fine with me. But I don't really think you can say for sure that's the attitude those corps directors who proposed this idea were trying to reflect. But like many people have said before, its better to get more details before you try labeling people.

So call me arrogant if you wish, doesn't really matter to me buddy.

I know MANY people who have been in the Cadet's organization. Most of them have a similar attitude. Which is the same attitude you reflect in your posting.

If I met you in person.. it might be different... but this is all I have.

And it's not just the Cadets.. it is PR, BD, Cavs, Crown and SCV not so much, but the attitude is still there.

Are they great corps? Yes. Do you guys work hard and maybe earn a little room to be a little big headed? Sure... but leave it on the field, where it belongs.

[2000Cadet]

Don't worry it isn't really arrogance since we really are better than everybody else

Lol, you better stop before they start on you next.

Edited May 20, 2010 by 2000Cadet

[2000Cadet]

I know MANY people who have been in the Cadet's organization. Most of them have a similar attitude. Which is the same attitude you reflect in your posting.

If I met you in person.. it might be different... but this is all I have.

And it's not just the Cadets.. it is PR, BD, Cavs, Crown and SCV not so much, but the attitude is still there.

Are they great corps? Yes. Do you guys work hard and maybe earn a little room to be a little big headed? Sure... but leave it on the field, where it belongs.

Please cite something in this thread or any other thread where it appears I've been big-headed. When you do, I will surely apologize as I did not try to come off that way.

Edited May 20, 2010 by 2000Cadet

[FrankBeMe]

Oh baby.... Reduction in Force'd (yep long time gov't employee here)

Saw rif and thought of when where I worked was under BRAC (Base Re-Alignment and Closure Committee). Best defense when you think you might lose your job is to show to the public how important you and your employer is the community at large. Might be a lesson here for the non-G7 corps.

Terms I haven't heard in years! Thanks for bringing up many nights of nightmares!! (I've actually been on my RDO for almost six years now)

So, I'm not sure just how a corps at any level can show their community how important they are. Heck, the majority of the people in my neck of the woods have never heard of the Scouts. Fact is, despite what the die hards think, drum corps is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to spending any extra money one may have.

[Steven Rocco]

I wonder how many of the pro George-7 are sycophants sent to influence the discussion.

Wouldn't be the first time he has used such tactics.

[audiodb]

Jim, you're still thinking in terms of a zero-sum game. This is the problem of short-sighted thinking inherent with any paradigm that relies on revenue sharing. If you keep the pie as it is, that is to say total revenue stays stagnant, then yes of course any increase to the revenue of one corps will adversely effect the revenue of another. But what if we grow the pie? What if the poor and the rich both get richer? Why is this not possible?

And what if the pie shrinks?

Let's put it another way. We both want the activity to grow, I'm sure of it. One way to encourage that is to make sure there's more money coming into the activity to allow more people to participate. How do we get that money? The revenue-sharing "piece of the pie" model assumes that the only way for small corps and new corps to receive funding is to take from the larger, established corps.

What are you talking about? I believe every DCI-participating corps raises a considerable portion of their operating budget through their own fundraising efforts.

I reject the revenue-sharing model in the long term. Instead, we should be pushing our activity to sustainability for all corps. I've heard some like audiodb insist that regional corps were once upon a time able to be self-sustaining, with fundraisers and the like, even in the face of little fan support or revenue. Why not get back to that? If a corps is able to sustain itself and keep its own head above water, then there is no pressure from external forces to tour nationally, to add equipment that they can't afford, or to produce a show designed just to play the game.

OK. Why don't you suggest that to the G7 corps?

Let's at least try to convince everyone in the nation that our activity is pretty #### cool. And the way you do that is by putting your best foot forward. You grow the brand with the G7 corps. You show them the Blue Devils, or the Cadets or the Cavaliers. The NBA doesn't market itself with Michael Redd and the Milwaukee Bucks. The NBA markets Kobe Bryant and the LA Lakers. The NFL markets Peyton Manning's Colts and Tom Brady's Patriots, who play in prime time during sweeps week yet again this year.

And DCI markets their finest, too.

However, this proposal also advocates giving the G7 ruling voting rights, and excluding the other corps from shows three days out of every week. Do you see other leagues doing that?

The G7 corps are the draw. You know this and I know this.

No....the league is the draw.

[soccerguy315]

IOW: It's possible to be ENTERTAINING w/o being EXCELLENT (Madison), but PURE EXCELLENCE is always ENTERTAINING by definition. (Case Study: SCV 09)

.

if you whittle a long into a canoe, that is pure excellence. It is not entertaining though.

[ShortAndFast]

I agree on all points. This is what I've been trying to say myself. The G7 directors are looking after their best interests of their organizations in an activity that always been financially precarious. They're doing the job they were hired to do, just like the non-G7 groups are doing theirs in fighting this.

But we have many, many people in a complete state of denial about this fact, and are clinging to the ludicrous claim that this proposal was made in the interests of "all drum corps", that these altruistic organizations are somehow sacrificing their time and money to create super shows in which they get all the money and all the marketing visibility, since this will somehow make people want to give more money to -- and join -- the corps that are not at these shows.

I wasn't around for the "combine" and the foundation of DCI. My impression is that transformation was driven more by artistic concerns than by financial issues. But regardless, the "gini coefficient" has increased a lot during the DCI era. It's going to make this transition much uglier, I predict, because there's such a big disparity between what's objectively good for BD and what's objectively good for the Cascades.

FWIW, I agree with you about the "denial". People who interpret this move as being about the good of the activity (on one side of the fence) or squashing potential competitors (on the other side) are not seeing the forest through the trees. It's about survival.