Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[AlexL]

And what good does it do if your performance fee goes up a bit, but you can't perform on what are probably 2 of the 3 most lucrative nights of the week. You get to perform at the shows with less attendance, which means you lose that money elsewhere (souvies, etc). And then how long before this G7 group comes and goes "our shows have such a huge difference in attendance, we should get more power".

Also, a lot of this 'the corps handle this, not dci', seems like a disaster in the making, marketing-wise. DCI exists to provide a unified message for Drum Corps, fracturing the message would not be a good thing

[garfield]

Oh, and poor Brandt Crocker.

Time to retire, I guess.

[dbc03]

Short list of my first thoughts:

Assertion #1: I don't know the full details of DCI's finances, so I'll give this the benefit of the doubt and agree that something needs to be done to improve DCI's solvency.

Assertion #2: As much as this line of thought troubles me, it is hard to argue that it isn't true. The lower corps are somewhat of the opening act for the top corps. You can argue against that all you want, but the butts in the seats during the early corps vs the later corps tell the story. I don't know the details of the current splits based on placement, and it is certainly possible that enough isn't distributed to the corps who drive attendance.

Assertion #3: This is why the line of thought in assertion #2 bothered me. I can follow the line of reasoning here, but that doesn't mean I like where it ends up.

Assertion #4: I could get behind assertion #3 a lot better of you split it just into national corps and regional corps with national corps getting 2 votes and regional corps getting 1 vote. While the AAA corps listed are certainly the biggest draw currently, they are really not that different from the AA corps in practice and many of them have have moved in and out of that "top draw" range over the past decade. I can understand the regional corps having less of a say in DCI matters than full touring members. I can somewhat see the reasoning in not providing service to open class corps as a cost cutting measure, but the problem with axing open class corps is that it cuts off the entry point into world class. Corps are going to fold for whatever reasons, but if there aren't new corps being created we end up with a net loss instead of a net gain or at least breaking even.

Assertion #5: I like this in theory, it reminds me of the ToC in 04, which was a lot of fun. I think I would like it more if the national corps were included, and the G7 shows were planned far enough away from the regional sites that they don't have a large effect on attendance at those shows. Maybe have one in Charlotte or Orlando the night before Atlanta, in Pittsburgh the night before Allentown, etc. Maybe even flip it around every other year so that for example Charlotte and Atlanta trade off which show is the regional and which show is the G7 show. They could even be spread out with 2 different tours like the early regionals currently are if you include the national corps as well, have two teams of 7 corps travelling different parts of the country and having these G7 shows. It does put more pressure on some of the lower corps to learn more stuff for performances, but if that is the cost of more entertaining shows I'm ok with it. I wouldn't have a problem with lower corps opting out of these shows if they wanted to either.

Assertion #6: I really need more details about this one before I can say one way or another how I feel about it. I can understand the need considering we are in a recession and companies everywhere are having to trim the fat in order to stay solvent, I'm just not quite sold on the implementation.

That's all I've got time for now, but I'll probably go over how I feel about the rest of it later

[AlexL]

Reading more into this 'tour of champions' thing.. i dont like the 'cumulative champion' thing... especially since:

1. at the beginning of the year, corps almost *always* get scored around their placement the previous year, even if they end up much higher or lower by the end of the season. While its possible they sucked it up or did amazing on tour, usually its an error in judging. It works its way out as the season goes on usually, but early season problems like this could unfairly help\hurt corps in that calculation.

2. How do you handle the 'corps with complete shows' vs 'corps vs incomplete shows' at the beginning of the season. It doesnt matter much now because finals night is currentlly all that matters, but if you're doing a cumulative score, a corps should see their overall score effected by not showing up ready.

3. Takes a lot out of the finals week drama.

Edited May 24, 2010 by AlexL

[audiodb]

The proposal is from the G7. The AAA events would include 8 corps.

That is not accurate. While it does imply the possibility of an eighth corps making AAA, the G7 have veto voting power over all divisional assignments. Furthermore, that eighth corps would apparently be expected to participate in the Friday/Sunday shows with no pay, as per page 36, only seven corps get paid for AAA events.

[*]You can move into (and out of) classes based on competitive success.

Again, only if the G7 say you can.

[*]All classes are paid for shows

False (open-class).

[*]Board membership is the corps -- not persons. Presumably corps would designate their reps.

Actually, it says the AAA corps and the three outside people would be the board. However, it also says the board would be 10 people in 2011, therefore excluding the eighth AAA corps from the board. Only the G7 corps and the three outside directors would be on the board.

[*]All event costs and revenues fall to the G7. DCI receives 1/8th share of profit.

False. Nowhere does it say the G7 handle all costs. However, it does say DCI provides "marketing and support services" (p. 36).

I kind of like the proposed format for the AAA corps. It certainly is a better marketing vehicle for the activity than the current model. But there's a lot of bumps in the road.

The proposal rewards success on the field with control over direction of the activity. Not sure that makes a lot of sense. What does finishing in the top 8 have to do with managing the future of the activity? Are the balance sheets of corps now part of the judging criteria? The proposal is survival of the fittest but the measure of fitness is decided by a bunch of judges! That seems a pretty silly way to create a board of directors.

Agreed.

Interesting to note that they tried the same thing two years ago with that "new governance" proposal that would have made the directors of the top 9 corps = the BOD.

I understand the philosophy behind a lot of this stuff (rewarding corps who sell merchandise and put butts in seats) but I don't think the proposal hits the mark. I *do* think there's a lot of stuff worth pursuing further. And it makes a lot of sense from the POV of the G7.

Heh.

I do think that somebody needs to be shot for not realizing that a proposal this radical would leak. They needed to be way out in front of this before they pitched it. It was also shortsighted not to realize how this would be perceived by the rest of DCI (especially the other finalists corps). Even if the G7 is assuming a lot of the responsibility previously paid for out of the entire membership's pockets (and that they are effectively assuming a lot of the costs in managing DCI) the whole thing is just presented poorly. I can understand why there were heated reaction in the board meeting and following conference call. The whole thing was mis-managed and in IMHO damaged the activity

Starting to see why some of us found this objectionable?

[ShortAndFast]

- Revenue sharing will be reduced by change in formula to give G7 more (p. 37, first item)

I don't see that. The text says "All other distributions plans and pay scales would remain the same in concept. Money kicked to the distribution plan would increase as the office expense is slashed and more net is realized." It says that it wants to weight recent contributions more than past contributions (whatever that means), but it doesn't say that it wants to pay the G7 differently.

- G7 vote has veto power over any other divisional criteria (p. 35)

I don't see that either. It says "A corps placing in the top 8 is to be installed as a AAA corps for the following season" and "The board of DCI can by 2/3 vote relocate a corps to a different class for performance or other reasons". The G7 do not constitute 2/3 of either the present DCI board or the shares described in the document.

- Tour is same length/cost, just with less paydays

Neither you nor I nor any of the DCI directors knows how much a 2011 AA tour would cost. You're welcome to your guess that it'll cost the same. I don't think it's crazy that it could cost less, especially if that's a goal of the exercise. Slide 29 lists as a goal, "We have reduced the time on the road for many, reduced the miles and reduced the expenditures".

Look, there's plenty of ammo in the proposal for its critics. Pretty much everything the DCW article said was right on the money. But there's no need to stretch it beyond what it actually says.

[Granny Smith]

You know . . . as everyone discusses the merit or lack thereof of the proposal, I find myself a bit disconnected because I still have something stuck in my craw.

Whether or not these ideas are worth consideration, is somewhat inconsequential to me. Why? Because of the way this all went down. I don't really care if they came up with an idea that would have solved everyone's problems overnight. These guys didn't just fire a shot over the bough of DCI. Instead it appears to me as a full out assault. You don't oust the executive director if you have a spirit of benevolence or fraternal kindness.

I think I said it before, but I would prefer it if drum corps sunk as a unified group versus what seems to be going on here. At least we could look back on it with a sense of pride as we remember the principles and values the activity stood for.

<rant over>

[Jeff Ream]

the AA tour wont cost less. they still have to be on the road Fridays and Sunday to get to the shows they are allowed to go to and perform at. it isnt going to get cheaper to travel, feed and house the corps on those now "off days" created for them.

I don't see that. The text says "All other distributions plans and pay scales would remain the same in concept. Money kicked to the distribution plan would increase as the office expense is slashed and more net is realized." It says that it wants to weight recent contributions more than past contributions (whatever that means), but it doesn't say that it wants to pay the G7 differently.

I don't see that either. It says "A corps placing in the top 8 is to be installed as a AAA corps for the following season" and "The board of DCI can by 2/3 vote relocate a corps to a different class for performance or other reasons". The G7 do not constitute 2/3 of either the present DCI board or the shares described in the document.

Neither you nor I nor any of the DCI directors knows how much a 2011 AA tour would cost. You're welcome to your guess that it'll cost the same. I don't think it's crazy that it could cost less, especially if that's a goal of the exercise. Slide 29 lists as a goal, "We have reduced the time on the road for many, reduced the miles and reduced the expenditures".

Look, there's plenty of ammo in the proposal for its critics. Pretty much everything the DCW article said was right on the money. But there's no need to stretch it beyond what it actually says.

[chaddyt]

My thoughts on the proposal.

The majority of what I see as positives were covered by corpsband above.

As for the negatives, yeah.... No real way to look at it other than alienating the smaller corps. What I find most disturbing about that is how the G7 presented this as a better way to connect with the community. As good and as popular as they may be, a few extra shows here and there may garner interest in the activity for a few weeks, but what happens when that circus leaves town? If you want to generate interest for the activity, you need to have those "permanent sources" in place that are a constant in that community. Those sources are the corps themselves, regardless of size. We've seen a bunch of local news articles posted on here about how Jimmy from Such-N-Such made X Corps or whatnot. And I'm sure there are tons out there that never made it to DCP. My point being is that I'm sure the Troopers have a following in their neighborhood. Same with the Cascades. Academy. Etc., etc., etc... If they get closed out financially, they will fold. If they fold, drum corps has lost an ambassador to the activity. Plain and simple.

Secondly, if the history of the past few years has taught us anything, it's that even the mighty can fall. It would be great to think that drum corps was popular enough to warrant a bailout from the federal government, but it isn't. So let's say this proposal goes through, as is. What happens if BD falls on hard times? What happens if YEA! ends up spreading themselves too thin? Crown goes belly up? If they're responsible for the "money-making" shows, are we cutting the schedule? Shortening the tour? Anything can happen. The organizations in the G7 are getting by now. But even with added revenue, no one is bullet proof.

Lastly, while it's certainly gotten people talking and has at least addressed the need for change, I was surprised how few details were suggested for a such an aggressive idea. It would be a pretty dynamic shift, and it seems as though this was in the works for a while. With 7 of some pretty heavy hitters in the drum corps world, I expected to see more bullet-points and less "yeah, we'll have to figure this out".

That having been said, I'm going to do my best to support and enjoy ALL corps this summer as who knows what the future may bring.

[garfield]

Can I ask (not that I'm anybody, [hat tip to Mr. Boo]) that if you make a point about a reference in the proposal that you reference that proposal for us all to read?

Thank for your support.