Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[Canadacorps]

There's a great deal of "To Be Determined" left in the proposal in it's current form. I don't know what the plan calls for in the future for Open Class other than some "Regional Association" which we don't know a thing about. But "not knowing" is not the same as "throwing under a bus". The vision in the presentation is very incomplete . Do the directors of the G7 feel like Open Class corps should just disappear? Doesn't seem very practical since that's where larger corps are born.

They can add into a show and they can attend the champs but there is no real service offered. This is a change –a clear change and a clear decision to confine our efforts to a specific group of organizations.

Confine - 1. To keep within bounds; restrict: 2. To shut or keep in, especially to imprison. 3. To restrict in movement

Confining efforts to a "specific group" sounds pretty "clear" to me.

[Jeff Ream]

Well... yeah, except for the "suck" part. That language is unnecessary. It's probably not seven, and we can argue the merits of including this corps or that corps... but at that point we're just haggling over where the line should be drawn. Most participants in this discussion have already conceded that there are corps who take more from the activity than they earn. They've conceded this point with every protest than Corps X cannot survive without the support the G7 corps provide. An organization with limited resources cannot maintain that dynamic for long and expect to survive.

I read the proposal in full this morning, and I'm amazed how closely my posts in the past week have mirrored what was actually said. I have concerns about the proposed show format, but the first half of the proposal makes a lot of sense to me. The problem of limited resources must be confronted. DCI cannot be all things to all corps. It seems many on here want DCI to be able to provide for every corps' every need, and that simply cannot happen. So instead we have to make decisions about how to allocate the resources we do have. The fact of limited resources requires that we make trade-offs. None of us are going to be able to get everything we want moving forward.

Now, if you wanted to sell the activity to someone new, would you do that with the Cascades or the Blue Devils? So the Blue Devils should be your priority. All this talk of brotherhood and camaraderie is nice, until there's not enough revenue to cover the costs incurred by all corps. At that point, what right does Pacific Crest have to revenue pulled in by the Blue Devils? What right do Open Class corps have to resources paid for by the G7 corps? An appeal to resources based on need alone does nothing to sway me.

When you run your corps in such a way that you depend on other corps for survival, then you've intentionally set your corps under the whim of the larger corps. If that corps decides that the benefit to them no longer justifies the costs incurred, then the onus is on your corps to do something about it. It might be a sink or swim approach, but by definition a corps that cannot swim on its own is a drain on the activity. Resources that could be used to grow the presence of the G7 corps on a national stage are instead sunk into keeping many corps afloat. I'd love there to be hundreds and hundreds of active corps, just as everyone reading this thread I'm sure would agree. But DCI cannot fund those hundreds of corps alone. This proposal acknowledges that, and if nothing else pushes DCI to refocus its mission. The crude way to phrase it is 'shedding dead weight', but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The priorities of the Blue Devils and Revolution are vastly different. Let's recognize that, and allow corps like Revolution and Oregon Crusaders find a business model that works best for them.

how is it dead weight, when many of the G7 members come from these corps? You shed these corps, you shed future members who may not be exposed any other way.

talk about screwing yourself.

[2000Cadet]

It would certainly help those two corps that you marched and provided you with the experience to make a top corps and get a ring. Comparatively, I think your donation would make more of a difference to these "lower-placing" corps, especially one like Jersey Surf who doesn't have the years and multitude of alumni of corps like Cadets and even the Crossmen.

You're absolutely right about that. I had my reasons to donate to the corps I chose, and I certainly didn't want to have a hand in those other corps being in a difficult financial situation. Hell, I'm willing to admit that, but how many others are willing to do the same? I'm sure there are a lot, A LOT more people on here who have done the exact same thing.

[2000Cadet]

. . a document created a few years ago by Bob Jacobs (of Jersey Surf) and a few other people was a guidebook on how to start a drum corps: the ins and outs of insurance, shows sponsorship, community involvement, and so on. It was sort of a "how-to" in a lot of ways.

The very first page offers this: 95 percent of running a drum corps is what takes place off the field.

Hop, Gibbs and others might be great at artistic vision and creating an on field product that wins.

However, based on the fact that George still clings to the same tired business plan he did thirteen years ago (this AAA/AA/A stuff was floated as "Music On the Move" by him in 1997), I'd say that he comes up a little short in other areas.

Drum corps is a business: however, competitive success does not equal business acumen.

Oh come on. It was a joke. This thread is explosive enough.

[Kyle B]

Kyle, I still haven't heard your answer on this:

Regional corps are Class A btw.

Open Class...page 12. "They can add into a show and they can attend champs but there is no real service offered.

"This is a change ..."

No, it doesn't actually spell out no $, but it seems pretty obvious.

[corpsband]

No, it wouldn't fold. Maybe it gets rid of certani negative elements and regains some moral sensibility.

Rose colored glasses much? If entire G7 left DCI the bulk of the fans would follow them (just as they do now). If the fans left so would the bulk of DCI's revenue. DCI might linger on a few years but it would not survive for long.

And that would be very bad for both the G7 and the non-G7 for a multitude of reasons.

[Jeff Ream]

I haven't seen a championship show in the past 10 years that wasn't extremely entertaining

not many can claim that same thing

[audiodb]

Please explain for me the mechanism by which you feel money is being taken away. This is a serious question. As I read the proposal, a distribution system would still be in place. Taken at face value the plan is for this system to have more money as a result of less overhead for DCI. Class A corps would not be included in this distribution plan, but these are the proposed Regional Touring corps and a stated goal of the plan is to reduce the costs for those corps. Class A corps are still being paid at $2,400 for all events. Class AA corps actually see their event pay increase, from $2,600 to $3,000. Class A and AA corps will also both have the rights to funds received through the purchase of their corps' products, giving those corps a means which they can directly control for increasing revenue.

So why do you feel money is being taken away from smaller corps?

Tell the whole story.

DCI distributes money to corps in two primary ways....appearance fees the day of the show, and revenue sharing after the season is done.

Class AA corps see a raise in appearance fee from $2600 to $3000, but their revenue sharing goes down as the formula is tweaked (p. 37) to give the G7 more money.

Class A corps get $2400 appearance fee, but lose all their revenue sharing (again, p. 37).

Open-class corps would lose all DCI support (p. 12).

[corpsband]

They can add into a show and they can attend the champs but there is no real service offered. This is a change –a clear change and a clear decision to confine our efforts to a specific group of organizations.

Confine - 1. To keep within bounds; restrict: 2. To shut or keep in, especially to imprison. 3. To restrict in movement

Confining efforts to a "specific group" sounds pretty "clear" to me.

Clear that DCI would not offer services -- not clear what role it might take in creating an organization who would.

[Jeff Ream]

ll it worked for many other proposals. I mean after all, arent we bathing n fans now that all the electronics have been added?

Now, with this I wholeheartedly agree. Don't just say "trust us, we'll figure it out" and then vote on it. Come armed with facts, figures, exact ideas... a *proposal.* Hammer everyone over the head with your preparation so that it is obvious that this path is the right one.

If you don't have that, then it needs further study. And if it needs further study, don't bring it to a vote of your Executive Board. Look, I know these guys are smart folks, and they've been quite successful in the framework of DCI. That said, don't make it up as you go off of nothing but hunches and vagueness. And for goodness sake, don't come with a proposal that details fairly specifically how a sample show would be laid out but not *how* the activity expects to attract more band kids / parents with these changes.

Mike