Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[MikeN]

I'm still not seeing what's in this for the almost G7 corps (Blue Stars, Boston, Glassmen, Troopers, Colts, BK).

To quote myself from Part 1 of this thread.

Why should Boston agree to lose their vote on DCI matters? Why should Boston accept blackout dates for their shows? Last season Boston played 35 shows, 8 of which were on Friday or Sunday. (23%) Add Wednesdays and it's 10 of 35. (29%) So why should they lose a third of their show dates? Why should Boston accept reduced pay from DCI in the form of appearance fees, ticket fee distribution, event fee distribution and educational camps / clinics?

35 shows, minus finals week, minus 3 regionals (Atlanta, San Antonio, Normal) = 29 shows.

Now we know some pay #'s.

Current system - $2600 / show x 29 "local" events = $75,400.

Proposed system - $3000 / show x 21 = $63,000.

So purely in payout, Boston's getting asked to take a 12k hit, but with only a minimal decrease in touring (corps still has to get from point A to point B). And if we want to get even more cynical, Boston already marches a full corps - what does more band kids interested in the Blue Devils do to help Boston's merchandising sales or recruiting?

I'm still looking for the hook - how was this vote by the old Exec. Board expected to stick?

Mike

[BOBSMYTH]

Saying that "it's only a proposal"doesn't carry a lot of weight with me because of the divisive nature of it. The damage has been done.

The way you write it, it's just extra shows on the schedule which is pretty mundane. There was no outrage over the Triple C show prior to the G7 debacle. The show format its not the sticking point here, the money/power grab is, and that's the part of the proposal that it's proponents choose to either ignore or downplay as something that can simply be removed in the next draft.

Saying "it is only a proposal" doesn't carry a lot of weight because they then immediately took action on one of the key components of the proposal - they began the process of a "change in direction" (Assertion 6A page 15) by voting to not renew the contract of the Executive Director.

To be accurate, the G7 did not vote. They do not have the authority - yet. The Board of Directors consisting of 9 members - 4 of whom represent G7 corps - voted to not renew the contract. (All they needed was one additional vote of the remaining 5 to accomplish their goal.)

Don't tell me "nothing happened". Playing with a man's career is not nothing.

[BOBSMYTH]

...

My point is that many are viewing the proposal as some sort of manifesto instead of a starting point for discussion.

...

It was presented as a manifesto.

[jjeffeory]

Attendance will increase with more entertaining shows. There has to be a baseline quality, but the shows need to be more entertaining. They've been getting more complex, but less entertaining and more abstract. That's the biggest critical success factor that needs to be address here. The rest of what they are pettling is mostly convoluted narcissism sprinkled with great bit of hocus pocus and fairy dust BS....

There are some good points in the proposal mixed in there, which really confuses things...

Pretty insightful post right here.

I'll have what he's having.

This is an excellent point.

But if we take the assertions in the proposal at their word, it leaves the activity in quite a bind:

- Some want to improve the performance quality across the board. To do this, the second/third tier and Open Class corps need to put out a higher quality product. This requires a talented staff (which almost always costs more money) and semi-talented and interested kids (and many OC corps can barely field 40 brass players).

- Do we even care any more about the experience being provided to kids in corps like Pioneer? Or is it just that their show sucks and the play to 5 people in the stands so they either need to get better or GTFO?

The way I see it, attendance will increase with better performance, which requires better recruiting, likely increased tuition to offset the increased staff salaries to put a competitive product on the field (and this works against the increased recruiting efforts nicely). So once that's miraculously done, there will (hopefully!!) be a bigger audience and fiscal solvency for drum corps. Easy, right?

This doesn't even take into account the formation of new corps or Open Class at all really.

Some want to move Open Class to a regional touring model. If regional circuits even existed (and they don't, as stated by many), there are hardly enough corps to fill them out and make them interesting for members and audience members alike. Who do Oregon Crusaders and Spokane Thunder compete against besides each other? Who do Dutch Boy (if/when they come back), Blue Saints and Les Stentors compete against? Who does the newly formed Platinum (North Carolina) and Music City (Tennessee) compete against? To make regional touring work, you need a pretty big region to have any kind of competition. Here’s the current geographical breakdown of Open Class

California: 8 corps

Texas: 3 corps

New Jersey: 2 corps

New England: 2 corps (NH, CT)

Canada: 2 corps (ON, QC)

Northwest: 2 corps (OR, WA)

Midwest: 3 corps (WI, MI, IA)

"South": 2 corps (TN, NC)

How is regional touring going to work again?

EDIT: Oh, and kids don't want to do regional touring. They do that in the fall already.

Now before anyone tells me that it's easier to point out problems than it is to come up with solutions, I know. But a lot of the "solutions" being discussed here fail to see the entire picture.

DCI needs to somehow figure out how to do the following all at once:

1. reduce costs for everyone (all corps, audience, members)

2. increase member participation (members often make the most dedicated fans too)

3. increase audience attendance

Is that even possible? The G7 proposal seems squarely focused on item 3 while punting the other two. There has to be a better compromise in there somewhere, I just have no idea what it is.

[jjeffeory]

Good god there are more straw men in this thread then a corn field. It's actually kind of amusing.

Yes

[corpsband]

Saying "it is only a proposal" doesn't carry a lot of weight because they then immediately took action on one of the key components of the proposal - they began the process of a "change in direction" (Assertion 6A page 15) by voting to not renew the contract of the Executive Director.

To be accurate, the G7 did not vote. They do not have the authority - yet. The Board of Directors consisting of 9 members - 4 of whom represent G7 corps - voted to not renew the contract. (All they needed was one additional vote of the remaining 5 to accomplish their goal.)

Don't tell me "nothing happened". Playing with a man's career is not nothing.

Clearly things got heated. I don't know all that happened in that board room. But in an emotionally charged environment things are often said and done that wouldn't happen in other circumstances. What were the circumstances surrounding that action? Are you telling me that the presentation took place and that in the next moment one of the G7 directors calmly said "pursuant to this proposal (which by our own admissions is incomplete and missing many details) I move that DA's contract not be renewed". Is that what happened?

[jjeffeory]

No point in reading any further in your posts....this last sentence shows you are so far distanced from reality, we just don't have the technology to bring you back.

Yup, looks like they made $9 million last year.

[jjeffeory]

When I look at YEA's 990 I see them having more assets and more net income than DCI. Also I see YEA's net assets going up by about $100,000 (+36%) between the beginning of the year and the end while DCI's drop by more than $100,000 (-87%). What exactly am I supposed to see here that convinces me DCI is in better shape than YEA or that DCI is doing fine financially?

Granted I don't know a lot about what I'm supposed to be looking for in these forms, but my initial reaction to them is that DCI is in trouble and YEA is doing pretty well

Well DCI had some investment losses last year. They are also paying a lot for their venues.

[jjeffeory]

What about the fact that on their most recently published 990 their net assets dropped by 87%?

Well they had a huge investment loss. That would decrease their net assets.

Maybe these big stadiums are too expensive?

[ShortAndFast]

Playing with a man's career is not nothing.

By the same token, it's the legitimate business of the Board of Directors to hire and fire the executive staff. If the old board wanted to replace Dan, that was their prerogative. If the new board wants to retain him, that's also their prerogative. It's their job to make decisions like that, and anyone in Dan's position knows that's the score.

A proposal that completely redefines the membership and governance of DCI is a big deal and deserves to be controversial. A BoD decision to change executives might be wrong, but it shouldn't be controversial in the same way.