Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[Scerpella]

I'm talking about the "nice" Pat Boone who ripped off rhythm and blues artists and made the selections safe for white people.

R&B being covered by other artists who made it more appealing for a mass audience is and was commonplace. People taking others ideas as a starting point and running with them is how things work. No need to make it a racial thing. African music is very different than African American music. Clearly R&B artists took instruments and structure from European and "white" American music.

Ultimately the ones who were ripped off are the Irish from whence most American music originates. :-)

Sorry for the digression.

[Michael Boo]

R&B being covered by other artists who made it more appealing for a mass audience is and was commonplace. People taking others ideas as a starting point and running with them is how things work. No need to make it a racial thing. African music is very different than African American music. Clearly R&B artists took instruments and structure from European and "white" American music.

Ultimately the ones who were ripped off are the Irish from whence most American music originates. :-)

Sorry for the digression.

I wasn't making it a "racial thing, but I think you just did.

[corpsband]

DCI knows it's tough to get past the band director in some cases. That's why they have developed a street team to work at the grass roots level. Peer to peer marketing and not corporate DCI to kid marketing. Also, the business plan mentions a plan to evangelize corps members to help break through the clutter of a band director's inbox. The idea is to equip corps members with the necessary tools such as posters and flyers to distribute to their friends at school in addition to the traditional mailings to band directors that can be hit or miss.

Band directors have to stop believing that DCI sees them as "resources" and instead views them as partners.

[JimF-LowBari]

R&B being covered by other artists who made it more appealing for a mass audience is and was commonplace. People taking others ideas as a starting point and running with them is how things work. No need to make it a racial thing. African music is very different than African American music. Clearly R&B artists took instruments and structure from European and "white" American music.

Ultimately the ones who were ripped off are the Irish from whence most American music originates. :-)

Sorry for the digression.

In the case of "Race Music" it was the stupid idea that whites would only buy from white artists and blacks from black artists. What usually happened was a black artist would write a good song and the powers that be would change the song (usually make it blander) and have a white artist record it (supposedly) for the white audience. Then the black artist who wrote the song would get ripped off on his song.

IIRC, Little Richards "Tutti Fruitti" was the first time that the "black" version outsold the "white" version (done by Pat Boone). The TV movie on Little Richards life covered this pretty good but no idea if Pat B got that many of LRs songs to do. Movie made it sound that way....

Edit: Googled and see different definitions of "race music". I was just referring to the 50s rock 'n roll version.

OK - Back on topic is possible

Edited May 28, 2010 by JimF-LowBari

[GMichael1230]

If only they would listen to me. I keep advocating that every corps plays one Pat Boone classic. The kiddies would go crazy.

Not Pat Boone, but I sure remember kids going crazy for "When a man loves a woman"....most werent even born when it charted !!!

G

[Matt_S]

<moderator hat on>

Guys, let's keep the off-topic stuff to a minimum please. Thanks

[bawker]

After the glow of the DCI piece last night wore off, and I had a chance to look at things from a semi-objective viewpoint, I'm not quite as rah-rah about this as I was.

My bias is against the G7 proposal, however, there's a lot left to consider as we head towards the start of the season and the next meeting in July.

Most of this is thinking out loud, and, perhaps common sense . . .but sometimes it helps to clarify your thoughts by splattering them across teh intarwebz.

1. We're being played politically, by both sides. This is not a shock to most of us, of course. That said, I think the G7 . . .if they're serious about presenting a counter-proposal . . .need to fire back with a press release of their own. If this is truly the throwdown that we've been predicting for all these years, since the days of the Stewart v. Hopkins future spit-balling, then it's time to fight for the hearts and minds of the kids, the fans and everyone else involved.

a. Hopkins needs to step back, away from this. Jeff Fiedler, or perhaps Kevin Smith, need to take the reins on this and present something that is more than a "working document". Of course, they don't owe us anything . . .but DCI has raised the bar with the disclosure they offered last night. DCI has the initiative here, and the G7 need to land a counter-punch to get it back.

b. It's somewhat disheartening to see that such a threatened schism is what finally forces DCI to come to the table with a degree of openness, both fiscally and logistically. While there is plenty to like in the DCI proposal, there's also the fact that it was offered as "please, like me!" gift to the legacy fan and there was careful language in the beginning to promote the fact that the G7 are cutting against DCI's grain with their ideas . . .a not so subtle reminder to those G7 units using DCI's original constitution . . . that everyone should sink and swim together.

c. The DCI five year plan was written in late 2009, and some of it has been given piecemeal to us . . .the "fan roundtables", etc. However, there's a lot that needs to take shape, or has had a deadline pass on this stuff. Judging? Fan interaction? More specifics on the Open Class and vendor engagements mentioned? I would urge the DCI board to be extremely open the next few months about these initiatives, as there's a lot political goodwill to be gained by doing so.

2. Drum corps, as we now know it . . .with the national tour model as the holy grail . . .has to change. Some can afford to do this, some can't: and perhaps it's time to meet in the middle and try to find out how to save the underpinnings of the activity.

a. National touring corps don't need a AAA/AA/A designation, IMO. If you can afford to do it, travel the country . . .whether you came in 1st or 15th. Think California wouldn't mind seeing the Madison Scouts or Blue Stars instead of Phantom or Cavaliers? I'm pretty sure they would be welcomed with open arms. However, there shouldn't be such a rush to hit the big time: that killed corps like Tarheel Sun and others, that had to make it to that next tier because that was where "the money" was.

b. There has to be some sort of regional influence on the activity again. Has to. Else, we only end up with a few units left who can travel the country as , indeed, "super bands". Units like Platinum, City Sound, the Spartans and others deserve a regional framework that can at least provide a few shows for units to participate in, rather than putting all their eggs in the "Indy" basket and making OC Finals and all-or-nothing bet.

c. Regional associations are in place already . . .in DCA. It's time to leverage your sister circuit, DCI, and try to get some help from these DCA units who have gone about re-creating the regions bit-by-bit. Think Minnesota Brass, Inc/Kilties/Chops would mind seeing four or six Open Class corps join them in shows in a tri-state area? I'll bet they'd be happy to make them part of the show. In order for folks to grow the next Carolina Crown or Arizona Academy, they're going to need help from regional associations to provide a strong logistical backbone for the entire activity. It's time to drop the "us vs. them" ideas of DCI v. DCA. It may be a hard thing to do to admit that getting rid of the regional associations was wrong, but, in order to keep things local so that they can go multi-regional/national in the future, it's time to admit the mistakes made here.

3. The drum corps fan deserves to be part of the equation in either (G7/DCI) scenario: legacy fan, new fan or someone we're attempting to convert. We've got to consider our past as well as our future in order to make good decisions to keep these folks: all of them.

a. The legacy fan is your gold standard . . .guaranteed revenue for the product . . .if you can keep 'em. Things like the Fan Network, the Countdown and other ideas are a good start, but the most important thing you can do is to keep these people engaged. Survey them. Get serious about this fan roundtable idea. Make them feel like they are a part of the activity, not just something to be taken for granted, or "dinos". If there's one thing I despise most about the G7 presentation as it stands, it effectively tells this group to go #### up a rope. That's not good business.

b. New fans are going to be more forgiving; G7 offers them the most as the proposals stand now: the units they are used to seeing "on top" all together, doing their thing. It's a captivating draw, but the message it sends may be dangerous in the end, as the interest lies in just seven marching bands and that's it. The G7 corps are out to sell their own "brand", not DCI . . .and, as System Blue and some of the Yamaha clinics have shown, there's some money to be made there. Is it enough?

c. The future . . .it's time to decide, once and for all, what we are. The G7 spells it out in certain phrases and direction: we're marching bands; we have the same instrumentation as you, this is something you're used to, but presented in a Blast-esqeue sort of way. Future fans under a G7 roof may have no conception . . .or even care . . .that things used to be bell-front brass and have no use for tradition. They just want to be entertained.

What's your answer, DCI? We've skewed towards scholastic acceptance ever since Dan took over back in the mid 90's, and every move has been predicated on that. The G7 is now all in on this account . . .woodwinds and making the marching band kid its central audience are the G7's unspoken tentpoles of the way forward. DCI is a little unclear here, and needs to refocus on who the next generation is and what they want to be to them.

Finally, we're left with hard choices . . . we're left wondering if we're with hyperbolic-ally bending one way towards tiering ourselves into nothing more than marching bands, or possibly becoming non-relevant in the future as some some sort of anachronistic throwback.

I don't know a lot about where we're going this summer and in the future . . .but, I'm reminded of a Dwight Eisenhower quote I used to be fond of when we had a political forum here . . .

"Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong."

It holds true now as well; right now, we're caught up in a measure of passion from both sides . . .but if everyone comes to the table in July seeking real compromise and real solutions, we have some bright minds in our niche that can make it happen, whether that be through something that finally passes me by as a fan of the activity, or not.

[IntheMood]

Why customer satisfaction and loyalty matter:

The value of retaining customers is clear, and effectively measuring their satifaction is critical to keeping them loyal customers.

On average, 96% of customers who've had a bad experience don't report it, and 91% of those unhappy customers do not come back.

1. Dissatified customer will also tell 10 other people --prospective cutomers-- of their bad experience

2. It cost five times as much to attract a new customer as it does to keep an existing one, and is 10 times more difficult

3. A 10% increase in customer retention typically increases profits by 30%, while a 5% increase can increase profits by 2.5% to 12.5%

4. The probability of selling to an existing customer is 60-70%; the probability of selling to a new prospect is 5-20%

Sources: Marketing Metrics, Bain and Co., Gartner Group

Dean

[Richard]

Yes, I do. Cause and effect. I see the effect, so I am assuming a cause. audiodb was correct to point out that we don't know how fully each director supports the G7 proposal. For that matter, we don't even have a G7 proposal, only a powerpoint presentation used to pitch it. But Hopkins and Glasgow were removed, while Fiedler and Valenzuela voluntarily resigned. If we assume that the board shakeup was due to the G7 proposal, would Hopkins and Glasgow be removed if they weren't in support of the proposal? Would Fiedler and Valenzuela have resigned if they were happy with the current business plan and its progress? These events didn't happen in a vacuum.

You're presuming the cause to be what you want it to be. An equally probable explanation involves the G7 making a power play on the leadership of DCI, but you don't want to believe that despite the evidence that points to it. The cause could very well be that Hopkins convinced the G7 that his vision for the future was a better one than DCI's. Is it? I guess we won't know for 5/10/20 years. Although if he had successfully made his supercorps division in 1997, do you think we would be better or worse off as an activity right now?

Answer me this: what evidence points to this NOT being a money/power grab by the G7, beyond the belief that these are good guys who would never do such a thing to further their own causes, organizations and agendas?

Side note: I just want to clarify that I don't believe they were being evil for the sake of being evil, or even being evil at all for that matter. I think that the G7 truly believes that the future of drum corps is in another direction than the one being promoted by DCI. Philosophical differences, as explained by Dan Acheson.

We don't know each other beyond a screen name, so I'm not trying to presume anything. Have you met Hopkins? Have you gotten any of the people who do know him to talk candidly about him, or call him a snake? I'm honestly curious to know if you speak from a position of experience or an assumption. I'll be honest that your words come across as condescending, and it's not the first time I've seen you talk down to others on this board.

A position of experience. And I don't think Hopkins is a bad guy or even necessarily bad for drum corps, but I don't support his vision for the future. But I do think he'd stab someone in the back to climb on top of them. It happens all the time in the business world and it's just a means of achieving success - it's certainly worked for him to this point (or to a few weeks ago). Sometimes being cutthroat can lead to great success, other times it can create you a lot of enemies.

I apologize as my intent was not to condescend; I realize I tend to use powerful language or intentionally set a tone with many of my discussions here (a skill I have honed here on DCP for sure). It's frustrating though to be in a discussion when one side is speaking from 100% speculation and multiple members of the opposite side of the discussion speak from a position of some to moderate insight. I've given examples of when BOBSMYTH and audiodb among others have demonstrated beforehand knowledge of this situation. The people closest to this all lean the same direction, which is why I have such a hard time understanding your insistence that "something unknown" happened and that the G7 have been noble in their pursuits.

[Richard]

bawker, props for not only a well thought-out post, but also for making it very readable from a formatting perspective. Truly a lost art on many message boards.