Official DCP G7 Proposal Discussion Thread

[Jeff Ream]

From my reading of Hop's notorious blog entry, he's ADVOCATING for more pop music...he laments that many corps play (mostly) old dead white guys. In reading between the lines, he seems to be saying that the cost for the rights to play a Lady Gaga, or a Michael Jackson show (that could really kick some a**, imo...), is prohibitive...and so corps - feeling the economic pinch from travel costs - choose 'free' music...ie: dead white guys.

Perhaps a compromise position is to seek out more contemporary works composed by musicians who are willing to cut DCI corps a break in how much the rights will cost. Biggest obstacle here is, of course, corporate ownership of the song book. This is always the issue with Beatles songs. McCartney and Starr don't need the dough so much...but their lawyers went to college for years, studying the alchemy of getting blood from stones. But I do recall hearing of some rock musicians who refuse to work with Ticketmaster, and who put their stuff on the internet for free...perhaps musicians of that stripe might be willing to license a drum corps to arrange their music for a paltry $10k or so -

It's no wonder Hop and so many other World Class corps directors lose so much sleep. When travel costs alone now equal what an entire season of drum corps cost just 25 years ago...the model IS broken (and I'm most surely NOT a fan of the G7 proposal...).

how do indoor guards and indoor percussion units get the rights to do popular music then? not just scholastic either

[Jeff Ream]

While I'm processing my third cup of coffee and thinking about judges, something nags at me...

Judges. Why do we, who run the central Ohio show, have to pay to fly in judges and put them up in a hotel overnight?

While I understand and accept the desire for synergy and consistency among the judging, aren't most judges band directors? Our show director is a retired band director and currently the percussion head at THE Ohio State Univ. marching band, and judged DCI many years ago. My brother, a band director, is a USSBA judge, and I've sat in the stands with a long-time band director who's a DCI Open class judge.

And if we enlisted the local band directors to judge our show, wouldn't that engage them enough to get their students to the show, too?

The cost to transport and house "official" DCI judges has got to reach a couple-thousand dollars anyway. Wouldn't a local band director like to earn a few hundred bucks to judge one night?

I think it would save significant costs, and it would certainly invest local music educators in the local show.

Possibly leveraging USSBA's pool of judging talent is wise, and I recognize that it feels like throwing Hopkins a bone.

I also think that watering down the cloistered pool of judges could push the activity towards broader appeal via their impressions, provided the sheet requirements aren't so restrictive that the judges' impressions are squelched.

Judging is such a contentious issue (especially on DCP) that I hesitate to raise the issue. But if we're going to sweep the house clean and find a better way I'm convinced the issue should be raised.

the major problem with just using anyone to judge is they don't know the sheets. Sure, a good judge can judge any sheet, but to truly understand the sheet...and let's be honest, many of these folks do two or more sheets, you have to be trained on the philosophy of the system...not just tolerance, but numbers management etc.

one of the biggest issues pre-DCI was the way scores could really go haywire day to day. I mean, ok a point or so total fine, but we'd see jumprs of 5 or more points just on some sheets.

if a corps director wants to blame the judging well...they are part of the problem. they give the feedback from their staffs to the DCi judging chairs, and it goes from there. if they are not speaking up or pushing for a change in the philosophy, shme on them.

but to go from show to show knowing you may see people that have no understanding of how DCI's system works...yeah I wouldn't be in favor of that

[Jeff Ream]

exactly. but the push to add all of the new toys has actually had the other result...it pushed fans away and more often that not, comes across as sterile

Having over two dozen framed Frank Lloyd Wright posters in my hallway and over 60 books on Wright in my library, I wish to chime in on this.

Wright (who died in 1959) was directly responsible for the popularity of the ranch house, which greatly diluted his concepts but made them "safe" for popular consumption. His success was in taking older forms and thoroughly reinventing them, something corps designers are trying to do. From what I've read, Camden Yards in Baltimore is perhaps the best example of retro made modern. Baseball fans love it for its intimacy and its modern comforts. The world of drum corps could learn something from that in regards to making something new and innovative while keeping the audience embraced in the comfort of what they're already familiar with.

[Jeff Ream]

I still think bands follow the lead of DCI, but some of them do this to a fault, and this is where the problem lies in regards to trying to get band kids.

The reason the G7 desire the high-school market is because these are the young people that will be able to march in their corps and also attend their shows. They see them as being a group with disposable income (money from part-time jobs, allowances), income that can be spent at shows and concerts. I think they believe that the adult fan, who has a more fixed income and is on a budget, is less likely to spend on shows, whereas the kids will. They do not yet have to save money for retirement, or pay bills and taxes.

So the question has never been that the G7 think high school marching bands are better than top 12 corps. As good as some BOA bands get, I have never seen a band at a top 12 level.

Here is what I do see (and this is the real problem):

1. I see bands that want to copy the corps to a point of fault. Drum corps compete in the summer. Students that take part do not have a full day of classes to attend before corps practice. A corps can practice 10 to 12 hours a day at spring training and on tour. A school band, once band camp is completed, may have 45 to 50 minutes per day. That's it.

2. What happens is that some band directors are destined to achieve the super high-level product they see the corps producing and so they ask their students for more time, more after-school rehearsals, longer camps, more sectionals, more travel and prep for competitions (in addition to the already busy schedule a marching band has for home and away football games); and before you know it these kids are completely burned out, tired of marching band, and frankly have no interest in drum corps.

3. These are kids that need to focus on class during the academic year. They need to have time for their studies and projects, and they need the activities they participate in to be worthwhile and comprehensive. A high school band program should be comprehensive, meaning it should provide as much concert band, jazz band, marching band, chamber ensembles, solo and ensemble, musicals, and more to its participants. Too much of one thing may ultimately make the kids less likely to want to do that ONE thing when they graduate or in the summer. Most students I meet when they show up for college auditions tell me that they are burned out with marching band. I wonder why? But supposedly this is the market we wish to go after.

4. Many high school students have no interest in attending a DCI show or marching with a corps for 2 main reasons. The first is that they already march a similar style with their school groups (speaking mainly of kids that come from competitive-style bands), and they are being asked to do more in the summer with their bands (longer camps, sectionals). So it's both a time constraint and an issue of non-interest due to the fact that they already get that style and the effect of competition through BOA, TOB, USSBA, etc.

The second reason they may not wish to march corps or attend a show is due to their dislike for such a style, especially noticeable if they have come from a show-style band. I believe that many of these kids could be turned on to drum corps, but sadly the only real comparison they have that resembles drum corps is a competitive high school band that wasn't very good.

I am not trying to knock high school competitive marching bands, but I am saying that in many cases they are producing shows that they hope will bring about the same effect as a top drum corps, but sadly they can't because they do not have the time, the resources, sheer number of staff, etc. And that shouldn't be the point of HS marching band. They are pretending to be like the corps, but in my opinion, they are killing the corps.

Most of the kids that march in the G7 are college students. They are the die hards and often will not march with a lower-seeded corps. They either make one of the G7, or top 12, or they stay home and work. Where are the HS kids that wish to march in the other corps. Perhaps this is why those "Other" corps have had trouble finding members, and why they continue to be smaller and have less options in terms of kids showing at their audition camps.

Yes, drum corps is a niche market, so not everyone will want to take part. But with that knowledge in mind, how does it make sense that we ONLY go after the high-school kids who are either burned out, dislike the competitive style, or simply do not have time for it due to their competitive bands' rigorous summer schedule and the time constraints that come with it?

I think the G7 have it wrong. They think they can move into the schools and recruit HS kids to come to shows and eventually march. I suppose they can, but what kind of market are we really talking about here?

I think the delusional band director and band staff (many of whom are drum corps instructors) have effectively killed the typical students' ability to march in the summer, all because they wanted to look and sound like The Cadets, or Phantom, or SCV. Certainly some of these kids will attend some shows (the diehards), but ultimately can they march while in high school? I am sure they can march once they hit college (if they do not have to work summers). If they do march once in college, you know who that benefits? Yes, the G7 corps, who stand the best chance of getting college kids. Not exactly a good solution for building the activity and saving the smaller corps.

one other thing to add. you have a lot of older band directors who do not encourage their students to see this stuff, because they fear if the kids see it, they will want to do it, and the directors do not want to add anything else on their plate...they're at a place now where they do the minimum required

[Jeff Ream]

Now if the good baseball fans of Baltimore could only get a major league baseball franchise to play at Camden Yards.....

true. but Boogs BBQ and the crab cakes cant be beat.

well, ok maybe the cheesesteaks out in center field in Philly, also a newer park with an old time feel

[dimstint]

Writers note: So I'm coming late in to this obviously. I've tried to read everything on here, but if any of the following has already been said / argued against / solved for then I apologize. Its also really really late here...

I think opinions from both sides have their merits. The main issue here is keeping the activity financially solvent. This means keeping both DCI and all of its corps financially solvent.

Each document takes a different view point on how this issue should be addressed. The DCI business plan put a focus on promoting universal growth of the program through various education and outreach efforts as a means to boost overall interest in DCI and therefore event sales. It is likely that these programs will require infrastructure to support them. The G7 plan puts its focus on cutting infrastructure and capital expenditure to provide a greater percentage of money to all involved corps, with a larger percentage going to the corps who "win". The assertion here is that "winning" corps are more popular, draw bigger audiences, and therefore will generate greater sales. Meanwhile, corps will shoulder the education and outreach burden in order to build and attract the quality of talent necessary to build "winning" programs, which will in turn get them a larger share of the kitty.

At least that is how I see it.

From all of the documentation presented and reading through the discussion, there are a few things that I infer (again, not necessarily fact, just assumptions)

The cost for all parties has increased

It’s clear to everyone that it is more expensive now than it has been in the past for the activity to support itself. This is both for DCI to perform core services (hosting and promoting events) as well as for the corps themselves to maintain a full schedule.

The overall market for all parties has decreased

By market I mean sales market in the case for DCI and the talent market for the Corps. Music education has decreased across the nation as schools cut funding. For programs that do exist, a greater focus is being placed on holistic programming (concert band, wind ensemble, etc) rather than focusing on any one area. This means that fewer kids potentially hear about drum corps, making them far less likely to audition or go see shows. Meanwhile there is a natural attrition rate for current fans / veterans of the activity, which again decreases the overall population that can be marketed to.

People who are interested in marching meet greater barriers to entry

Given that costs have increased for corps to tour and their revenues from these shows have not met this increase, corps are forced to look elsewhere for funding. This burden gets placed on applicants in the form of increased dues. Top corps have a high value proposition to potential members because of the quality of program and education that comes with being the best so they might not have a huge problem getting people pony up to march. Lesser corps have a bigger problem as the perception is that these corps won't have the same perception in the eyes of an applicant and therefore the assumption is made that the experience will not be worth the cost. This is especially the case for people who don't know a lot about the activity, as they would be more susceptible to the thought that better corps = better experience (although I think any vet of a corps would say the experience no matter what is worth every penny, regardless of where you march). Less people auditioning / marching directly leads to less corps revenue and can indirectly lead to sales decline, further exacerbating the solvency problem for both Corps and DCI

There is a key piece of information that is missing from the arguments and evidence that has been provided by both parties. The main growth area for revenue for all parties is not ticket and event sales, but rather revenue from content produced.

There are a fixed number of shows that a Corps can perform, and given the fixed pricing schedule of the pay-for-play arrangement, there is a limit to the amount of money they can earn by simply performing at an event. Increased ticket sales are great for the activity and (I assume) correlate to higher souvenir sales, but corps might not necessarily see a share of the higher revenue for DCI considering the infrastructure cost that DCI is proposing to help support the overall activity.

For corps, revenue off of the content that they produce is the real growth opportunity. Given the freedom, corps could develop an unlimited amount of cds, dvds, educational programs, etc for sale and consumption by its loyal fan base. On the supply side, each corp has a fixed population of extremely talented performers that would exist whether or not you were in the business of selling cds, dvds, or other educational programs. On the demand side, each corps has a base of avid fans, alumnis, supporters, etc that will shell out to buy these products. The cost to produce and distribute content has dramatically decreased over the past few years, making the necessity for large infrastructure less necessary.

I think this particularly applies to the G7 corp body. Here you have corps with huge reputations for success and leadership in the marching arts with noticeably larger following than other corps. For some, when they think of DCI they only think of G7. When these fans buy DCI paraphernalia, they buy it to watch these G7 corps. Given their larger followings and longer history of success, its typically not as difficult for them to recruit top talent and therefore have a greater capacity to support this kind of resource.

Examples include System Blue, YEA programming, Gear Works, Star Club, CrownLEARNING, The Blue Way, and Phantom has one too. They all charge money for instruction, and I'm sure have a pretty sizable following.

The DCI plan jeopardizes this revenue stream for G7 corps. From the business plan:

Under Section 1.2: Objectives

1h) Develop five live and interactive learning experiences for non-corps member students in 2010 with an additional five in 2011.

4aii) Produce a live interactive cinema event focused on marching percussion education for students in 2011 earning $XXX,XXX.

Under Section 1.3: Corps benefits

7) The development of an educational distribution channel will enable corps to showcase their talent and expertise through on-line instruction, live learning events, and fixed media and collateral.

The corps develops their curriculum, coordinated messaging with DCI. DCI promotes and produces events and manages distribution of educational media and merchandise.

I've bolded the part that I think is most important here: switching from the current distribution model to the DCI one likely means shared revenue distribution (as it currently is with shows) and therefore decreased future revenue for G7 corps.

This then brings me back to the crux of the G7 argument, which is that successful corps are not being fairly compensated given their higher level of excellence. I support this argument. Given market pressures, corps need to be incentivized to drive sales through excellence and entertainment. For corps right now, a increase in souvenir sales, content sales, ticket sales, or any outreach does not result in an increase of revenue. DCI and the status quo plan is not structured to incentivize all corps to work at the same level to support these business goals and therefore the entire collective suffers. The G7 system of performance-based pay has a greater probability of increasing overall sustainability and profitability for the program, which is why I favor it.

Where I part from G7 is in the governance aspect. Having both a voting monopoly in membership and a monopoly of power on the board of directors creates a situation where double A and single A corps can be simply pushed out of all decision making and therefore I do not support the governance changes proposed in entirety. However I support the assertion that in order to make real change, one must have real power to enact change. I think if the collective group does decide to move down this path, they need to pick either one or the other of these ideas. Given that G7 corps are for the most part the longest standing and most successfully run groups of the bunch, I support the board of director’s plan over the voting power plan.

I also depart from the G7 plan to cut overhead through limiting staff and decreasing overhead cost. Sounds good in theory, but I don't see this adding up in reality. Assuming that corps now handle all souvenirs and seminars, that would create about an 18% reduction in the overall expenses for DCI. Getting rid of property costs gives you another 7% reduction. I'm not sure what the staffing size is now at DCI. Given that there will be an increased focus on the sales function of DCI, some people will probably lose their jobs but new positions will have to be created to support greater sales and marketing needed to sell out these super show weekends that are planned. At best a 50% reduction in staff costs (not including office space) would result in 11% overall cost savings. That means you would have to cut funding from drum corps shows by about 30% in order to hit your goal. G7 states that this is possible through cutting down event staff costs, but larger stadiums / venues have unions with strict agreements on the number of personnel necessary to run an event as well as things like union-only clauses that prohibit volunteers to fill these roles. Math aside, I think that cost cutting overall is definitely a good idea, but feel that these cost savings need to be reinvested into the marketing efforts in order to draw larger ticket sales and increased content consumption. In the short-term this means less money in corps pocket but in the long term helps to combat decreases in market size and demand stated above.

All of the above aside, I can see how the G7 deck could scare the community. Its rhetoric is overly harsh given that the proposition at hand is a vast departure from the status quo. I don't see this as G7 telling DCI that this is where they are taking the activity and there is nothing that can be done. Rather, I see this more as G7 establishing a firm negotiating position. These kind of discussions rarely ever result with one party out-right winning over another party but instead end up somewhere in the middle. Looking at this plan, if nothing comes of this except for increased cost cutting, performance-based pay, and some form of reclassification of corps to support new show formats and marketing, I think drum corps will be better off in the end.

Or it could all go to ****. Who knows.

[dckid80]

Well thought out discussion.

The only inconsistency I see in your ideas is that on the one hand you assert that the overall market for the product has decreased and on the other that increased revenue could come from things other than ticket sales.

So you want to get that smaller group of people to spend more money?

Who is more likely to have that money? High school kids or legacy fans?

Edited May 31, 2010 by dckid80

[JohnZ]

Good point.

Very frustrating being an Orioles fan these days. Actually, these years.

nowhere near as frustrated as a Pittsburgher......

[DC Guy]

Where I part from G7 is in the governance aspect. Having both a voting monopoly in membership and a monopoly of power on the board of directors creates a situation where double A and single A corps can be simply pushed out of all decision making and therefore I do not support the governance changes proposed in entirety. However I support the assertion that in order to make real change, one must have real power to enact change. I think if the collective group does decide to move down this path, they need to pick either one or the other of these ideas. Given that G7 corps are for the most part the longest standing and most successfully run groups of the bunch, I support the board of director’s plan over the voting power plan.

EXCELLENT POST!

I agree with you on not liking the voting monopoly.

I truly believe that the Board of Directors should be 1) comprised of people passionate about the activity; 2) a set of people with a diverse set of requisite business skills (i.e., legal, marketing, finance, etc.); 3) (IMHO most important) comprised of people with no direct ties to corps (i.e., no Corps Directors, no members of Corps Board of Directors).

As a corollary to #3 - the participating corps should NOT be the ones to elect the Board of Directors ... if there are corps that can band together and oust a board, the board has no real power.

[BRASSO]

one other thing to add. you have a lot of older band directors who do not encourage their students to see this stuff, because they fear if the kids see it, they will want to do it, and the directors do not want to add anything else on their plate...they're at a place now where they do the minimum required

Wow,.. if true, what a indictment of the current educational system, huh ? No wonder taxpayors and parents feel so ripped off.

What happened to the " pursuit of excellence " we hear so often ?