Is this proposal economically moral?

[The Dom]

You have every right to disagree with the following comments, but if you choose to, please cite your sources.

"Moral Economy" is a name given in economics, sociology and anthropology to describe the interplay between cultural mores and economic activity. It describes the various ways in which custom and social pressure coerce economic actors in a society to conform to traditional norms even at the expense of profit.

Prior to the rise of classical economics in the eighteenth-century, the economies in Europe and its North American colonies were governed by a variety of (formal and informal) regulations designed to prevent "greed" from overcoming "morality". In its most formal manifestations, examples such as the traditional Christian and Muslim prohibitions on usury represent the limits imposed by religious values on economic activity, and as such are part of the moral economy. Laws that determine what sort of contracts will be given effect by the judiciary, and what sort of contracts are void or voidable, often incorporate concepts of a moral economy; in many jurisdictions, traditionally a contract involving gambling was considered void in law because it was against public policy. These restrictions on freedom of contract are the results of moral economy. According to the beliefs which inspired these laws, economic transactions were supposed to be based on mutual

obligation, not individual gain. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, prices and markets were highly regulated, even the fees physicians could charge.(Morton Horwitz: Transformations in American Law).

It has been customary in the history of Drum Corps International to pursue competition in a manner consistent with a moral economy. This has been the case so that young people can participate and grow without the taint of capitalistic outcomes. This has NEVER been a profit driven endeavor.

The German economist Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) describes the strength of this moral economic system and warns of the social collapse that might follow the rejection of a value based system of cooperative econimic enterprises.

I contend that the G7 are engaged in an endeavor that rejects a moral economy which promotes collective success and has instead adopted a post-modern, cynical outlook on the activity they claim to represent. This post-modern pursuit is characterized by:

1. No restraint on rational capitalism. (See Weber: The Sociology of Religion) There is a clamor for more money to produce "better" shows. Innovation is no longer seen as possible without significant capital expenditure. History refutes this claim.

2. Isolation of the collective group identity. (See Victor Von Frankl: Man's Search for Meaning) This is a process through which some individual identities are enhanced at the expense of others. As the process continues, few remain. Because of the inherent isolation that this process produces, the relavence of the group diminishes until those outside the group determine that the group's identity no longer has value. When the "rest" of us see only 7 corps remaining, we will find that those 7 have little value.

3. Rebellion/Disaffection (Weber: The Sociology of Religion) Max Weber describes a "propensity of alienation" that causes one portion of the group to rebel when certain conditions are met. In the case of the G7, economic stress has given rise to this "prophetic movement". The economic stress has blinded the G7 to the value of a broader participatory model.

4. A breakdown of ethical divisions. To identify certain corps as "premier" creates a defacto definition of "non-premier". This places value on numerical placement rather than effort. The activity is no longer effort driven, but outcome based. This creates a disdain for those who fail to measure up to the arbitrary standards of the G7. Historically, the activity has survived the loss of many "premier" organizations such as the 27th Lancers, North Stars, Bridgemen, and Kingsmen. The two most entertaining corps in DCI history are no longer active competitively in the World Class ranks either (Bridgemen and Velvet Knights). To suggest that any corps is elite and provides an indespensible service to DCI is not only offensive, but historically inaccurate.

The G7 movement is not only factually flawed, but sociologists have seen many movements like this in the past. The outcomes are not predetermined, but trend data provides powerful indicators that the Drum Corps activity cannot survive the process described in the G7 manifesto.

Here, here!!!

[audiodb]

If you don't believe that the major corps drive ticket sales, then I don't know what to tell you. You've simply decided that a basic fact of how the entertainment industry works - and has since the time of Shakespeare - isn't a fact.

Actually, I don't think we had "major corps" back in Shakespeare's day, but that is beside the point. You are trying to extrapolate from the "entertainment industry" to explain how you think a series of youth competitive events works....and to dance around the fact that you have no data to back up your hypothesis.

Big Names "open" movies - major drum corps drive ticket and media sales. Denying the reality doesn't make it unreal.

I'm still waiting for someone to describe this "reality". So far, the best we've heard from your ilk is that a few people (never quantified) watch top corps warm up while other corps are on the field. Conversely, more people are in the stands to watch the top corps. Well, of course they are....no one is warming up then!

If your contention were true, and drum corps revenue was driven by cults of personality as in the entertainment industry, then those specific corps should outsell the others. More people should be drawn to a major corps' dress rehearsal than to an afternoon contest with no major corps. A contest with one major corps and a bunch of other corps should clearly outsell a contest with the same lineup minus that major corps.

If I apply these criteria to the "reality" of show attendance, I would conclude that there are not seven, but in fact, 23 "major corps" that conclusively outdraw the rest.

DCI's size is now much larger than the founders (some of whom are in the G7) ever imagined. More money generated by the activity is going to pay for things that aren't related to the operations of the corps themselves, as was originally intended.

Like what?

Back when DCI had 25,000 showing up for Finals, there were 5 people in the Villa Park office - now that Finals is a smaller event, there are more than twice the number of staff members, and the admin costs of the organization have grown exponentially.

The sky is fall....er, what? DCI's costs have not grown exponentially.

Anyway, things were quite different way back when.

1. DCI could cannibalize the rest of the activity, drawing corps and fans from all those other circuits where the 400 other junior corps competed among themselves. Problem with cannibalism is that you eventually run out of others to feed on.

2. Insurance and music licensing issues have grown exponentially during the DCI era.

3. DCI markets and promotes a LOT more than back in the day. Once upon a time, they didn't even have a newsletter, not to mention that whole Internet thing.

4. DCI makes more money for their corps than back in the day, when appearance fees were the only money corps would get from DCI. "Revenue sharing" only became possible when DCI grew the capability of generating that revenue. That is why they run more shows, market and promote more, merchandise via DCI.org and the Fan Network, etc....to generate more revenue for the corps. Let me know if you object to that.

[Hup234]

" ... an endeavor that rejects a moral economy which promotes collective success and has instead adopted a post-modern, cynical outlook on the activity they claim to represent ... Isolation of the collective group identity ... a process through which some individual identities are enhanced at the expense of others. As the process continues, few remain. Because of the inherent isolation that this process produces, the relevence of the group diminishes until those outside the group determine that the group's identity no longer has value ... To identify certain corps as "premier" creates a defacto definition of "non-premier". This places value on numerical placement rather than effort. The activity is no longer effort driven, but outcome based. This creates a disdain for those who fail to measure up to the arbitrary standards of the G7. ... To suggest that any corps is elite and provides an indispensible service to DCI is not only offensive, but historically inaccurate."

Right on. We really could have used you in 1971, belisarius, when the Midwest Combine was hatched (ironically enough in a lavatory), a movement that was not only based upon elitism, it openly celebrated it. With you and me and a few other Paul Reveres seeing through the smoke at what was really behind the curtain back then, maybe there'd still be nearly 1,000 drum corps on the fields and streets all over America each summer weekend.

[mobrien]

You are trying to extrapolate from the "entertainment industry" to explain how you think a series of youth competitive events works....and to dance around the fact that you have no data to back up your hypothesis.

Yes. Selling event tickets and media recordings in which "entertainment" are the primary characteristics, in an activity in which there are bigger names and lesser names from a marketing standpoint, bears no relationship to "the entertainment industry."

If you refuse to accept reality as reality, then there's no point in arguing. Were the names in the activity not as powerful a draw as they were, DCI wouldn't highlight them in their own marketing of the activity.

Edited June 2, 2010 by mobrien

[audiodb]

Names mean very little. Whoever has been winning recently will garner attention, regardless of name.

But the bottom line is that people are paying to see a contest. When entertainers compete, sometimes the contest is more of a draw than the entertainment, whether "major names" are competing or not (see American Idol).

[BRASSO]

In the last 35 years, a total of seven drum corps have won DCI national championships.

One of them is no longer in business, one of them is rebuilding to try and become competitive again, and the other five are represented in the G7 group. More often than not, these five are routinely in the top five or six at nationals, and have been, literally for decades. There's no reason to talk about them "distancing themselves" from everyone else, when the "distancing" of this group has been in place since the Reagan administration.

The activity is stagnant from a competitive standpoint. Clearly SOMETHING needs to happen in order to start either 1) making the lower tier corps competitive with the top corps, or 2) create a different framework for those lower tier corps to operate, where they can have a competitive field in which they can win, even if only among each other. Meanwhile, the top corps are correct in seeing themselves as doing the yeoman's work in terms of generating fan interest and ticket sales (which then devolve to the DCI organization and all member corps).

If there are other solutions that add some spice to the competitive mix, increase fan interest, and allow those who are investing the most in exciting the audiences to recoup more of that investment, let's hear them. As I've said numerous times, I'm agnostic on this proposal, but at least it IS a proposal to address an obvious problem. Ideas from the rest of the field would be equally valuable (as long as "protecting the status quo" isn't the idea).

Ok... start with gving a " Finders Fee " to the lower tier Corps from the G-7 Corps that has a marcher that marched for at least 2 years in a lower tier Corps. Afterall, many of these G-7 performers didn't just fall out of the sky and into the laps of the G-7 Corps. Most of these G-7 Corps are chock full of marchers than were recruited, schooled, groomed, taught the ropes of marching and playing, time management skills, touring, discipline, fundamentals, etc in the Open Class and in the lower World Class Corps tier of Corps. The notion that these G-7 Corps took clay and turned in into a work of art all by themselves is ludicrous. Sure, the G-7 staffs took the marchers into another level, but good grief, they have several hundred from which to select from every off season.... many that came from the so called lower tier Corps where oftentimes the staff had to show them how to position their fingers properly on their instrument, proper marching fundamentals and the most BASIC of Drum Corps techniques that the G-7 staffs never have to even think about.

We're hearing the the Robin Hoods in the G-7 now want to shake down the others for more dough in the gate receipts. I say fine. Then let them start by forking over some Benjamins to the Open Class and World Class Corps with a " Finders Fee " to these Corps as a start on a measure for " the sustainability of all the Corps " as the G-7 proposal says.

If the G-7 doesn't want to pay a " Finders Fee "... no problem. Just don't ask for a cut in the gate receipts after you've raided the other Corps for marching talent for about 35 years now. Heck even in NCAA Div. 1 sports, a transfer can't just leave, go to another school, and play for a Championsip with the other team. NCAA Policies prohibit this. A player has to sit out an entire year before playng at their transfer school. Why do you think they put these policies in place ? Do we think they're stupid for doing so ? There's a reason why the NCAA requires transfers to sit out a year. DCI has mde it SO difficult for new Corps to break into the top echelon. And the G-7 proposal of institutional group slotting, if adopted, would make it even MORE difficult for lower tier Corps to rise to the top in the future.

Edited June 2, 2010 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

I'll jump in here, again, like I always do, to make a point about why this particular complaint is so annoying to me.

Over the years, judging has become increasingly based on design and less on execution. No, I don't want the old tick system back, but the reason we have this problem is that the competition has become less about the kids in the corps working with what they've got and more about the minds driving the design. It is WAY out of balance, IMO. Now we have a situation in which design teams (via caption heads) get to pre-sell the show to the green shirted folks before the show even starts. I think it's time to create more parity via adjudication changes instead of focusing on who is and is not worthy of inclusion in some arbitrary 7-corps super league.

Why is this important? Because if we take away some of the extra bonus points for design and place them back in the world of execution, I believe we would see a LOT more movement in all of the tiers. Movement in placement is EXCITEMENT for all. And movement based on execution rather than design gives the kids doing the job on the field a lot more control over their product.

The "supercorps" have created for themselves this arbitrary status via judging changes and design initiatives. Now that we've got a change in the BoD, maybe we can bring the driving force of competition back to where I believe it belongs - weighted more toward who is doing the running around instead of who is moving the dots on a computer.

it's easy to do. look at the WGI percussion sheet for PA...40 points, 15 to book/composition, 25 for performance

[Matt_S]

A "finder's fee" would only make it that much harder for lower-tiered corps to attract membership. By charging the Blue Devils a fee for accepting a kid with one of those corps on his/her resume, you've disincentivized the Blue Devils from engaging that particular behavior. You've encouraged them to take instead the equally talented kid with no drum corps experience.

If I just got cut from my top choice, let's just say the Blue Devils, then I have two options: I could march somewhere else or take the summer off. Sure, if I marched with Pacific Crest or the Mandarins or the Cascades I'd probably get better. But I would also increase the cost to the Blue Devils of accepting me by whatever arbitrary amount is proscribed. If I plan to try again for the Blue Devils next year, then under the "finder's fee" system I would choose to stay home, and try to get better on my own. So many on DCP already complain about a "top corps or bust" mentality among auditionees; a "finder's fee" would only exacerbate the problem.

Conversely, you've also incentivized membership turnover within the lower-tiered corps. If a kid leaves to march somewhere else then that's cash going directly to the lower corps' pocket. I can't think of a better way to encourage these lower-tiered corps to adopt a permanent feeder-corps position within the DCI structure.

[mobrien]

Names mean very little. Whoever has been winning recently will garner attention, regardless of name.

In other words, you agree that the majority of the corps in the G7 "garner attention", since they're the ones who have been winning recently - and if someone "garners attention", they have intrinsically higher public interest value than someone who garners "less attention."

Though I'd quibble whether 25 to 35 years years constitutes "recently"....

Edited June 2, 2010 by mobrien

[Scoutnout]

Ok... start with gving a " Finders Fee " to the lower tier Corps from the G-7 Corps that has a marcher that marched for at least 2 years in a lower tier Corps. Afterall, many of these G-7 performers didn't just fall out of the sky and into the laps of the G-7 Corps. Most of these G-7 Corps are chock full of marchers than were recruited, schooled, groomed, taught the ropes of marching and playing, time management skills, touring, discipline, fundamentals, etc in the Open Class and in the lower World Class Corps tier of Corps. The notion that these G-7 Corps took clay and turned in into a work of art all by themselves is ludicrous. Sure, the G-7 staffs took the marchers into another level, but good grief, they have several hundred from which to select from every off season.... many that came from the so called lower tier Corps where oftentimes the staff had to show them how to position their fingers properly on their instrument, proper marching fundamentals and the most BASIC of Drum Corps techniques that the G-7 staffs never have to even think about.

We're hearing the the Robin Hoods in the G-7 now want to shake down the others for more dough in the gate receipts. I say fine. Then let them start by forking over some Benjamins to the Open Class and World Class Corps with a " Finders Fee " to these Corps as a start on a measure for " the sustainability of all the Corps " as the G-7 proposal says.

If the G-7 doesn't want to pay a " Finders Fee "... no problem. Just don't ask for a cut in the gate receipts after you've raided the other Corps for marching talent for about 35 years now. Heck even in NCAA Div. 1 sports, a transfer can't just leave, go to another school, and play for a Championsip with the other team. NCAA Policies prohibit this. A player has to sit out an entire year before playng at their transfer school. Why do you think they put these policies in place ? Do we think they're stupid for doing so ? There's a reason why the NCAA requires transfers to sit out a year. DCI has mde it SO difficult for new Corps to break into the top echelon. And the G-7 proposal of institutional group slotting, if adopted, would make it even MORE difficult for lower tier Corps to rise to the top in the future.

I totally agree with you on 1 point. If kids stayed where they started MAYBE some of these smaller corps would eventually be more competitive at a higher level. With that, these kids are YES trained by these corps but dont blame the G7 or bigger corps for the kid who moves on or dosnt have that loyalty we may have way back when. Kids have way more at their fingertips than we did and they take it. Just look at some of the younger signatures on DCP , they will be in the activity for 5 years and be in 3 corps. ( SAD )

With all that said , we arent in the business of buying and selling kids, If we were why not a kid approached to march with money involved or dues paid. In most( NOT ALL ) (Some guard instructors think its ok to lure and STEEL) if not all cases the corps ( G7 ) or whoever did not find the kid but the kid sought out the corps. Finders fees are crazy, this activity now a days is more of a business than years ago and needs to be BUT if you want it even more of a business then see what happens if finders fees are even considered. The money makers, the ones who sell tickets, who DCI focuses on in advedertisements, and yes the kids that aspire to be in a certain corps will for sure call all the shots.

Im sure the finders fee was not a serious thought but you can see how things are not the same nor ever could be as it was in the day. AS for in the day, I was there also and it was some pretty awsome Drum Corps BUT when looking back on anything in life we tend to have selective memory. Wasn't all ROSEY.....lol