Corps Performance Fees

[audiodb]

If it's not already in place, performance fees should be changed to a simple guaranteed minimum, letting each corps negotiate their fee from there. There's no reason why Madison should only be able to get the same money as others who placed in their range last year, but who don't have nearly their power at the ticket window. If any corps wants to ask for more, out of deference to their drawing power, they should be freed to do so, and let the show sponsors try to put together the best line-ups they can rather than taking whatever DCI gives them.

Yeah, that'll level the playing field. (/sarcasm)

Still waiting for someone to explain how we can quantify this mythical "drawing power" top corps claim they have.

[garfield]

If it's not already in place, performance fees should be changed to a simple guaranteed minimum, letting each corps negotiate their fee from there. There's no reason why Madison should only be able to get the same money as others who placed in their range last year, but who don't have nearly their power at the ticket window. If any corps wants to ask for more, out of deference to their drawing power, they should be freed to do so, and let the show sponsors try to put together the best line-ups they can rather than taking whatever DCI gives them.

Catching up...

Negotiate with whom? The only negotiation they get is in the DCI BOD meetings, going up against the likes of the G7.

I'm not sure how last place went down from $1000 to $500, but it's surprising.

[Rochester New York]

Yeah, that'll level the playing field. (/sarcasm)

Still waiting for someone to explain how we can quantify this mythical "drawing power" top corps claim they have.

Hopkins Fact #1. Drum corps audiences are primarily band kids and family members of corps members. Lifelong fans and patrons are an inconvenient minority who only care about acoustic music, loud playing, and shows without narration.

Hopkins Fact #2. The G7 corps draw in the most ardent, highest-paying fans, who have followed the corps for years, regardless of whether they personally know someone in the corps.

Hopkins Fact #3. If any two facts contradict each other, see Fact #4.

Hopkins Fact #4. Woodwinds will solve everything.

[mobrien]

Catching up...

Negotiate with whom? The only negotiation they get is in the DCI BOD meetings, going up against the likes of the G7.

Missing the point - they SHOULD be freed to negotiate directly with show sponsors, the ones who'll actually be paying the bills. Minimums make more sense than flat fees, since it recognizes that some corps have more market value than others, and would serve to make even corps who aren't competing for titles thinking more about their entertainment appeal. After all, if you can command good money with fun, crowd pleasing shows (despite 10th place finishes, ala VK in '92), you should be in a position to capitalize on your work.

[mobrien]

Yeah, that'll level the playing field. (/sarcasm)

Still waiting for someone to explain how we can quantify this mythical "drawing power" top corps claim they have.

Guess you've never seen how capitalism works? Those who have more value to employers (or show producers) discover their value through the power of negotiation.

You want to "level" the playing field? - start by focusing on encouraging corps to maximize their earning power via fan affninity building. How do you get people to like you? Design better, more entertaining shows. I'd wager that if put to a vote, most people in Madison in '92 would have rather watched VK again that night than most of the top four corps, even if they recognized that VK was NOT in the top four's league from a performance standpoint.

Well, if you have a 10th place corps that the fans love a lot, you bet your arse that a smart director is going to ask for more money for his corps than a 6th place corps that garners golf claps. Voila - the corps who aren't top 3 have a mechanism for leveling the field that doesn't require someone else to step in and try to handicap the top corps as determined by placement.

If someone thinks that all drum corps are worth the same amount of fan interest (aka "ticket sales) to potential show sponsors, it would indicate that they've never sold a ticket to a professional entertainment event in their life. Some acts are simply more popular than others. Cruel fact of life, even if it means that everyone doesn't gets a medal at the end of the season. Since you don't believe that the top corps are the draws that common sense tells us they are, you shouldn't object to a system that allows each corps to demonstrate their drawing power the same way that every other professional entertainer does - via the marketplace.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mobrien

[garfield]

Guess you've never seen how capitalism works? Those who have more value to employers (or show producers) discover their value through the power of negotiation.

Screw "leveling" the playing field - start focusing on letting corps maximize their earning power via superior show design (despite the judges' opinions) and fan affninity building, and you've erased the biggest issue regarding perceived business inequalities. If I have a 10th place corps that the fans love, you bet your arse I'm going to ask for more money than the 6th place corps that garners golf claps. If, on the other hand, a corps director discovers that most sponsors are unwilling to pay them any more than "minimum wage", they'll have to begin thinking about what they're doing wrong when compared to the competition.

If someone thinks that all drum corps are worth the same amount of fan interest (aka "ticket sales) to potential show sponsors, it would indicate that they've never sold a ticket to a professional entertainment event in their life. Some acts are simply more popular than others. Cruel fact of life, even if it means that everyone gets a medal at the end of the season

As a current show "sponsor" (a misnomer of a phrase in its use here), I'd like to know how to quantify the worth of Cadets, who want $3000 to perform in my show, or Pioneer, who wants $1500 (and would love more)? How can I (or they, for that matter) quantify their worth? By having a Battle of the Corps? See who draws the most? Does the show sponsor get guarantee that this will work?

If I could quantify the number of BITS that Pio would bring vs. what Cadets would bring in, then I'd be in a position to negotiate an appearance fee.

But in one context your point is correct. For 99% of the season's performances, the singular thing the local show sponsor is focused on is getting BITS.

I'm actually kind of curious, how would you propose to test the drawing power of each corps?

Edited June 17, 2010 by garfield

[mobrien]

I'm actually kind of curious, how would you propose to test the drawing power of each corps?

The same way everyone else in the world does - by negotiation. Any half-way intelligent contractor knows what their market value is - you can't tell me that the corps directors out there don't also have an idea of what their relative values are to the show sponsors (even if some of them might be unhappy about acknowledging that they're not as big a draw as some of their competitors).

For the show sponsor, it's not that complex of a process - you figure out how you want to apportion the performance fees, you do a realistic estimate of how many tickets you think a given act will sell (or in this case, what a particular line-up might do for your box office - sometimes, novelty sells better than prizefights), and you go from there. Not rocket science, really, though it sometimes means you have to be a little more inventive on the marketing and PR front if you have a line-up that's less than blockbuster.

Does it mean that show sponsors in small venues might have a harder time getting in the big names? Yes - unless the show sponsor can come up with some other inducements to get his or her corps of choice to play his venue that night. This is NOT uncommon in the professional entertainment world; I've gotten award-winning performers to show up for union scale just because they liked something about the piece that was proposed to them and that mattered more than money. Well, there'll be nights when Cavaliers or BD or Madison might rather have another show 80 miles away from last night's show instead of driving 400 miles to another gig, and be willing to take less than they'd get for the longer-distance gig in order to reduce wear and tear on the members.

Move the power away from a centralized office and back into the hands of the corps (at all levels), and give the corps the ability to start capitalizing on - or improving - their fan appeal, regardless of placement.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mobrien

[garfield]

The same way everyone else in the world does - by negotiation. Any half-way intelligent contractor knows what their market value is - you can't tell me that the corps directors out there don't also have an idea of what their relative values are to the show sponsors (even if some of them might be unhappy about acknowledging that they're not as big a draw as some of their competitors).

For the show sponsor, it's not that complex of a process - you figure out how you want to apportion the performance fees, you do a realistic estimate of how many tickets you think a given act will sell (or in this case, what a particular line-up might do for your box office - sometimes, novelty sells better than prizefights), and you go from there. Not rocket science, really, though it sometimes means you have to be a little more inventive on the marketing and PR front if you have a line-up that's less than blockbuster.

No! The corps don't have any more idea of their free-market value than you or I! Their fees are set by a guiding authority, negotiated by the corps themselves. So, in that context they know their fee schedule based on performances. But that doesn't accurately reflect what their worth is in the "open market" of local Tour Event Partners.

I don't think you understand what drives a local show! But regardless...

I've got a stadium that seats 5000. We've had a show there for 5 years. It's clear in our minds that Top Tier corps have drawing power, but we've had good attendance in years where only one top 6 corps performs.

The problem is a practical one. I don't mind the negotiation, but what's the mechanism I use, as a TEP, to judge the value in my pockets of any corps based on seat sales?

Again, don't I have to have one show of all top-6; count the attendance; then another show that excludes the top-6; count the attendance?

What incentive do I have, as a TEP, to organize a lower-drawing show and possibly lose money on it? In order to prove that Cadets justify a bigger draw from my gate? Shouldn't they have to prove that to me?

We're the only show in central Ohio. How do I measure the attendance based on fans' desire to see ANY show, Top-6 or otherwise? Do I run another test and exclude out-of-towners? Do I distribute a survey asking them why they came that night?

Seems DCI is already doing that.

My business is in the financial world as an unabashed capitalist pig, and I contribute time and energy to local arts (mostly musical) activities. I've been reading 990s for years and I've seen how professional music unions negotiate contracts. One thing I've learned is that, while some of the ideas of free market capitalism can improve management of a non-profit, the basic theses of the two methodologies are oil and water. They don't mix. The capitalist profit motive has little validity in the world of non-profits in general, and musical arts endeavors, most specifically.

Edited June 17, 2010 by garfield

[mobrien]

My business is in the financial world as an unabashed capitalist pig, and I contribute time and energy to local arts (mostly musical) activities. I've been reading 990s for years and I've seen how professional music unions negotiate contracts. One thing I've learned is that, while some of the ideas of free market capitalism can improve management of a non-profit, the basic theses of the two methodologies are oil and water. They don't mix. The capitalist profit motive has little validity in the world of non-profits in general, and musical arts endeavors, most specifically.

And my business is in the professional performing arts, booking artists to perform in non-profit venues (the same principles apply whether you're non-profit for for-profit - you want events that will provide service while making your organization a profit). It's not that complicated (union performance fees generally apply to working local musicians - not national touring artists).

You know what your capacity is, you know what your ticket pricing range is, you know what the logistics are in terms of artist accommodations, etc. If I'm working with a 300-seat space, I know that I can't afford The Eagles. If I'm working in a 10,000 seat venue, I know that Buddy Guy is probably too small (unless he's booked with several other acts that boost the interest level). Figure out what you have to spend, figure out how you can maximize your resources creatively, and get to work. Hundreds of people do it every day in venues all across the world.

The usual process, fwiw, is I decide who I'm interested in booking. I send their agent an offer sheet that includes venue size and proposed ticket pricing. They look at the numbers and figure out 1) whether the gig is workable from their schedule, and 2) if so, what's a reasonable fee for the gig. EVERY offer sheet from every presenter is a single consideration, and more often than not, they're open to creativity re: the fee (my preference is for guaranteed minimums against a percentage of gross; that way, if the show's sold out, they make a little more, and if it tanks, at least the venue isn't on the hook for more money than they can afford). The point is that if DCI allowed this option, corps and show sponsors would be partners in a way they aren't now, since each party would have a vested interest in making the show successful.

Establish a minimum performance fee to protect the corps' interest, then give EVERY corps - regardless of size - the capacity to use it as a basis for negotiation. If someone over-prices themselves, they'll soon figure it out (if BD said "our minimum is $10,000 per performance", clearly they'll only wind up with a couple of bookings, yes? So there's no incentive for them to go there).

Try a guaranteed minimum and allow the corps to negotiate, and you remove the G7's call for increased revenues via their own events and let them prove their worth. At the same time, you reward other corps who AREN'T necessarily top 5 corps but who put together a personality and some shows that audiences want to see, and discourage others who are just treading water from being so complacent. Win/win.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mobrien

[audiodb]

Guess you've never seen how capitalism works? Those who have more value to employers (or show producers) discover their value through the power of negotiation.

Pure capitalism is what we had pre-DCI....so we have seen how capitalism works in the drum corps activity.

You want to "level" the playing field? - start by focusing on encouraging corps to maximize their earning power via fan affninity building. How do you get people to like you? Design better, more entertaining shows.

I see where you are going with this, and it is a compelling argument.

However, the leaders of our activity found that the pure capitalistic approach wasn't working well enough for them. Show sponsors would not even quantify the "entertainment value" of one corps vs. another, much less pay for such a thing with no guarantee that the corps would deliver a particularly "entertaining" show this year just because they did so last year. As a result, the one incentive system show sponsors did come up with was prize money....and that did not provide a sustainable model for the touring corps.

Establishing and maintaining a drum corps contest tour is a complex undertaking. You need enough show sponsors to provide a series of paying events. You need to get those show sponsors to schedule their events in a geographically sensible progression. The corps need to make a certain amount of money to cover their costs, or else touring can be financially fatal (as it was for some pre-DCI corps that placed "out of the money"). Conversely, show sponsors need enough corps to fill their lineups, and they need them scheduled far enough in advance so that they can do advance advertising.

This sort of open-negotiation approach is not stable enough to facilitate the touring model. Corps would be faced with having to cancel portions of tours if they couldn't land enough shows for enough money. Show sponsors would face these late cancellations, and have to cancel their events if they didn't land enough other corps to make a viable show. The other corps in those cancelled events would then have less paydays, possibly rendering their tours unsustainable....and the vicious circle would continue, cutting down the number of viable corps and events on the tour.

This is why DCI was formed....to coordinate touring by administering a system that guarantees logical tours with pre-set appearance fees for the corps, and guarantees show sponsors a full lineup of corps at an established price....and, as a result of both of those, creates a sustainable touring model.

If someone thinks that all drum corps are worth the same amount of fan interest (aka "ticket sales) to potential show sponsors, it would indicate that they've never sold a ticket to a professional entertainment event in their life. Some acts are simply more popular than others. Cruel fact of life, even if it means that everyone doesn't gets a medal at the end of the season. Since you don't believe that the top corps are the draws that common sense tells us they are, you shouldn't object to a system that allows each corps to demonstrate their drawing power the same way that every other professional entertainer does - via the marketplace.

Again, DCI shows are not just "entertainment" events....they are also contests. Their drawing power is largely based on fan interest in the competitive aspect of the circuit.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that, perhaps because of your desire for more entertaining shows. If you really want entertainment to be incentivized, then you need to get rid of the judges and go to an exhibition format. The lure of the contest would be gone, and "entertainment" would be the only remaining reason for people to attend shows....so they'd have to be entertaining.