Karma

[garfield]

Is this not a discussion in the G7 Discussion Forum? Because I believe it is...and he has every right to say what he wants (and what he said has much merit to the OP's original post).

Yea, sorry. I missed that this was posted in the G7 forum and I addressed this in my reply above.

Of COURSE he's allowed to post what he thinks! That's the nature of the board. But he, himself, admitted to not reading the supporting data prior to posting his thoughts.

I'm just helping him out with that.

[truman]

Oh, I just noticed that this IS the G7 thread. So sorry, got here through "Active Forum Topics". My mistake.

OK, so here's where you're wrong (and while I realize there's a lot of stuff to read, if you'll focus on just the source data links (thanks Bawker!) you'll see these points:

Your history of DCI's formation is mostly correct. The fault in comparing it to the current situation is that the original combine members didn't threaten to take over the VFW, et al, and force THEM to change their organizations to match the vision of the combine members. They broke off and started their own "brotherhood" of corps (yes, that word is used in the original charter of DCI, a "brotherhood").

The G7 aren't suggesting the "controlling" entity has become too prominent in their decisions that affect all corps, they are suggesting that they know better than any other of the member corps what is best for the activity as a whole. Don't forget "the controlling organization" is not some removed entity - it IS the member corps. I does propose the current payment schedule is unfair to them and also claims the current organization is about to collapse.

But read the financial summary that DCI released after the G7's contentions and you find that "the sky is not falling".

You acquiesce that the G7 are the top "contributors" of the activity, and that if they make threats it must be because of a lack of confidence in DCI's E.D. ability to carry out their wishes. Please read DCI's 5-year plan, done in September of last year, and "commissioned" by all of the voting members of DCI (the G7 among them). This plan was in it's nascent stages and the G7 bailed on the plan to introduce their own.

The G7 contend that the activity cannot survive on its existing path, but the financials and the DCI plan don't support that point of view. Further, how does throwing the majority of non-G7 corps off the bus help the activity survive? Simply, it can't, and the G7 don't want the current activity to survive. They want to kill it, then reincarnate it in the vision that they think will help it survive. (Is the difference between the original combine and the G7 getting any clearer to you?)

Again, the basis of the G7 contention (and your claim of "fact") are not supported in the financial results published by DCI in direct response to the claim. Please read the financial documents.

No, it speaks of the G7's belief that to capture this fan base DCI must change itself to look more like the fan base. DCI's 5-year plan shows a lot MORE sensitivity to things that can cultivate the fan base than does the G7's plan, and the DCI plan includes ALL corps from the "brotherhood", not just 7 "elite" corps. The 5-year plan also lays out a tour schedule change to address the cost of touring, and it does it while protecting and nurturing "the brotherhood". It also publicly recognized the unique aspect of "the brotherhood" in this competitive activity. The G7 plan says "to hell" with the brotherhood.

You said " It only makes sense that the best performing organizations should have the most input as to what will benefit ALL corps in the activity." This may be your belief, but it is not the basis of the DCI organization envisioned by the combine in 1971 (Read "Building the Green Machine" for supporting history). The combine, and the current structure of DCI, is based on ALL member corps having an equal say in the direction of the activity. Your contention is the same as the G7, and it's a selfish organizational structure, IMO.

You said: "I know that ALL CORPS can gain financially when more fiscal reponsibilty is excersised. Increase revenues and lower expenses...what a horrible plan?" You may be right in your belief here, but what you said is NOT what the G7 proposes. They propose gutting the organization (Dan Acheson's office and staff) because of a lack of fiscal responsibility (an unsupported contention; see the DCI financials), then KEEPING THE PROFIT FOR THEMSELVES (a higher profit-potential is a G7 contention that is unsupported by anything other than "gut hunches"). "Increase revenues and lower expenses" is an admirable goal, and the DCI 5-year plan lays out a plan to accomplish that which is backed by actual studies done for DCI by Vaticinate (read the Persona study). What IS a horrible plan is to kick the other members of DCI out of the sandbox in order to keep those higher profits for just themselves. Again, as originally intended, it's a "brotherhood".

I suspect you'll find a great number of G7-opponents are the same fans who have been vocal complainers of the changes introduced to DCI over the last few years. And the fact is these complainers were more right than wrong. The changes introduced were intentionally done to increase attendance and make the activity more "accessible" and "relevant" to the high school student in order to get them as members and they family/friends as fans. Did those changes work?

Don't you find it contradictory that these changes have been introduced by the same corps directors who now say the entire organization must be destroyed and rebuilt to look like "scholastic" music programs? What basis of belief do you have that when what they've changed has not solved the problems of attendance and revenues, that THIS answer to the same problem is the correct one? Do you believe they must be correct simply because they are the "best performing organizations"? And do you identify "performing" as being their score on finals night? Do you not think Pio has a long history of "performing" their mission to introduce DC to newbies, train them, then see them off to the "best performing corps"?

We agree that "sensible action" is needed. I simply believe that DCI's 5-year plan is much more sensible than the G7 plan. And I'm no longer willing to simply follow the Pied Pipers of the "best performing organizations" down a road that has, so far, produced nothing like the solutions that were contended as they made all those changes. Especially when their "solution" throws so much of the activity overboard, rips apart the governing body, represents "secret meetings" by members who were charged to protect the best interest of ALL world class corps, and smacks so blatantly of egoism (the word used by Dan A. himself), narcissism, and disregard for the vision the combine founders had for the "brotherhood" of the activity. Those central themes are too important to the character of the activity to throw aside based on ANOTHER hair-brained plan in the long path of the G7 "vision".

Sorry so long, but I hope I've piqued enough curiosity in you for you to seriously study ALL of the supporting data links. I'm confident you'll change your thoughts when you look closely at what they actually want to do with this 37 year old activity. And remember...

"The sky is not falling"

Thanks so much..I REALLY appreciate the points you made. Knowing how difficult it is to have a clue as to the truth based only on internet information, I certainly have not had the opportunity to do all the reasearch needed to be sure I can support, (or condemn), the principles.

I have actually been spending the last couple weeks enjoying drum corps on the east coast, and have not given ANY attention to this proposal for a good month. I think the only exposure I have had was reading the initial propoganda release on the SCV sight months ago. Because of the curiosity I had to the reaction in the Bingo thread, I decided today to read the info stuff, and posted my initial perceptions. For what it's worth, consider my initial reaction as a long time fan, with 4 generations of marching experience, (including a hall of fame member). I refused to stay seated for Alice II after one viewing... My skin crawled at every Yowza...my recent review of Chambersburg shares my philosophy on the volume of AMPS during impact points. I am far from a supporter of the recent direction the current control has taken the activity, but I continue to support in many ways. If this was proposed by 1 or 2 directors, I would have assumed it was just more of the "artistic" push along this slippery slope.

I also realized I had to consider that at least 50% of those in attendance in Chambersburg had some marching band affiliation. It is hard to ignore 7 chicken littles, who certainly have the most inside info, when they say the sky is starting to fall. I immediately realized the presentation lacked depth and supporting documents of the contentions. There is clearly much research and developement to be done.

It's the motive I seek...what do they have to gain by asserting their influence? If they are already in control, then why threaten those with no control? 5 other members voted for the proposal to be revisited? Why would they want to pursue something that would be so potentially damaging? Something is just afoul with the whole thing. I'm not sure who we can trust, but I can say your insightful information and references have helped in my understanding of it all. I sincerely appreciate the time you spent rehashing things for me.

Also, for what it's worth, considering the fun I have had the last couple weeks, I am sure the summer would have been more enjoyable had I continued to stay away from DCP and this topic until things come to fruition, or at least till after Allentown. The unfortunate part is that I don't believe there's really anything much any of us can do on this forum to make a difference anyway, except create worry and angst.

[soccerguy315]

truman - they aren't trying to start a new circuit though. That's what DCI was, correct? Corps broke away and started something new. These corps are trying to stay in the same organization, but just take everything for themselves.

[soccerguy315]

You had better hope not.

why?

[audiodb]

In 1971, the directors of several prominent Drum and Bugle corps collaborated to form an alliance that would allow them to break free of the VFW and American Legion controls and politics that were eating up significant revenues that were produced by the corps.

Um, to be fair, since VFW/AL were hosting their national contests and providing built-in audiences, some of that revenue was "produced" by them. And to be fair to the inaugural DCI corps, when they staged the first DCI Championships, they "produced" in that role.

Fast forward 39 years. It might be said that DCI has, in some ways, forgotten about their founding principles. G7 suggests that the controlling organization has become too prominent in the decisions that effect ALL of the corps.

Since DCI = the corps, what does that mean exactly....that the corps have too prominent a role in decisions that affect corps?

It proposes that the current show payment structure does not fairly compensate the performing corps in relationship to the roles they play in providing the revenue.

Correct. Top corps get paid too much.

It proposes that lack of financial success is threatening to collapse the current organization.

The sky is falling!

Well, maybe you're new to this discussion. If so, please take a look at DCI's 2009 financial statement, which showed that DCI is about the only thing on Earth that isn't hemmorhaging financially....then reconsider your discussion below in that context.

When the top contributors to any organization have to make threats to effect changes in their organization, it MUST speak of legitimate loss of confidence that the entity can have future success on it's current path.

Actually, no....it may just mean that they are willing to play dirty to get their way.

By the way, thanks for admitting that the G7 are making threats.

G7 is based on the FACT that DCI is in danger of causing it's own demise because of it's lack of fiscal success.

The sky is falling!

It speaks of a lack of understanding to where it's fan base can be found, and it's lack of sensitivity to the things that can cultivate these fans. It speaks of a lack of change in competition and show format that can address the current growing tour and operating costs.

Could you elaborate? Frankly, I don't see much distinction between G7 and non-G7 on where the fans are....and I have no idea what you refer to with event format addressing touring costs.

As in past years with the board meetings, many things are proposed, and many are not approved. While I am skeptical of many of the ideas in the proposal, I am confident that it's not an all or nothing kind of threat by these 7 corps. To me it is a wake up call to DCI that serious change is needed, and it MUST HAPPEN.

Or what....the sky will fall?

It only makes sense that the best performing organizations should have the most input as to what will benefit ALL corps in the activity.

Huh? We should make business decisions based not on who runs a better organization, but instead on who got higher scores from DCI judges?

It also makes sense to me that that top drawing talent, in any form of entertainment, deserves some measurable amount more than the lesser drawing talent, when it comes to dispersing the revenues.

As soon as they can show a measurable effect on revenue - oh, wait....they can't.

[audiodb]

It's the motive I seek...what do they have to gain by asserting their influence?

Money, for one thing.

If they are already in control, then why threaten those with no control? 5 other members voted for the proposal to be revisited? Why would they want to pursue something that would be so potentially damaging?

I'm sorry, but at no point did five non-G7 directors vote as you describe.

[truman]

I guess I have to say again that I have NOT YET FORMED ENOUGH OPINION ABOUT THE G7 PRESENTATION TO BE ON ANY SIDE. Therefore, please stop confusing things I post with question marks as things that I state as being fact. There are also times I have stated what my interpretation of the proposal was, not my personal feelings. (G7 feels the "act" corps should have more say and cuts, not me). It was the Drum Corps World article that called attention to the comparison of the similar rhetoric used in 1971, which I BELIEVE could be considered relevent to the OP's title. Certainly as relevent as considering the normal trials and tribulations of any summer tour as being some sort of kharma on the G7.

SCV...Phantom Regiment...two of the most storied corps in history, with no seeming desire to add woodwinds and saxaphones, are on board with this. 5 other member corps are not happy with the way SOME things are being run. THEY propose that the organization that should benefit it's member corps has become some type of burden on them. They say they feel the need to do something to change to protect the future of their organizations. I just don't think this is only about board members of these 7 corps trying to stuff THEIR pockets with cash while the rest of the activity crumbles and dies. Is it really so far fetched to think that they might feel that the futures of their organizations are in jeopardy in the current system?

Perhaps the DCI financial statement is part of their problems? They feel the expenses for the administration that are reported on it should be reduced, and distributed to ALL the member corps.

Unless one has read the operating report for all the corps, and DCI, understanding the financial issues must be considered guesswork and opinion at best. For example, if DCI the INC. is thriving at a higher rate than the member corps, might this indicate an issue? I don't know everybody's financial situations, but I also don't think that the G7 vigilante group on DCP does either. If you do and have facts to support your opinion, I always appreciate respectful educations.

They want to add some performances around regional shows, adding 2 more revenue generating opportunities, without traveling 200 miles or more in one night. Travel is expensive.

They think there would be a draw for the top corps to perform extra shows that try a fan friendlier format. They think that there is a chance to interact with fans on a level that current shows do not promote. They want the fans to connect with the performers on a more close up and personal level. These things don't seem all that far fetched. I follow drum corps every summer, and love to meet the members, watch them practice, and think that lot warm ups are some of the COOLEST drum corps you will see. I have come to find myself spending more time with one or two corps, getting more engaged with their shows, members, and staff, even at the expense of seeing other corps perform. An extra show in my area that plays to that sounds good to ME.

They already score higher than everyone else, represent the only active corps to win a championship, and are seemingly some of the strongest, and certainly some of the most successful organizations.

Yet they feel the strong need for some changes. They are making threats. 2 have resigned positions on the interim board, that their opponents claim to be positions of control.

I am going to continue to wonder why. The "they are just greedy" argument seems weak. Maybe that's all it is.

Until that is proven to be the case, by someone other than speculating outsiders, I will be careful to rush to judgement.

The venom being spit on some of these forums by some should sadden anyone who calls themselves a drum corps fan. I appreciate everyones opinion, but will always instinctively oppose anyone who wishes bad things on ANY drum corps. I KNOW who that is right now. Maybe I will have to oppose the G7 soon, we'll see.

I AM going to try and enjoy ALL the performances the G7 and ALL DCI Corps offer this year. There may not be too many more years to do so, because you really never know if, how, or even why, the sky might fall.

Edited July 12, 2010 by truman

[audiodb]

I guess I have to say again that I have NOT YET FORMED ENOUGH OPINION ABOUT THE G7 PRESENTATION TO BE ON ANY SIDE. Therefore, please stop confusing things I post with question marks as things that I state as being fact. There are also times I have stated what my interpretation of the proposal was, not my personal feelings. (G7 feels the "act" corps should have more say and cuts, not me).

Well, in that case, please don't take responses to your posts personally. We are just responding to what is posted.

They say they feel the need to do something to change to protect the future of their organizations. I just don't think this is only about board members of these 7 corps trying to stuff THEIR pockets with cash while the rest of the activity crumbles and dies. Is it really so far fetched to think that they might feel that the futures of their organizations are in jeopardy in the current system?

The sky is falling!

Perhaps the DCI financial statement is part of their problems? They feel the expenses for the administration that are reported on it should be reduced, and distributed to ALL the member corps.

Unless one has read the operating report for all the corps, and DCI, understanding the financial issues must be considered guesswork and opinion at best. For example, if DCI the INC. is thriving at a higher rate than the member corps, might this indicate an issue?

Sure. It indicates that there's a down economy, and that the DCI office is exceptionally well-run.

DCI is an agency, run by the corps for the corps. Their role is to perform certain services in support of the corps. Financially, they are to perform their role with efficiency, and return as much revenue to the corps as possible while balancing their own books. Seems like 2009 was a textbook example of DCI accomplishing those objectives.

They want to add some performances around regional shows, adding 2 more revenue generating opportunities, without traveling 200 miles or more in one night.

That is not accurate. Adding G7 events on Fridays/Sundays also means subtracting whatever events would ordinarily occur on those days. It means adding revenue-generating opportunities for the G7, while subtracting revenue-generating opportunities for the other 16. And it does not alter the overall tour path, so total mileage will not change, days on the road will not change....tour costs will not change.

They think there would be a draw for the top corps to perform extra shows that try a fan friendlier format. They think that there is a chance to interact with fans on a level that current shows do not promote. They want the fans to connect with the performers on a more close up and personal level. These things don't seem all that far fetched. I follow drum corps every summer, and love to meet the members, watch them practice, and think that lot warm ups are some of the COOLEST drum corps you will see. I have come to find myself spending more time with one or two corps, getting more engaged with their shows, members, and staff, even at the expense of seeing other corps perform. An extra show in my area that plays to that sounds good to ME.

What you describe in this paragraph, in those exact words, is not unreasonable. And if someone was proposing a format where fans would connect with the performers of all world-class corps on a more personal level, that would be worth discussing. But instead, the G7 are proposing we reformat some events so that fans can connect more deeply only with the G7 corps. That is blatantly self-serving.

They already score higher than everyone else, represent the only active corps to win a championship, and are seemingly some of the strongest, and certainly some of the most successful organizations.

I realize the Madison Scouts were "inactive" yesterday, but that was due to the Naperville show being rained out....they haven't folded.

More importantly, regarding "strongest organizations"....how do we know this? Based on contest scores? DCI has an evaluation process where the business side of a corps is assessed. No corps gets into world-class these days without passing a rigorous examination of their financial and organizational health. Based on that, my opinion is that every world-class corps is worthy of an equal voice and vote in running DCI. Those who disagree, and want a greater voting weight given to the stronger business minds of world-class, should advocate using the DCI evaluation process to determine who those people are. Evaluate all world-class corps, and rank them on the same business attributes we're looking for in the DCI boardroom. Don't you wonder why no one outside of this subforum is suggesting this?

I am going to continue to wonder why. The "they are just greedy" argument seems weak. Maybe that's all it is.

Well, the G7 proposal seemed weak (to be kind). Actually, some of the provisions in that PowerPoint power-grab were so egregious, that to attribute it to mere "greed" would be kind.

The venom being spit on some of these forums by some should sadden anyone who calls themselves a drum corps fan. I appreciate everyones opinion, but will always instinctively oppose anyone who wishes bad things on ANY drum corps.

I'm with you. I would prefer a successful outcome for all corps, G7 included....and open-class included. But I have enough insight to realize that the status-quo of backroom elitist power plays will generate the least amount of such successful outcomes. Best would be for world-class to be a league of equals, working together. But if that is not possible (and it certainly doesn't look likely), then a split would serve both the G7 and the rest of DCI far better than the current situation, where seven member corps privately plot in conflict with DCI's business plan.