So it's the big week

[skluyuk]

Here is where......

QUOTE (skluyuk @ Jul 19 2010, 03:12 PM) There is nothing in my post to suggest I have read a single word of the G7 proposal. Matter of fact is that I have only read the press releases discussing the concept.

Wow...you guys are really uptight. The operative word in soccerguys post is 'defending'. As I said, I am not defending anything, simply trying to add discussion to the fiscal perspective.

[garfield]

it is...and isn't.

because there are many pieces of the puzzle you are missing. if you read the G7 press release, it sounds great. Til you read the actual proposal and the DCW article..and Dan's interview...and find out that really it is a naked power grab.

what makes it worse is some of the best run corps financially may not be the ones breaking the bak to chase for a title every year.

there is a lot more to making a successful and stable organization than competitive results.

And especially, skluyuk, when you read the Vaticinate study (Project Persona) and find that a great many of WC corps have MM that come from OC. These corps most certainly are providing a "service" that is valuable to the activity as a whole, yet few are lauded as "winners" based on performance points.

(Project Persona is available for you to read on the G7 thread. It's just 3 pages, but it's packed with valuable data.)

[garfield]

Wow...you guys are really uptight. The operative word in soccerguys post is 'defending'. As I said, I am not defending anything, simply trying to add discussion to the fiscal perspective.

I don't think "uptight" is the operative word here, skluyuk. "Well-read", maybe, but not uptight.

You made some terrific leaps with your original post that have been challenged. And those challenges are backed by the supporting material on the G7 thread. You seem to be trying to dodge perceptions of your post, when you should be reading the source data to vindicate your comments.

I asked you about your '08 post regarding OC support from DCI as it relates to the G7 proposal and you haven't even answered that.

I'm trying to seriously engage you because I sensed some rationale in your previous posts, but you're making it hard on the rest of us if you aren't willing to read the source data (which, you've admitted, you haven't done).

I can think of several words to describe your admission, but we're all trying to debate the issues here, and the source data is the common thread that we can all work from.

That's all there is to it.

[Jeff Ream]

uptight? no.

but not blindly following the PR either

Wow...you guys are really uptight. The operative word in soccerguys post is 'defending'. As I said, I am not defending anything, simply trying to add discussion to the fiscal perspective.

[skluyuk]

I have now downloaded and read through the G7 Proposal. Looks like I was not far off in my assumptions. I used some similar language regarding 'pay for level of effort' in the OP.

The thing that surprises me a bit is the degradation and outright exclusion of some very good drum corps (BC, BK, BS, GM, Spirit, and so on) from TOC. The proposal states in numbers that the AAA corps are >4x more valuable than the AA ($12500/$3000) who are only worth 1.25x ($3000/$2400) that of the class A corps. Presumably this is because of all the coordination and effort the top seven will have in putting together their TOC production.

The tone of the proposal is much like an ultimatum. "If approved... If not...", "Must happen... If not..."

I understand the motivation but don't believe for a minute that the approach is in the absolute best interest of the activity. I would venture that this plan will further separate those who are the best from the greater drum corps community and pretty much squash any real competitive threat from those outside that exclusive club.

[BRASSO]

I have now downloaded and read through the G7 Proposal.

The tone of the proposal is much like an ultimatum. "If approved... If not...", "Must happen... If not..."

I understand the motivation but don't believe for a minute that the approach is in the absolute best interest of the activity. I would venture that this plan will further separate those who are the best from the greater drum corps community and pretty much squash any real competitive threat from those outside that exclusive club.

Well stated here, imo... and couldn't agree more these particular remarks of yours above that I've highlighted from your full remarks.

Edited July 20, 2010 by BRASSO

[skluyuk]

Your idea of branching out is an idea but everyone always fails to realize that there just isn't the market or interest in the general population to support anymore drum corps style performances. Sure, an alumni group jazz band might be able to book a few performances now and then but in the large scope of things by the time you take out travel costs, equipment, pay the members etc, you will not have nearly enough to make a drop in the bucket to support the non-profit corps.

Your response is the most reasonable to what I have written. It is a rational argument against what I suggested (which really is not a directly related to the G7 proposal). I think your perspective on branching out beyond the non-profit may be limited. An alumni group is not even in the field of view for what I was discussing. I am thinking of something that goes above and beyond the BLAST! template. With the talent available in the G7 corps, they should be able to dream something up that we have not even thought of yet.

Near term, I think you are correct. Long term maybe not. BLAST! did not happen overnight either. There is some opportunity to at least explore the option.

[skluyuk]

I don't think "uptight" is the operative word here, skluyuk. "Well-read", maybe, but not uptight.

You made some terrific leaps with your original post that have been challenged. And those challenges are backed by the supporting material on the G7 thread. You seem to be trying to dodge perceptions of your post, when you should be reading the source data to vindicate your comments.

I asked you about your '08 post regarding OC support from DCI as it relates to the G7 proposal and you haven't even answered that.

I'm trying to seriously engage you because I sensed some rationale in your previous posts, but you're making it hard on the rest of us if you aren't willing to read the source data (which, you've admitted, you haven't done).

I can think of several words to describe your admission, but we're all trying to debate the issues here, and the source data is the common thread that we can all work from.

That's all there is to it.

How about 'sensitive' as in 'pouring salt into the non-G7 corps open wound'?

Keep in mind that before a couple of days ago, I could care less what 'G7' even referred to and then I thought I would go check it out. Even reading through the proposal, there is nothing that is outrageously surprising knowing who was involved in formulating the approach.

I don't understand what you mean by 'leaps'. I opened up discussion on some potential avenues that could be taken by these really outstanding drum corps to generate further revenue. The discourse is completely outside of anything contained within the proposal as I later stated (use whatever words you would like). It just so happens, that now that I have read the material, several of the things I suggested are similar in nature. The biggest difference between what I opened up to discuss and what is in the G7 proposal is that they want to take away from the corps that comprise DCI to benefit themselves in a rather unequitable manner. It is not unreasonable for them to ask for a little bigger piece of the pie. What they want to do is pretty much keep the whole pie and feed scraps to the dogs.

The approach that I was advocating is to take the well trained talent that is available with the hundreds of ageouts, and explore forming several performing groups, training groups, clinician groups, etc. Begin developing an audience and clientele. Make it profitable through sales, sponsorship, etc.! Return some of that profit in support of the non-profits. Heck if Tiger Woods can get paid millions of dollars to endorse Nike, why can't the marching arts equipment mfgs pony up some cash? These groups would operate entirely out of the bounds of DCI. Seems reasonable for the G7 to pool that talent to form these groups and share any gains equitably.

I would like to answer your question about my '08 post, but I don't quite understand what you are asking. If you would restate it, I will do my best to provide a response.

[garfield]

I'm new to this whole G7 discussion, <job interference with my drum corps browsing and all> but I am not surprised by this at all.

The G7 corps have been building very strong organizations over the last couple of decades. So much so that they are consistently able to attract the absolute best talent in the 17-21 age group to perform in this venue.

They have strategically saturated and dominated the marching arts market with their name brands and worked diligently to get a product out there for consumption by the literally thousands of marching band programs around the United States (and Japan/Europe for that matter).

The corps obtain sponsorship from major equipment suppliers (Yamaha, King, Dynasty, Jupiter, Pearl, Zildjian, FJM, Dickies, on and on...) who froth at the teeth to let the G7 corps show the consumers what can be done with their products. Then the G7 go out and hold clinics to market for their sponsors. These clinics both train the kids and create a desire to participate in this great activity. Sell it Baby!!!

That's just smart. Become profitable and you are no longer bound to the limitations associated with being a 501c organization. This is the writing on the wall.

All of the G7 organizations are well rounded. BD has the Diablo Wind Symphony, WGI, DCI, BDE programs, along with System Blue. Garfield (YEA!) has the DCI, WGI, USSSA, clinics, etc. CC has DCI, WGI, clinics, etc. And so on.... For these organizations to work together is a brilliant strategy. They cover every corner (and the creamy center) of the United States. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that they will not branch out (in some manner) into the profitable world? It could be 'BLAST!' -like or something else that they dream up.

How many of us who performed wouldn't have given their left...thumb to have the opportunity to continue performing?! I could totally see the expansion of this new performing arts venue beyond the the 'non-profit' training grounds of DCI. That means the G7 could play on both sides of the fence as long as there were a separate and distinct venue for the post-ageout era. It would be no different than Bill Cook's Transportation company help fund Star.

What a great way to allow ageouts (with the incredible training and talent that exists) to continue pursuing growth and push the envelope of possibilities for this sport. And what a great way to maintain the solid financial foundation required to operate a fully touring drum and bugle corps. Not to mention the number of non-performer jobs (CEO, CFO, Marketing Directors, Artitic Directors...) that would be created to support the for profit groups.

Just my two-cents. Rambling done....

OK, here's your original post and, now that you've clarified your words, it is a little clearer in its intent.

That being said, you said:

"The G7 corps have been building very strong organizations over the last couple of decades."

I suggest otherwise because their 990s don't support the contention. Further, if their organizations were so strong why would they feel the need to keep more marbles for themselves at the expense of all the others?

You said:

"They have strategically saturated and dominated the marching arts market with their name brands and worked diligently to get a product out there for consumption by the literally thousands of marching band programs around the United States (and Japan/Europe for that matter)."

While I concede that BD or Crown or Cadets may have greater name recognition among MB students, the Vaticinate study (Persona) suggests clearly that members choose to march DCI more than to march a particular corps. That conclusion should lead you to believe that DCI has the brand recognition to a greater degree than any one corps. The only "saturation" in the marketplace is the repetitive nature of "BD wins again!" (hat tip to Plan9). I concede you won't get the same cheers for Pio even though Pio's mission is well-fulfilled each year. But to conclude that the G7 corps are "the face" of drum corps is inaccurate in the bigger picture.

Then you said:

"Then the G7 go out and hold clinics to market for their sponsors."

Your connotation is that only the G7 do clinics and sponsors only sponsor G7 corps. That absolutely untrue. Sponsors want their name out there, and they're successful at that if Cadets do a clinic or if Pio does a clinic. It's reasonable to think that Cadets clinic (by example) will cost more to produce than will a Pio clinic, and the sponsors will adjust their support based on that fact and also based on the number of HS kids show up at each.

Then you said:

"Is it really that much of a stretch to think that they will not branch out (in some manner) into the profitable world? It could be 'BLAST!' -like or something else that they dream up."

...and you really threw me, mostly because there is nothing in the G7 proposal that hints that they intend to move away from their 501c(3) status, ala BLAST. In fact, I'd contend that they know they couldn't possibly move to a for-profit model based on taxation alone! They are very deserving of special status that attaining 501c(3) status affords them, the largest single benefit of which is non-taxibility of the amount they have left over after the bills are paid. So you throwing this out there is a curve ball from left field. If it was only your suggestion then you should have pointed it out as such.

You said:

" That means the G7 could play on both sides of the fence as long as there were a separate and distinct venue for the post-ageout era. It would be no different than Bill Cook's Transportation company help fund Star."

I think I get your point here, but this is awfully confusing. How could a G7 corps field both a non-profit venture and a for-profit venture from within the same organization? (It can't.) BD runs "professional" clinics. That's non-profit revenue that supports the corps. Same with Cadets promotion and Crown's ticket service. But none of them are like BLAST!, which was a for-profit venture from the get-go (the long-term viability of which should be self-evident).

Professional "aged-out" members doing a BLAST! kind of thing IS BLAST!. If this is the model for the activity it has some serious long-term viability problems to be addressed before the G7 drag the whole activity in that direction.

So, yes, your original post had some significant "leaps" above and beyond what was presented in the proposal. Hence, the reaction you got from me and others.

Finally, in 2008 you posted that (paraphrasing...your actual post is above) DCI needs to pay more attention to the OC corps, and you backed it up with some calculations of your own that showed the OC corps were actually performing better than WC corps!

So my question is: What do you think the G7 will do to invigorate OC, support them in their mission, and help them continue to "outperform" in their missions in the same way BD "outperforms" in theirs? (another hat tip to Plan9)? Please don't speculate on this answer because the G7 say exactly what they'll do directly in their proposal.

Edited July 20, 2010 by garfield

[David Hill]

... and it was "the week that was!"