G7 Thoughts/Alternatives

[93Bluecoat]

After reviewing the G7 "working document" for quite some time and taking most of the day today to collect my thoughts, I wanted to share some points about this proposal and what options DCI, the corps (both G7 and non), and the fans have. I'll go point by point.

Assertion #1...DCI's Fiscal Stability. In the document G7 states that DCI has dropping attendence (it does), more corps under it's umbrella than it can support (true), and change is necessary (true). So far, they are 3 for 3, you can't really agure with it.

Assertion #2..."DCI's top corps drive the activity and deserve/need greater fiscal support. Corps are NOT the same. Those who drive sales through excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded." True, corps are not the same and TRUE, top corps deserve a greater share at each show. This assertion states that excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded. Ok, give the Troopers and Madison Scouts all the money because they seem to be the only corps designing with entertainment. Their assertion is true, their reasoning is incorrect. I'm LESS likely to go to a show that feature 3 of the top corps and not much else. I'm MORE likely to go to a show if 7 of the top 15 are there with a nice cross representation. G7 proposal starts to show some cracks in it's arguement.....

Assertion #3..."Premiere corps are essential to DCI's success and require greater influence." Really? Are you telling me that David Glasgow of the Bluecoats carry's more perspective and requires greater attention than Mark Arnold of the Blue Knights? This assertion seems to want to keep the opinions of some at bay. In reality what it could be is a small group (Gibbs/Hopkins?) influencing the rest of the G7 corps. Are these corps "essential" to success though? How has DCI done since Star of Indiana left? If the G7 corps took their ball and left to form their own "Marchings Major League" and DCI was left with all the other member corps, wouldn't it be safe to also asert that this would only make the remaining DCI corps stronger since they could now have more money. This would essentially solve one of the problems in Assertion #1 in that DCI has too many corps to support. Cut out 7 corps that are overpaying their own staff, overpaying to ship their own personnel all over the country for audition camps, and create rules every year mandating the use of more expensive equipment, I think we'd solve a lot of problems from the get go. I think many of the fan base enjoyed DCI when there were MORE rules in place governing the shows. It was a better product. Get rid of the G7, or ahem, let them for their own tour, and suddenly DCI may have it's activity back. Madison could win in 2011! Or Boston Crusaders! I say this tongue in cheek of course but its a viable alternative. I wonder how many students (either HS or college) are going to want to be in a G7 type performing group? I enjoyed the competition, more of them the better. If I'm paying thousands of dollars to do this activity all summer, I want to do more than a Friday-Saturday-Sunday circuit. ....just my opinion I know.

Assertion #4..."Corps need to be classified to assist in the marketing of the activity. Not all corps are music's major league." Ummmmm, no. The Troopers deserve the same marketing opportunities if they are a part of DCI as the Cavaliers.....the marketing should be geared to the REGION. If there's a show in Utah, Wyoming, or Colorado....the Troopers and Blue Knights should be all over the marketing. If the show is on the east coast, Crown and Cadets and so on for the Midwest, South and West. This is such a useless assertion by G7 and its really a reach at best. It also shows a poor approach toward marketing.....cheapening one brand (even though it has earning potential) for the benefit of another. I work in music retail...if I sell 1 $2000 guitar because of a promotion that I do that's great. If I work hard to sell 10 $400 guitars, I've done better. This is the approach DCI marketing should take. The rest of the assertion #4 is actually a good debate if there is a way to financially make regional corps more cost effiicient it should be explored.

Assertion #5.."Events can be created to be more marketable. We can reclaim our position as marching musics elite." There's one flaw to this assertion...that the events they wish to create would be supported by a fan base that does not want any part of their bastardized version of what they call drum corps. I'm a die hard Bluecoat alum and fan but would have a tough time attending one of the "shoved down your throat" events. Later on in this document G7 proposes that these events would be geared, almost entirely, towards music education and audience interaction. Great if you are a pimply faced 16 year old with aspirations of greatness (however that's not DCI's major paying customer)....not so great if you are 38 year fan of the activity. The so called "event" really wouldn't appeal to the current DCI fan base. The last statement in this assertion says "better events will draw more attendence over time". Really? Check out how Blast is doing now? It's run it's course and so would the "schtick" of the G7 over hyped performances. It panders to the lowest common denominator.

Assertion #6..."We would like to affect change in DCI." Hey, now you're talking! I think DCI knows that change is needed, but not what G7 is proposing with is to essentially dissolve the influence of the organized corps (DCI), which, mind you, most of them were a part of 38 years ago when this whole thing started. The G7 proposal essentially states in this portion of the document that DCI be stripped of most of it's personnel and their coordinatiing positions be handed over to the corps to manage (the G7 corps that is, which would mean they control any non G7 activity as well). This is unacceptable. An audit seems to be necessary to see if expenditures within DCI are necessary or could be utilized differently. I sounds as if the G7 has found some things within the DCI infastructure that are excessive and those areas need to be addressed, perhaps by an outside source (I have several on the top of my head right now that would be great). I think it would extremely premature to simply dissolve 1/2 of the DCI infastructure to appease one season.

Summary of the assertions...."The preceding 6 assertions are the “truths” that drive this discussion. Within these assertions one can see where the worries and dreams lie." These are not truths. These are ghastly assumptions with foundations in what is best for 7 drum corps rather than DCI as a whole.

Future Vision 1...."As we travel from town to town, we can recreate our positioning so that we are an AMERICAN CELEBRATION! We can celebrate our country, we can celebrate music, we can do all we can to support music education programs in the community near where we perform." Drum Corps is not an "American" celebration. The history has heritage in many cultures and countries other than America. This sounds eerily similar to the story of Antonin Dvorak composing the "New World Symphony" to show American composers how to compose American music. The "New World Symphony" has nothing American about it. It sounds as if it could have been the Czechoslavakian national anthem in fact. The events proposed do not NEED to be American Celebrations (it's not necessary) but creating performances and doing outreach to connect with your fans is advisable. How about programming a field show that doesn't need a libretto?

Future Vision 2..."Marching music partnership. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT BAND PEOPLE CAN PAY FOR … it is WHAT CAN WE DO for BAND PEOPLE !!!" Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I've said this for the better part of a decade, drum corps must stop hiding behind the veil of education. They are not education and do not exist for that purpose (nor should they). This is ridiculously short sighted because 75% of the bands in America are not DCI driven in nature (most could care less, despite what these directors think). Ask a band director of a 300 member band in Texas that does A&M military drill if hanging out with the Bluecoats is high on his list of priorities. Most likely he would agree that it would be a cool thing to do, but he's not interested. He's got some precision snap turns to teach. Ask band directors in rural Eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana if they plan on gathering their kids up in the middle of the summer to drive two or more hours so his kids can hang out with the Blue Devils and have their staff tell him what a great band director he is. If you're a band director that "needs" this, you need to re-evaluate why you are a teacher! The "events" mentioned in this ridiculous vision are short sighted in nature because they going to pander to an excruciatingly small portion of the American band population. If marketing is one of your goals, why would you focus on such a small percentage of the market?

Future Vision 3...."A partnership with pageantry. we are to go after band students, guard, dance, and other related arts and pageantry organizations. Who we are … and how we define ourselves and the relationships will be resolved but to be sure …WE CANNOT BE ISOLATED. WE NEED TO BE LIKE OUR PEERS AND STOP INSISTING WE ARE DIFFERENT AND BETTER." AGAIN, if better marketing is one of your objectives, why are we focusing on such a small portion of our audience (bands, guard, dance, related arts)? We need to stop insisting we are different and better? Why? Did anyone read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? Being different and better is what drives capitalism and as I read this document, it would appear that money is what this is coming down to (when you sift through the rest of the bovine residue). Being better money makers (i.e. different AND better than all other mediums) would seem like a good idea. This smells too much like "WGI is doing a great job of drawing our market share, so instead of doing something to combat that, we'll just get in bed with them". The activities are no doubt linked in nature, however, what's wrong with drum corps insisting that they put out a better product than WGI?

Future Vision 4...."Weekends will be supershow weekends." Apparently the proposal insinuates that there would be events Friday, Saturday and Sunday relating to the show. What fan base would utilize this? Alums don't have three days to dedicate. Bands, guards, and other arts organizations are not going to dedicate hotels and travel expenses to participate in events that are essentially gregarious in comparison to the actual show.

Future visions 5-7 deal with current shows and business relationships. Not much to comment on here.

Future visions 8...Cut 1/2 of the DCI staff to save money and/or redistribute the wealth. This to me, seems like a coup and raid of the DCI coffers, however after further consideration and in what I stated earlier, it would appear that some kind of external audit is necessary for the operating structure of DCI (this is actually what my brother does for a living, and yes, he's a DCI vet! Haha).

Future Vision 9...Improved fiscal structure for G7 corps. This is a huge assumption. MLB hasn't done well with revenue sharing (this is essentially what this proposal is) and this plan assumes it to be the fix all for DCI problems.

The next part of the G7 document deals with governance. It basically gives the G7 corps all the control. Its just not right.

The next part of the G7 document deals with scoring....it is interesting, needs tweeking and discussion, but its not bad.

Overall, this is bad for the activity. It assumes much and guarantees nothing. They have developed a marketing plan that targets and even smaller audience than what DCI currently has. Fiscally I don't see how this would benefit the activity as a whole because the shows would be so different. G7 performances would be totally different that touring or regional corps, so what chance would they ever have to crack into the G7? Correct, they would have none because the proposal gives the G7 a competitive advantage through better, more and increased rehearsal time.

Allowing this to happen would fracture the competitive balance in nature. We'd have two different circuits confusing your fan base/consumer....and essentially diluting the brand (again, if this is truly about marketing, then lets discuss it in those terms).

What CAN happen? G7 can take their idea and run with it, with no help from DCI. Create their own Marching's Major League, or whatever they want to call it. Have it live on the Ocho someday. That would leave Boston, Blue Stars, Glassmen, Troopers, Colts et. al. to pick up the people that DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THE G7 ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTUALLY MARCH IN A COMPETITIVE TOURING UNIT, to make the remaining organizations and shows that much better. If the Glassmen suddenly got a portion of the talent that Bluecoats, Cavies and PR had (just becuase those kids want to do drum corps and not the G7 dog and pony show), do you have confidence that they could produce a great show? I do. I think many corps could. We could see the Crossmen crack the top 4!

If G7 happens with cooperation from DCI, I think we'll see a fan base so disillusioned that it will fade, kind of like Blast did over the years.

That was a lot. Had to say it. I know some higher ups with disagree, but I am certain in my conviction and share the thoughts of many fans, members, staffers, volunteers, and alums.

DW

Edited July 18, 2010 by 93Bluecoat

[BRASSO]

Thank you Darren for taking the time to post your thoughts on each of the G-7 sections. I found your comments insightful and cogent, and I found myself in agreement with much of your observations here.

I found it illustrative that in" Future Vision 3" above... the G-7 proposal states in bold letters... " WE NEED TO BE LIKE OUR PEERS AND STOP INSISTING WE ARE DIFFERENT AND BETTER !! ". This statement in the G7 proposal is obviously directed toward how these Corps attitude should be with the Bands out there.

When I read this, all I could think of is.... " where are the Gibbs Corps mirrors when he could really use them ? "

Gibbs ( and the others ) should look in the mirror. This bold statement above applies MOST appropriately to THEM.

It is the G-7 that believes they are no longer " like our peers " ( the non G-7 Corps )..... It is the G-7 Corps that " need to " stop insisting we are different and better " than their peers in DCI.

Ironically, had this G-7 proposal been submitted back in 1971, by the G-7 Corps of that time, both the Blue Devils and The Cadets would have screamed bloody blue murder, as the Blue Devils and Cadets would have gotten screwed and would NEVER have had a chance to rise up in the late 70's as they subsequently did later in that decade. If the G-7 proposal was passed in 1971, George Hopkins would probably have left his bass drum marching career in DCI after age out, and taken his B.S. Degree in Junior High Social Studes and he'd probably be teaching civics to 7th graders somewhere.

David Gibbs and George Hopkins have forgotten where they came from. Their egos are as big as the moon now. They're lost. Seriously lost on an egotistical power trip, imo. They do march now to the beat of a different drummer. I really do think it's time for these 2 old dinosaurs to move into the band world, where they'd be more happy there. DCI has some young, energetic, smart, saavy Corps Directors ready to pick up the torch and carry it forward in a refreshingly new way... that is in keeping with the principles and philosophies of DCI too..... You just KNOW the Drum Corps movement has lost it's way a bit, when ironically the music of most marching bands now sounds more appealing than the music of many of the Drum Corps. Change is coming, Darren. Keep the faith. And thanks once again for your post.

Edited July 18, 2010 by BRASSO

[ShortAndFast]

Assertion #1...DCI's Fiscal Stability. In the document G7 states that DCI has dropping attendence (it does), more corps under it's umbrella than it can support (true), and change is necessary (true). So far, they are 3 for 3, you can't really agure with it.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I think there's some misinformation here. DCI's historical 990s and recently released financials make clear that the organization has grown substantially in the last decade. In particular "program revenue" - that is shows, recordings, etc - has roughly doubled. Some of the gain comes from new products that mostly sell to existing customers (Fan Network, movie theater broadcasts), but it almost certainly means that DCI is selling more tickets than they were 10 years ago.

It's hard to argue that adding more WC corps means that revenue has to be split more ways, but it's also not clear that there are too many mouths to feed right now. If anything, the required financial evaluations of new WC corps (introduced a few years back) have forced aspiring WC corps to get their own finances in order, independent of support that they get through DCI.

So the publicly-available finances of DCI and its members does not lead me to conclude that "radical change is necessary". All organizations need to continuously change and improve, but it seems to me like DCI is in better shape today than it was 10 years ago. My guess is that it needs well-managed business development and marketing more than it needs to be gutted and rebuilt.

[BRASSO]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I think there's some misinformation here. DCI's historical 990s and recently released financials make clear that the organization has grown substantially in the last decade. In particular "program revenue" - that is shows, recordings, etc - has roughly doubled. Some of the gain comes from new products that mostly sell to existing customers (Fan Network, movie theater broadcasts), but it almost certainly means that DCI is selling more tickets than they were 10 years ago.

It's hard to argue that adding more WC corps means that revenue has to be split more ways, but it's also not clear that there are too many mouths to feed right now. If anything, the required financial evaluations of new WC corps (introduced a few years back) have forced aspiring WC corps to get their own finances in order, independent of support that they get through DCI.

So the publicly-available finances of DCI and its members does not lead me to conclude that "radical change is necessary". All organizations need to continuously change and improve, but it seems to me like DCI is in better shape today than it was 10 years ago. My guess is that it needs well-managed business development and marketing more than it needs to be gutted and rebuilt.

DCI came out right away and made a statement that the G-7 proposal stating" the perilous financial condition of DCI" as an organization was inaccurate. It is clear that a lot of work has to be done if humpty dumpty is ever to be put back together again. Some are saying that the outrage among several of the non G-7 Corps is such that it may be impossible to mend the fences. Time will tell.

Incidentally, when I read the entire G-7 power point proposal, it looked poorly crafted and incredibly ill thought out. There were no financials at all in their G-7 proposal. There was no meat on the bones regarding what this would all cost and how much revenue would be expected, if adopted. Had this been a corporation proposal in the busines world, without the financials available, most in attendance would have quickly determined that the proposal before them was nothing more than dream wish rather than a serious business proposal. Most would have been looking at their watch before the CPA's in the room would start flickering the lights to stop the dog and pony show, which no doubt would have happened quickly.

The scariest part of the G-7 proposal, imo... buried deep within it... was a small paragraph sentence or two where this group slotting proposal by the G-7 would demand that the G-7 would select their own judges for their competitions. Wow ! So much for free and open competition, huh ? Talk about a rigged system they're attempting to set up. It should send chills up and down one's spine where a sub group in competition gets to carve out a judging panel exclusively for themselves. No wonder the non G-7 Corps were P'O'ed. These Corps who initially signed on to this power grab scheme cooked up by Gibbs and Hopkins should be ashamed of themselves, imo. Hopefully, their better Angels will surround them and provide them some needed caution before they drink this weird kool-aid prepared by these 2 high school marching band aficionados in their midst.

Edited July 18, 2010 by BRASSO

[93Bluecoat]

Brasso, I think most of what people are upset about is what you mentioned....no details (the document openly admits that it is a work in progress). However if the G7 wants the rest of the DCI community to go along with this for 2011 as the document states, they're going to have to provide greater insight!

I will say it right now publicly...I won't attend a G7 "event" as stated in this document. I like competition. I like fair competition. I like to be entertained.

The only intriguing aspect to this document was allowing the fans to participate in the scoring process. It needs some tweeking for sure, but 10% of the score is great! I like this idea. There would have to be some audience education (which wouldn't be bad) about how to score. Not sure how they are going to monitor this thing through txt though. What would prevent someone in Brazil from txt'ing in a vote? This would (perhaps) force drum corps to program for the audience (which they are not doing now).

I can understand why some corps are saying the damage is already done and this may not be tenable for the future. I'd be pretty ticked too. My document states that perhaps these units and DCI should let the G7 go and form their own......"thing" leaving the drum corps to the units that actually want to be drum corps.

DW

DCI came out right away and made a statement that the G-7 proposal stating" the perilous financial condition of DCI" as an organization was inaccurate. It is clear that a lot of work has to be done if humpty dumpty is ever to be put back together again. Some are saying that the outrage among several of the non G-7 Corps is such that it may be impossible to mend the fences. Time will tell.

Incidentally, when I read the entire G-7 power point proposal, it looked poorly crafted and incredibly ill thought out. There were no financials at all in their G-7 proposal. There was no meat on the bones regarding what this would all cost and how much revenue would be expected, if adopted. Had this been a corporation proposal in the busines world, without the financials available, most in attendance would have quickly determined that the proposal before them was nothing more than dream wish rather than a serious business proposal. Most would have been looking at their watch before the CPA's in the room would start flickering the lights to stop the dog and pony show, which no doubt would have happened quickly.

The scariest part of the G-7 proposal, imo... buried deep within it... was a small paragraph sentence or two where this group slotting proposal by the G-7 would demand that the G-7 would select their own judges for their competitions. Wow ! So much for free and open competition, huh ? Talk about a rigged system they're attempting to set up. It should send chills up and down one's spine where a sub group in competition gets to carve out a judging panel exclusively for themselves. No wonder the non G-7 Corps were P'O'ed. These Corps who initially signed on to this power grab scheme cooked up by Gibbs and Hopkins should be ashamed of themselves, imo. Hopefully, their better Angels will surround them and provide them some needed caution before they drink this weird kool-aid prepared by these 2 high school marching band aficionados in their midst.

[BRASSO]

I'd like to see Corps evaluated also by how that Corps' show connects to an audience....ie, well, or not so well.

I fully understand that gauging such an audience's input is really, really difficult to properly gauge.

But then again, judging completely dissimilar shows properly likewise is just as difficult, subjective, and imprecise too, imo.

Right now, Corps perform to impress the personal musical tastes, training, experience, etc of the judges. The paying customer that foots the bill for BOTH the Corps and these judges is a non factor.

If we are preparing youth in the Performing Arts for an appreciation for the audience, then we'd be hard pressed to say that ( for example ) the 2010 Blue Devils are successful from that perspective.

Something needs to change. The Drum Corps can't be getting bigger, stronger, more talented, more instrumentation permitted, more resources, better health and hygiene, better instruction, and so forth and yet..... lose fans.

Edited July 18, 2010 by BRASSO

[Liahona]

The only intriguing aspect to this document was allowing the fans to participate in the scoring process. It needs some tweeking for sure, but 10% of the score is great! I like this idea. There would have to be some audience education (which wouldn't be bad) about how to score. Not sure how they are going to monitor this thing through txt though. What would prevent someone in Brazil from txt'ing in a vote? This would (perhaps) force drum corps to program for the audience (which they are not doing now).

I'm going to leave the whole G7 analysis alone at this point, but I really appreciate your effort in trying to make sense of that really egregious and condescending document. I am truly ASHAMED of many of these corps that I admired and supported both as a fan and in some cases also financially at different times over the last 20 years.

While I would really LOVE the audience interaction of 10% in the score concept myself, I really don't see this working very well. I say this because of a recently attended DCA show where by applause "We" the audience were to select the best drum major. It was NO SURPRISE to me that the winning drum major was the LOCAL CORPS by the audience. So let's say its a show in Boston Mass, <G> I wonder who would get the nod? Canton, Ohio? I don't think people are going to necessary PICK the most entertaining group as they look at their own LOCAL group many times with blinders and GREAT PRIDE (not that this is a bad thing) for that matter IMO. That may or may not be due to its so called "entertainment value". Besides we all have differing tastes as to what is entertaining anyway.

Before all this G7 hub-bub (it was for me anyway) a little strange(at least I think so) when it comes to my own entertainment value. The actual performance itself drives my entertainment value level more so than my actual like or dislike of a particular show. In 2008, I attended Allentown and was more entertained by Carolina Crown than anyone else at that show. But at finals I was brought to my feet by sheer emotion from Phantom Regiment and didn't even know why I just stood up for that matter. In terms of entertainment value Phantom Regiment won hands down for me at finals, but failed miserably at Allentown. So perhaps I'm equating that for myself entertainment=emotional excitement? Just my thoughts.

[ajwdad]

Interesting Argument with a lot of very good points. My background is in marketing. So, I will limit my responses to that particular area.

After reviewing the G7 "working document" for quite some time and taking most of the day today to collect my thoughts, I wanted to share some points about this proposal and what options DCI, the corps (both G7 and non), and the fans have. I'll go point by point.

Assertion #1...DCI's Fiscal Stability. In the document G7 states that DCI has dropping attendence (it does), more corps under it's umbrella than it can support (true), and change is necessary (true). So far, they are 3 for 3, you can't really argue with it.

Assertion #2..."DCI's top corps drive the activity and deserve/need greater fiscal support. Corps are NOT the same. Those who drive sales through excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded." True, corps are not the same and TRUE, top corps deserve a greater share at each show. This assertion states that excellence and entertainment ability deserve to be rewarded. Ok, give the Troopers and Madison Scouts all the money because they seem to be the only corps designing with entertainment. Their assertion is true, their reasoning is incorrect.

I am not positive on the basic meaning of the "drive the activity" statement. Does that mean control, or does is mean financial support? The latter statement is a conclusion. In general, inserting conclusions into an assertion or situation analysis is not a poor way to present. But, how do you measure what portion of the attendees are there for just the "DCI's top corps?" My observation is that it has a lot more to do with direct support of a specific corp. Just been to 2 fairly well attended events where the top corps were likely open class ones.

Assertion #3..."Premiere corps are essential to DCI's success and require greater influence."

What is the definition of a premier corp? In this case, it is by rank order at finals. Seems strange..

Assertion #4..."Corps need to be classified to assist in the marketing of the activity. Not all corps are music's major league." Ummmmm, no.

Actually, this does make some marketing sense. In retail, some companies create draw for the store, and are definitely given preferential treatment. For instance, a High Def TV is a fairly high priced item with fairly low profit margins. But it pulls a lot of other sales, like cables, stands, and other electronic equipment. So, those companies and brands do get preferential treatment. Classification is a way to assist in the best way to spend marketing dollars. But, just as Sony does not advertise for Best Buy, don't expect individual corps to advertise for shows. More fairly stated, the marketing and outreach campaigns for DCI need to be revamped to put more butts in seats.

My input, if allowed, would be to advertise the event as a contest and performance of the best marching on the planet. Then each corp would be called out, and the only preferential treatment would be stating the top 3 as champion, 2nd place and 3rd place... And possibly the order of articulation.

Assertion #5.."Events can be created to be more marketable. We can reclaim our position as marching musics elite."

Have to agree with this. But, the overall outreach campaign is either non-existent or just really sucks. After we fix the marketing campaign, we can then take a look to improve the events. But, early on, fixing the event will improve satisfaction, but not necessarily attendance. That will take some more time, and some more marketing. BTW, it seems to me that viral marketing is a great way to spread the word for an activity with as many fans as this one. I bet that we are only 1-2 stages removed from any person in the US!

Assertion #6..."We would like to affect change in DCI." Hey, now you're talking! I think DCI knows that change is needed, but not what G7 is proposing with is to essentially dissolve the influence of the organized corps (DCI), which, mind you, most of them were a part of 38 years ago when this whole thing started. The G7 proposal essentially states in this portion of the document that DCI be stripped of most of it's personnel and their coordinatiing positions be handed over to the corps to manage (the G7 corps that is, which would mean they control any non G7 activity as well). This is unacceptable. An audit seems to be necessary to see if expenditures within DCI are necessary or could be utilized differently. I sounds as if the G7 has found some things within the DCI infastructure that are excessive and those areas need to be addressed, perhaps by an outside source (I have several on the top of my head right now that would be great). I think it would extremely premature to simply dissolve 1/2 of the DCI infastructure to appease one season.

Hard to disagree here. The G& will have to go it alone if they are to prove this assumption/assertion in the manner suggested. I would suggest that DCI actually hire some marketing expertise in public relations and in marketing campaigns. and Then actually execute a campaign.

Future Vision 1...."As we travel from town to town, we can recreate our positioning so that we are an AMERICAN CELEBRATION! We can celebrate our country, we can celebrate music, we can do all we can to support music education programs in the community near where we perform."

I will get creamed for this, but I do find drum corp as a primarily american activity. I am very well traveled and outside of the occasional DCI tour, there a few, if any, shows and contests. Having stated that, music is universal. But DCI is pretty much american. Just look at the membership as the large majority of them are US based.

Future Vision 2..."Marching music partnership. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT BAND PEOPLE CAN PAY FOR … it is WHAT CAN WE DO for BAND PEOPLE !!!" Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I've said this for the better part of a decade, drum corps must stop hiding behind the veil of education. They are not education and do not exist for that purpose (nor should they). This is ridiculously short sighted because 75% of the bands in America are not DCI driven in nature (most could care less, despite what these directors think). Ask a band director of a 300 member band in Texas that does A&M military drill if hanging out with the Bluecoats is high on his list of priorities. Most likely he would agree that it would be a cool thing to do, but he's not interested. He's got some precision snap turns to teach. Ask band directors in rural Eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana if they plan on gathering their kids up in the middle of the summer to drive two or more hours so his kids can hang out with the Blue Devils and have their staff tell him what a great band director he is. If you're a band director that "needs" this, you need to re-evaluate why you are a teacher! The "events" mentioned in this ridiculous vision are short sighted in nature because they going to pander to an excruciatingly small portion of the American band population. If marketing is one of your goals, why would you focus on such a small percentage of the market?

Your last statement is one with which I fully concur. We need to expand our marketing base. Perhaps bands are a near target, but I would rather get football fans.

Future Vision 3...."A partnership with pageantry. we are to go after band students, guard, dance, and other related arts and pageantry organizations. Who we are … and how we define ourselves and the relationships will be resolved but to be sure …WE CANNOT BE ISOLATED. WE NEED TO BE LIKE OUR PEERS AND STOP INSISTING WE ARE DIFFERENT AND BETTER."

actually, different and better is good. Not elitism. For instance, why drive a lexus, ford truck, chevy and why so many different brands and styles. Because different is good. Better is great. But, a good marketing person would help direct the idea of outreach to near markets without throwing away "different and better."

Future Vision 4...."Weekends will be supershow weekends." Apparently the proposal insinuates that there would be events Friday, Saturday and Sunday relating to the show. What fan base would utilize this? Alums don't have three days to dedicate. Bands, guards, and other arts organizations are not going to dedicate hotels and travel expenses to participate in events that are essentially gregarious in comparison to the actual show.

I did not read the proposal to understand if the weekend shows would be in the same area. But, on the west coast, all of the shows are on weekends. In general, it is easier to get a large audience if they are not at work...

Future visions 8...Cut 1/2 of the DCI staff to save money and/or redistribute the wealth. This to me, seems like a coup and raid of the DCI coffers, however after further consideration and in what I stated earlier, it would appear that some kind of external audit is necessary for the operating structure of DCI (this is actually what my brother does for a living, and yes, he's a DCI vet! Haha).Agreed,

Future Vision 9...Improved fiscal structure for G7 corps. This is a huge assumption. MLB hasn't done well with revenue sharing (this is essentially what this proposal is) and this plan assumes it to be the fix all for DCI problems.

Bad example. Other sports have done well with revenue sharing. MLB has real other problems, like a long game that is essentially the same. I think that the "future vision" here is a goal, rather than a guaranteed outcome.

The next part of the G7 document deals with governance. It basically gives the G7 corps all the control. Its just not right.

Too strong a statement. Rather, it doubles the top 7 or 8 performing corps influence. Just about any large group that votes as a block will have more control as well, but this allows their votes to count double. I don't believe in democracy as a way to run a business.

The next part of the G7 document deals with scoring....it is interesting, needs tweeking and discussion, but its not bad.

I am not going to make a blanket stated either in support or condemnation. Rather, I will state that the marketing for DCI needs a lot of improvement. I have never seen a study done on the appeal of Drum Corp, but I do realize that we have yet to crack into network TV or even ESPN. We are stuck thinking that PBS is our option, and that is way too bad. I think that DCI needs to examine itself and find out way the top corps are so unhappy as to make this kind of very strong statement. Then, I would suggest that working groups are formed, with smaller corps and open corps represented at the same levels as G7, to produce recommendations and plans to move things forward. DCI seems "stuck in committee" all too often.

PS, sorry about the colors, i tried to change them to show black for the original statement and blue for mine, but it did not work.

[Liahona]

PS, sorry about the colors, i tried to change them to show black for the original statement and blue for mine, but it did not work.

I was having a hard time discerning your opinions..Please get rid of the blue and just SEPARATE your comments (maybe bold yours). Just a suggestion...I think you make some good points, but I was just having a hard time finding them. It was a difficult read.

[elphaba01]

Thank you Darren for taking the time to post your thoughts on each of the G-7 sections. I found your comments insightful and cogent, and I found myself in agreement with much of your observations here.

I found it illustrative that in" Future Vision 3" above... the G-7 proposal states in bold letters... " WE NEED TO BE LIKE OUR PEERS AND STOP INSISTING WE ARE DIFFERENT AND BETTER !! ". This statement in the G7 proposal is obviously directed toward how these Corps attitude should be with the Bands out there.

When I read this, all I could think of is.... " where are the Gibbs Corps mirrors when he could really use them ? "

Gibbs ( and the others ) should look in the mirror. This bold statement above applies MOST appropriately to THEM.

It is the G-7 that believes they are no longer " like our peers " ( the non G-7 Corps )..... It is the G-7 Corps that " need to " stop insisting we are different and better " than their peers in DCI.

Ironically, had this G-7 proposal been submitted back in 1971, by the G-7 Corps of that time, both the Blue Devils and The Cadets would have screamed bloody blue murder, as the Blue Devils and Cadets would have gotten screwed and would NEVER have had a chance to rise up in the late 70's as they subsequently did later in that decade. If the G-7 proposal was passed in 1971, George Hopkins would probably have left his bass drum marching career in DCI after age out, and taken his B.S. Degree in Junior High Social Studes and he'd probably be teaching civics to 7th graders somewhere.

David Gibbs and George Hopkins have forgotten where they came from. Their egos are as big as the moon now. They're lost. Seriously lost on an egotistical power trip, imo. They do march now to the beat of a different drummer. I really do think it's time for these 2 old dinosaurs to move into the band world, where they'd be more happy there. DCI has some young, energetic, smart, saavy Corps Directors ready to pick up the torch and carry it forward in a refreshingly new way... that is in keeping with the principles and philosophies of DCI too..... You just KNOW the Drum Corps movement has lost it's way a bit, when ironically the music of most marching bands now sounds more appealing than the music of many of the Drum Corps. Change is coming, Darren. Keep the faith. And thanks once again for your post.

"Hopkins/Gibbs Forgotten Where They Came From":

THE BEST COMMENT on this "G-7" ego trip I've read so far.

Thanks so much.

Elphaba

WWW