Jeff Ream Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 You're all doing a very good job of hashing this out amongst yourselves. So I prefer to stay away from the discussion. Please remember, I didn't really start it, I just fueled it by agreeing with mobrien's suggestion that G7 or corps in general should take more control of their pricing and booking AWAY from dci and if that involves them banding together (i.e., G7) to produce their own shows outside the current format in order to keep more of the money . . . that was IN MY OPINION and in the opinion of mobrien (although I don't attempt here to put words in his mouth) GOOD FOR THE DC INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE. I think we could agree that it would make it more financially solvent . . . at least for the top performing corps. And at the same time, it would encourage corps to make their performances less ME TOO and more entertaining and therefore, more IN DEMAND and this too would be a good thing for all. Again, who among us could argue with that? The irony of course is that had this system been in place over the past 10 years, Madison would be the highest paid corps and Cadets might not be in the Top 5. So for those who think I'm really Hopkins, that blows that theory. In fact, HYPOTHETICALLY, if this system were to come into reality and you could invest in corps like you could buy stock, I'd personally buy up shares of Velvet Knights, Troopers and see about reviving the Kilties and maybe even Star of Indiana. And like I tried to tell you before, competitive scores would become less important as crowd appeal would become MORE important. Are you starting to get it now? But you're finally making some progress towards seeing that the goal the top corps (G7 or whatever) were talking about is squeezing more CASH out of EVERYONE'S FAVORITE SUMMER ACTIVITY. For me there is only one way to do that and it is to make the pie bigger by exposing it to more potential eaters. In order to do that you must make sure that the prime "bakers" with all the good recipes get taken care of first and foremost. Is this too much symbolism for you? This is what the G7 is saying in their proposal (and I have been saying here). I'm going back to take a nap. Think about it more. See if you can reach a consensus. I'll leave mobrien in charge. You are in good hands. except they want to squeeze more cash while still reamining what they are and using DCI when it suits them. so really, they dont even see your vision, short sighted as it may be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 I prefer to stay away from the discussion. I'm going back to take a nap. Think about it more. Best news from you I 've heard in awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Best news from you I 've heard in awhile. Now Now , that wasn't nice...lol...he can have a different opinion on the subject , if we like what he says or not.RIGHT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) except they want to squeeze more cash while still reamining what they are and using DCI when it suits them. so really, they dont even see your vision, short sighted as it may be True... also, one of the things you give up when you join an organization is the ability to unilaterally act on your own behalf's best interests. You have to abide my the rules set forth and agreed to by all the other voting members. If one wants to unilaterally act on their own, then they must logically be expected to leave such an organization before embarking in a more unilateral way. This isn't rocket science here. It's just plain common sense. People who live in single family homes have more discretion ( and individual responsibilities )than those who decided to seek housing thru a Condominium Association. In such a organization, costs are shared, and damage to the building is a shared loss, not individually borne out as it would be by the owner of a single family home. But a Condo Unit owner, as part of the association, with the rules and regulations he agreed too, can not unilaterally make sustantial change on his property, and in the so called " common areas " as he could in and around his single family home either. Edited July 28, 2010 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 True... also, one of the things you give up when you join an organization is the ability to unilaterally act on your own behalf's best interests. You have to abide my the rules set forth and agreed to by all the other voting members. If one wants to unilaterally act on their own, then they must logically be expected to leave such an organization before embarking in a more unilateral way. This isn't rocket science here. It's just plain common sense. People who live in single family homes have more discretion ( and individual responsibilities )than those who decided to seek housing thru a Condominium Association. In such a organization, costs are shared, and damage to the building is a shared loss, not individually borne out as it would be by the owner of a single family home. But a Condo Unit owner, as part of the association, with the rules and regulations he agreed too, can not unilaterally make sustantial change on his property, and in the so called " common areas " as he could in and around his single family home either. ahhhhh and how many people hate the condo board...most...and ban to change the rules ...lol....so many comparisons...this is a good one usually its sports....funny funny funny.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) ahhhhh and how many people hate the condo board...most...and ban to change the rules ...lol....so many comparisons...this is a good one usually its sports....funny funny funny.... It's like all the choices we make in life... go it alone... or in tandem with others, whether it's with one other person, or several hundred or several thousand. People work for firms, but find it constraining, so they strike out on their own. They don't make ultimatums or demands on the others in that firm to change the FIRM'S ways in a major way that would chiefly benefit THEM. They find common ground that enables them to take both the good and the bad from that association, or they leave in hopes of more freedom. ( and with it, no safety net, more risk.. but maybe more potential for more individual gain too) Edited July 28, 2010 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 It's like all the choices we make in life... go it alone... or in tandem with others, whether it's with one other person, or several hundred or several thousand.People work for firms, but find it constraining, so they strike out on their own. They don't make ultimatums or demands on the others in that firm to change the FIRM'S ways in a major way that would chiefly benefit THEM. They find common ground that enables them to take both the good and the bad from that association, or they leave in hopes of more freedom. ( and with it, no safety net, more risk.. but maybe more potential for more individual gain too) Excellent parallel, Brasso. Bravo. Is Zing awake yet? He needs to read these but something tells me they won't sink in even if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) People work for firms, but find it constraining, so they strike out on their own. They don't make ultimatums or demands on the others in that firm to change the FIRM'S ways in a major way that would chiefly benefit THEM. Or continue to work with the firm while working on your own competing company. And yes DCI and G7 would be competing for the butts in the seats. Different nights but some people would not be able or want to go to both shows. So if they go to DCI/G7 then they don't go to G7/DCI. Edited July 28, 2010 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 It's like all the choices we make in life... go it alone... or in tandem with others, whether it's with one other person, or several hundred or several thousand.People work for firms, but find it constraining, so they strike out on their own. They don't make ultimatums or demands on the others in that firm to change the FIRM'S ways in a major way that would chiefly benefit THEM. They find common ground that enables them to take both the good and the bad from that association, or they leave in hopes of more freedom. ( and with it, no safety net, more risk.. but maybe more potential for more individual gain too) good analogy..i think,,,,hehehehehe the way you put it I guess maybe I would be the one for freedom..the win or loose of it. Kinda what this country was built on huh?..But good analogy on whatever end of it you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) You're all doing a very good job of hashing this out amongst yourselves. So I prefer to stay away from the discussion. Please remember, I didn't really start it, I just fueled it by agreeing with mobrien's suggestion that G7 or corps in general should take more control of their pricing and booking AWAY from dci and if that involves them banding together (i.e., G7) to produce their own shows outside the current format in order to keep more of the money . . . that was IN MY OPINION and in the opinion of mobrien (although I don't attempt here to put words in his mouth) GOOD FOR THE DC INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE. (boldface by me) Actually, the G7 already have the opportunity to do this now. There's nothing stopping a G7 corps (or anyone else) that is adept at running profitable DCI shows from simply running more of them, and thus making more money. There's also nothing stopping a DCI corps from seeking alternative performance opportunities on open dates, particularly during the ten months of the year when there are no DCI events to work around. Corps already create their own pre-season events, where they are free to perform in whatever format they choose....charge whatever admission price the market will bear....and keep whatever proceeds they get. I think we could agree that it would make it more financially solvent . . . at least for the top performing corps. Again, I get that same feeling I got when mobrien conveniently forgot to mention DCI's revenue-sharing, and the myriad of other expenses that DCI absorbs on behalf of the overall operation (audio/video production, licensing, marketing, etc.). What makes you think, once these details are accounted for, that G7 events will be more profitable than DCI events? Edited July 28, 2010 by audiodb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts