Minneapolis Corps Directors Meeting

[Liahona]

Best news from you I 've heard in awhile.

I second this notion...

[MarimbasaurusRex]

...if adopted as proposed, that the G-7 would get to cherry pick the judges for their special weekend competition as well ? It's right there in the proposal in black and white. What an advantage that would be. Judges would be compromised. What judge would not want to position themselves for such a gig ? How could anyone say with a straight face that Corps right outside the G-7 would not be potentially disadvantaged with a judging system that would allow a few competitors to select the judges in competition ? That would not be a level playng field. It would have all the makings of a rigged judging system right from the getgo.

You mean like the top 12 did to the other 400 corps at the inception of DCI? There is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps they should rename the G7, DCI2.

[BOBSMYTH]

You mean like the top 12 did to the other 400 corps at the inception of DCI? There is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps they should rename the G7, DCI2.

No, I have to disagree - there are some definite differences.

One big one to start with: The original founders of DCI didn't attempt to take over either the VFW or the American Legion organizations for their own purposes.

It is one thing to say "I don't want to do this anymore. I am going to pick up my ball and go do something else.".

It is quite another to say "I don't want to do this anymore. I am going to take your ball and kick you out so I can play with it the way I want.".

[BRASSO]

No, I have to disagree - there are some definite differences.

One big one to start with: The original founders of DCI didn't attempt to take over either the VFW or the American Legion organizations for their own purposes.

It is one thing to say "I don't want to do this anymore. I am going to pick up my ball and go do something else.".

It is quite another to say "I don't want to do this anymore. I am going to take your ball and kick you out so I can play with it the way I want.".

.... and ( to follow the analogy ) as we kick you" losers " out, we're gonna steal your lunch money too.

Edited July 29, 2010 by BRASSO

[MarimbasaurusRex]

I was speaking specifically of the judging situation...

"a judging system that would allow a few competitors to select the judges"

That's exactly what DCI did in 1972. It's always been "a rigged judging system right from the getgo." That's what put it where it is today, with the same corps dominating for decades.

Also, the G7 is not forcing the hand of DCI. They are suggesting to bring DCI along peripherally with this scheme. But, if DCI doesn't want it, the G7 have said, in no uncertain terms, that they will indeed take their ball and go play their own way (although I doubt they actually would, no balls, but it's in the proposal).

I have to imagine vaguely similar proposals were quietly floated to the AL/VFW/CYO and rejected in the days leading up to the Combine split. If the G7 do take their ball, it will mirror the original foundation of DCI quite closely.

Personally, I'm ambivalent regarding the G7. I do agree with them that something's got to change, but I don't feel their proposal is in the best interest of the activity as a whole. Then again, neither was DCI. History has illustrated that quite clearly.

[garfield]

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.

There is so much here to dissect.

First, why are you compelled to drop a few contentious posts on this thread then sit back and put your hands up? What kind of interaction style does that evidence? Why should we take you seriously when you're not willing to hang around, engage, and defend your position against critical inspection?

Why are you hiding behind Mobrien? Do you lack the will (or substance) to back your assertions of your beliefs? Isn't what this board is all about? I appreciate a good nap, but your lack of answers to specific questions makes me question whether replying to you is worth the effort. I doubt I'm alone. Still, I think "Honey" and hope...

I gave you a specific breakdown of a typical local show and asked you to play master "negotiator" so as to test your theory that individual corps negotiating their appearance fees is a reasonable, workable plan. You've yet to reply at all.

How do I, as a TEP, know the "value" of a G7 performance vs. the value of a non-G7 performance? Where is the metric that allows me to judge the number of BITS as a result of a G7 performance vs. the BITS as a result of a non-B7 performance? We've had shows with only one G7 corps and had 2200 in the stands, and we've had packed G7 shows (last year) where we've had 3000 in the stands. That sounds to me like the G7 is worth about a 25% increased gate. Do they get 25% more than non-G7 corps? Hmmm...funny. They get $2,700 now whereby others $2,100. That's 28% more that they're getting now. Are you starting to get it now?

You admit the G7's actions could be good for them, what do say to the impact of their actions on the rest of the corps?

You CAN invest in the corps like you do stock (stock is something I understand pretty well). When you buy stock you're placing your faith in the owner's ability to run a successful company - you really have very little control over the outcome. To do the same thing with the G7 you simply make a contribution to the corps and hope that their end product is a sufficient "pay off" for you and that the business stays solvent. If the company goes bust you own nothing, just like owning stock. So make a contribution in your belief and send a non-G7 corps a nice, big, fat check (I'm sure the corps you mentioned, VK etc, would LOVE you for it!).

Can you tell me how much of the "crowd appeal" in '08 was because PR won and how much the "appeal" was because of their show? Was that an "entertaining" show to you?

Finally, and think as a TEP partner now, I'm expected to "negotiate" with the G7 vs non-G7 in the off-season, when I'm planning my show. I have to negotiate and book a corps 5months before the season starts and 6 months before my show? How do I know, at that point, what sort of draw-appeal a corps has 6 months prior to when they actually perform? What's the pricing metric? What's my negotiating angle, that said corps finished 4th last year and is, therefor, not worth as much as whoever finished first last year? What if they finish second next year? Do I have to pay more?

Are you starting to get it now? (BTW, we're not idiots around here, we get what your saying pretty clearly. It's that many of us disagree with you and we're challenging you to convince us that you're right. Just you saying something (and then shuffling off to take a nap) is not going to convince us to buy your argument.)

I really want to hear your replies to these, and the other, questions.

Edited July 30, 2010 by garfield

[garfield]

I was speaking specifically of the judging situation...

"a judging system that would allow a few competitors to select the judges"

That's exactly what DCI did in 1972. It's always been "a rigged judging system right from the getgo." That's what put it where it is today, with the same corps dominating for decades.

Also, the G7 is not forcing the hand of DCI. They are suggesting to bring DCI along peripherally with this scheme. But, if DCI doesn't want it, the G7 have said, in no uncertain terms, that they will indeed take their ball and go play their own way (although I doubt they actually would, no balls, but it's in the proposal).

I have to imagine vaguely similar proposals were quietly floated to the AL/VFW/CYO and rejected in the days leading up to the Combine split. If the G7 do take their ball, it will mirror the original foundation of DCI quite closely.

Personally, I'm ambivalent regarding the G7. I do agree with them that something's got to change, but I don't feel their proposal is in the best interest of the activity as a whole. Then again, neither was DCI. History has illustrated that quite clearly.

I agree that the judging system, and the oversight of DCI, are significant problems. But how do you further describe "peripherally" above? And where do you see in the G7 proposal that their threat said they would leave DCI? I think we all presume that's what it means but did you see it stated that way? Where, please, because I didn't see that. I did see that they plan to decide what to do next written in print...

Edited July 30, 2010 by garfield

[Martin I. Zing]

There is so much here to dissect.

First, why are you compelled to drop a few contentious posts on this thread then sit back and put your hands up? What kind of interaction style does that evidence? Why should we take you seriously when you're not willing to hang around, engage, and defend your position against critical inspection?

Why are you hiding behind Mobrien? Do you lack the will (or substance) to back your assertions of your beliefs? Isn't what this board is all about? I appreciate a good nap, but your lack of answers to specific questions makes me question whether replying to you is worth the effort. I doubt I'm alone. Still, I think "Honey" and hope...

OK. Let us slow down and catch our breath for a minute. And let me advise you that a nap helps. It is a good thing. Garfield (and others) The micro-discussion of every detail for the future of the world on boards like this is NOT necessarily a good thing. I happen to think that had gold fringe been sewn on the cumberbunds of the Troopers drum major --as originally planned in 1969-- they would have gained the extra 3/10ths in GE and won the VFW Nationals that year too! RELAX!

The proposal brought forth by the G7 group is a very serious attempt to shine a light on a very serious problem that has a chance of ruining an activity that we all love. It was not put together in haste by people for ANY intent other than to save an activity in danger of going under. I truly believe this. I think they have talked this out and discussed it and considered options that many of us haven't yet thought of. And the main conclusion is that the top third of the activity has been carrying the rest of the industry with little financial reward to show for it and more evident, they are tired and starting to show signs of exhaustion and strain. This has the added danger of collapsing the entire activity if something is not done to make them healthy immediately.

Granted, I agree with those who correctly pointed out that they (i.e., G7) have fondled and manuveured the rules and regulations and in many ways are responsible for the direction of the overall activity and share in the majority of the decisions (and blame) that has gotten the activity where it is today. But nevertheless, that is the true reality of the current situation. They now admit that something has to be done to keep the top 1/3rd healthy for fear that, if not healthy, the entire "industry" is doomed. And whether this is 7 or 4 or 5 or 8 or 9 or 10 . . . it really doesn't matter what it ends up being, because we understand what is being said and what is meant.

Some will interpret this as arrogance. Others will say it is a desperate call for help. I personally say when personalities and egos are involved and considering that this is a youth activity and no one is getting rich here, it is a sad admission from a few that "we f*cked up" or at the very least, we may have blindly followed the wrong set of pied pipers. . . even though ironically, some of those same pipers are still running the show (and now want to add woodwinds).

Meanwhile on this forum, much of what is at the core of this discussion is the "blood-letting" of these feelings exactly. That is why I enjoy and align myself with the comments of mobrien much more than brasso or others on here who elect to try to link emotion and the need for "competitive" synergy and other chest-pounding hoopla. mobrien understands the not-for-profit fund-raising financial model much better than anyone on this board and he hit the nail on the head with his comment that "a good 70's cover band gets more than these corps do for a single performance."

My friends, there is serious TROUBLE in Drum Corps City. And I choose to think that the G7 proposal is THEIR offer to continue in DCI in an effort to make themselves whole again. In my opinion, DCI would be wise to accept the offer or make them a counter offer, but do it quickly. Either way, something needs to be done soon to get them more $$$. I'm guessing their debt is building faster than ever and they may soon be swimming in it. They AT LEAST have a plan. It may be a good plan. You may think it is a plan built from desperation. But I think they (again, whoever "they" ends up being?) can and will try it.

I gave you a specific breakdown of a typical local show and asked you to play master "negotiator" so as to test your theory that individual corps negotiating their appearance fees is a reasonable, workable plan. You've yet to reply at all.

How do I, as a TEP, know the "value" of a G7 performance vs. the value of a non-G7 performance? Where is the metric that allows me to judge the number of BITS as a result of a G7 performance vs. the BITS as a result of a non-B7 performance? We've had shows with only one G7 corps and had 2200 in the stands, and we've had packed G7 shows (last year) where we've had 3000 in the stands. That sounds to me like the G7 is worth about a 25% increased gate. Do they get 25% more than non-G7 corps? Hmmm...funny. They get $2,700 now whereby others $2,100. That's 28% more that they're getting now. Are you starting to get it now?

We're still talking what if? Right? How future shows get produced is TBD but I don't see many changes at this time. Under no circumstances would I envision DCI going away, even if G7 were to pull out completely. There would still be a network of show sites and producers and partners across the country who would work with DCI to bring shows to communities under conditions and terms that resemble those that currently exist. And whether G7 corps are included in some of these shows would remain to be seen. I would expect that DCI would be foolish to exclude them assuming they are in the area and available and willing to participate for the fee that is offered. But those are the kinds of laws and by-laws and details etc. that need to be negotiated. Certainly an appearance by a G7 corps would add value to any show and you would expect the G7 corps to be compensated accordingly. If I have season tickets to my local MLB team, I can expect to sell my seats for more when the Yankees are the visiting team than when the Orioles come to town. The same would hold true when a G7 corps were added to the mix.

The one difference is that the shows that we are talking about are primarily in the "B, C and D" markets and on weekdays, although DCI certainly will stage weekend shows, but they will now be in smaller markets. And this is because, the G7 corps will form their own shared production company (if they haven't already secretly done so?) to produce their own hybrid SPECTACULAR shows in major stadiums, in major markets (similar to the TCF or Camp Randall) in major markets and in historically drum corps-friendly markets on Friday, Saturday and Sundays. They will co-own, as well as co-promote, share expenses and profits. And believe me, each corps will net far more than a 70's cover band! Also, when in certain parts of the country, expect them to "invite" non-G7 corps to join them for one night (i.e., the home town favorite) to participate in the SPECTACULAR.

You admit the G7's actions could be good for them, what do say to the impact of their actions on the rest of the corps?

I think the activity as a whole will grow and prosper. More kids, more corps, more competition --for those who like this sort of thing, and more innovation. The truth is there are only 10 Saturday nights during the prime summer season and many more empty stadiums to be filled than there are drum corps. Using my Cirque du Soleil example, remember it started with one idea in Montreal and now there are over a dozen shows worldwide and hundreds of copycats. We can dream that demand grows to where there is oneday a G14 and then a G21.

You CAN invest in the corps like you do stock (stock is something I understand pretty well). When you buy stock you're placing your faith in the owner's ability to run a successful company - you really have very little control over the outcome. To do the same thing with the G7 you simply make a contribution to the corps and hope that their end product is a sufficient "pay off" for you and that the business stays solvent. If the company goes bust you own nothing, just like owning stock. So make a contribution in your belief and send a non-G7 corps a nice, big, fat check (I'm sure the corps you mentioned, VK etc, would LOVE you for it!).

One thing I'm hesitant to mention because I know there are those on here who will grind their teeth while they sleep after they read this, but here goes. . . one expense I'd eliminate in my model is the $7500 in judge expenses. Who needs it? It is an unnecessary expense. And don't be surprized if the G7 agrees amongst themselves as partners to eliminate this expense as well. When they are producing their own shows from top to bottom, start to finish, why do they need to deal with this? At the very least, I'm guessing they may indeed choose and "hire" the judging teams based on lowest bid and then provide them with preprinted scoresheets.

One benefit of pricing appearance fees based on crowd appeal and the ability of a corps to sell tickets is that it will shift the emphasis back to making the shows more entertaining to the "masses" rather than to a very small group of elitist music majors. Once again Trolley Song WILL be more valued than Phillip Glass and rightfully so, I might add.

Can you tell me how much of the "crowd appeal" in '08 was because PR won and how much the "appeal" was because of their show? Was that an "entertaining" show to you?

Can't say. Didn't see it. I only see a DC show on average once every 3 or 4 years. I'm not joking. But I am curious Garfield, does this make my comments more or less meaningful to you? Would you value my opinions more if I was obsessed with DC and this board; lived it, breathed it, every waking minute? Or do you care what I think because I have taken the time to have a rich and fulfilling life with lots of real world experiences in many areas including entertainment and I just happened to recently stumbled back across a weekend of drum corps?

Finally, and think as a TEP partner now, I'm expected to "negotiate" with the G7 vs non-G7 in the off-season, when I'm planning my show. I have to negotiate and book a corps 5 months before the season starts and 6 months before my show? How do I know, at that point, what sort of draw-appeal a corps has 6 months prior to when they actually perform? What's the pricing metric? What's my negotiating angle, that said corps finished 4th last year and is, therefor, not worth as much as whoever finished first last year? What if they finish second next year? Do I have to pay more?

The short answer to this is, if you are in a major market you are soon going to be dealing with whoever G7 has appointed/hired to represent them --if they allow you to be the local partner. Be prepared for they may also cut you out and go direct to producing the show in your market. If you are in a B, C or D market, you are going to be negotiating with DCI and you will be hosting your show on a weekday and it will feature whoever they tell you it will feature based on routing and they will tell you what it will cost. Whether DCI will allow a G7 corps to be in with the field that they provide is up to them and their members and it will depend if that corps is nearby and available. There will certainly be an upcharge for having this corps in your show and you will be told this from the getgo. They may be able to deliver a clinic in the afternoon for high school bands etc. to help you sell more tix. My advice when putting your request together is to ask for Madison, Blue Stars, Blue Knights, Glassmen, Troopers in your package and you will be well on your way to a successful show regardless of whether one or two G7 corps can be added to the mix. These 5 corps are capable of delivering an entertaining show that will sell tickets and make a profit.

Are you starting to get it now? (BTW, we're not idiots around here, we get what your saying pretty clearly. It's that many of us disagree with you and we're challenging you to convince us that you're right. Just you saying something (and then shuffling off to take a nap) is not going to convince us to buy your argument.)

I really want to hear your replies to these, and the other, questions.

I really don't think you want to hear any more of my replies . . . . or my observations and least of all my opinions. The fact that you refer to them as my ARGUMENT indicates to me that YOU like to argue. I on the other hand, like to nap.

And I meant it when I said, I'm pretty much done with this discussion. I enjoy reading, but I get tired of writing, especially when it is variations on the same thing over and over again.

Here's what I know . . . or think I know . . . and guess what, I ADMIT, I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!

DC is still very entertaining, after all these years.

DC is a very educational experience.

DC leads to few felons.

DC is therefore, IMO, very worthwhile.

DC leads to a lifetime of fond memories.

DC has been controlled by a very small group of well-meaning individuals.

DC requires stable funding to survive.

DC has not done a good job of expanding its audience.

DC although a mature activity, can still be exposed to millions.

DC suffers from inbred leadership.

DC could benefit from fresh and radical thinking.

DC needs quick and decisive financial action or faces dire consequences.

So, Mr. Garfield and others, do I think I know how to solve all the problems? Sure I do. And so do each of you. But let's face it, so do Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Fielder and Mr. Mason and Mr. Acheson even Mr. Brasso and all the posters and posers here. The truth is, and the reason a G7? proposal was put together at all was that some had the courage (balls?) to step up and say (scream!) WE'RE DROWNING HERE! At least, that's what I heard.

And as mobrien so eloquently explained, by not-for-profit fundraising standards, they are not close to being taken seriously within their "community" because they are viewed as being wacko for chasing around the country in their multi-million dollar gypsy caravans that include 150 people of which 9/10ths are under legal age; in 4 buses, 2 or 3 equipment semi's/trucks, full road kitchens, RV's, souvie wagons, medivans; for 8-10 weeks and incurring all expenses KNOWN TO MAN while GROSSING on average $10,000 per week, NETTING -$0 and LOSING - THOUSANDS that (might) be made up from Yet-To-Be-Determined sources. What is wrong with this picture?

My final advice, and back to what I started saying at the top of this response, Mr. Garfield, don't get hung up in the micro-details sweetheart. Whether you pay the COLTS $2250 for your show in Keokuk or $2375 on the 3rd Wednesday in July, 2011, it doesn't make a squat bit of difference to the bottom line of DC in America. I plead with you to see the bigger picture. Don't spend dollars chasing nickels!

There are millions of people --mainly located in major markets and willing to pay $20 - $30 a seat, to see something entertaining if it's packaged, wrapped and presented in a new and exciting way. I think this is what G7 has in mind and if they don't, THEN THEY SHOULD! There! I've said it yet one more time. And Mr. Garfield, I'm tired of preaching here to people who should believe me. I sense a change is coming. I hope I'm right.

Naturally, I'd like to see the activity continue; but with a return to more entertainment value and a concentrated emphasis shift to introducing it to a wider audience. I happen to think this can be done by a movement towards entertainment values that have more crowd appeal and a de-emphasis of a scoring system that few understand and even fewer appreciate. Just as millions of people who a few years ago wouldn't have dreamt of spending $75 to see an animal-free circus or something as mundane as Blue Man Group, or STOMP; OR for the same reason 90,000 turned out last weekend to watch FlugTag and 100,000 are expected to spend millions to view the Tall Ships float into Duluth Harbor this weekend. . . if you try it, will they come? I happen to think they WILL . . . and with CASH in-hand.

Allow me to slide over to the "dark side" for final emphasis and closing "ARGUMENTS" as you might call them, and then I will go back to bed for a long nap

. . . Imagine I'm the Blue Devils and I worked my butt off all year, raised money and shed the blood, sweat and tears while inhaling diesel fumes spent crisscrossing the country from Concord, CA all summer long; and now I'm standing on the 50-yardline at Allentown - the Mecca of East Coast Drum Corp. I win the night by 8/10ths over The Cadets and The Crown and The Cavies ----and look up into the stands and there are ONLY 1800 mouth-breathing fans. Then I open the envelope with my winners check and it is for $2750; I might just choose to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger.

Sure this is a little on the melodramatic side, but my point is this. There HAS to be a better way. Part of what G7 is admitting is that the current methods are just NOT sustainable. And so far, this is the only new idea that has been floated. Please correct me if I'm wrong . . . as I know you will. I think this vision of a better way combined with a realistic understanding of the way things TRULY ARE, is what fuels the G7 proposal. It is also why the proposal or some variation of it has a good chance of moving forward.

Don't expect reply. I'm tired. Said about all I care to say. Many times over in fact. mobrien said it better anyway. They need more moola! Time to nap.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Martin I. Zing

[garfield]

Thank you for your reply, Mr. Zing. Considering your effort and the length of your thoughts I'll read it several times while you're sleeping. Then, hopefully, when you awake you'll take the time to come back here and decide if conversing, discussing, arguing, hashing, interacting, debating (or however you define what we do here) is worth your time. I contend that you don't have to be "obsessed" with DC or this board to engage in lively discourse of the activity's current events.

See you in the spring...

[MarimbasaurusRex]

I agree that the judging system, and the oversight of DCI, are significant problems. But how do you further describe "peripherally" above? And where do you see in the G7 proposal that their threat said they would leave DCI? I think we all presume that's what it means but did you see it stated that way? Where, please, because I didn't see that. I did see that they plan to decide what to do next written in print...

Peripherally, meaning the G7 would have their exclusive shows and the rest of DCI could play along on "off" nights.

I don't have time at the moment to track down the exact wording, but it was said that they will pursue this plan whether DCI is on board with it or not. If you can think of another interpretation...

Again, my only point is that this has all been done before, and not with the "best interest of the activity" as a result.