Can I read this article without my head exploding?

[GUARDLING]

here I think is where outside help can work for DCI:

an entertainment lawyer. can help with rights and negotiating for PR outside of band related magazines.

someone on the board who is known for fundraising genius for non profits.

two people, not tied to a corps and not looking to change rules, but to help the leaders make wise business decisions....in areas, i'm sure many of these corps directors may not be as wise in as they think

I understand the outside, non bias approach BUT isn't that taking control away from each corps. Just what DCI was formed to do and the current corps want. Deciding their own destiny.

[Jeff Ream]

2 votes out of the 9 on the super board now....which isn't full after the recent coup...no not really

I understand the outside, non bias approach BUT isn't that taking control away from each corps. Just what DCI was formed to do and the current corps want. Deciding their own destiny.

[BRASSO]

Indeed. As was the American Legion's Uniformed Groups Congress. And after that was when the now-unleashed artistes came into D&BC strong, their ####-the-cost/lights-on-Broadway dreams no longer suppressed by silly, archaic rules moderated by veterans groups who bristled at any tune other than "You're In the Army Now" (or so the effete, pedantic New Wave staffers/leaders had been claiming in order to win their arguments for drastic change in D&BC.)

So the '70s and '80s rolled on, and as the corps began to die for lack of nourishment from within and without, the newly-spandexed New Wavers dismissed that as the age-old 'survival-of-the-fittest'.

Except that the total numbers of participants was also shrinking. Many corps couldn't keep up with the artistes' sophisticated new de riguer equipment mandates and Nouveau Riche uniforms and marching trends; and they began to disappear in wholesale lots.

Fewer corps meant fewer contests and farther distances to travel to the remaining contests, and greater costs, and a resultant strain on a shrinking total membership, the recruitment of which was now directed towards attracting only trained talent .... just like Broadway.

Still, all the dazzling show offerings from the top remaining units blinded everyone to the underlying, worsening rot from the bottom up, and the DCI leadership continued on its merry way with hardly a thought to the hundreds of corps with their thousands of members who were gone forever. Occasionally there'd be token nods of regret over DCI's disappearing underclass. But DCI did nothing about changing the root causes of the terminal decay. After all, weren't those finals so spectacular each year?

It's nearly over for all but the big boys now. Oh, I believe something will continue on, but just what is anyone's guess. Maybe some VFW or American Legion post or PAL or Boys & Girls Club or church somewhere - unaware or more likely uncaring over all your current mess - will pass out some G bugles and cheap drums to the neighborhood kids so they can march in the local parades playing "You're In The Army Now". And then someone in the next town over will say "Hey, we can do that, too!", and pass out bugles to their neighborhood kids, and .....

You make some good observations. I' not so sure we can get the old Slingerlands and the old Getzen" G's' from those VFW, AL, Churches however" to pass out to the inner city kids". We might have to get town permit to dig up the D& B stuff buried under where the VFW, AL, Church buildings use to be. Most of 'em have been bulldozed to make room for the expansion of correction facilities, drug rehab ctrs., gun shops, porn shops, pawn shops, etc and so forth.

Edited July 27, 2010 by BRASSO

[oldschooldbc]

What I think we need is Option C.

Option A is the model we had with VFW, AL, and CYO. The activity was managed by outsiders, but they had serious problem with tour management and event staging. That was unacceptable. This was ultimately the reason that Gail Royer, and a select few members, decided to break off an form DCI. In 1972, this made perfect sense, because of the climate that the corps were operating in. The activity needed new management - "inside management" - and got it.

What DCI has given us now is "inside management" - which is what I will label Option B. The corps directors run the activity for their own benefit. In truth, the BOD run the activity for the benefit of the BOD members. Numerous rule changes and decision by the BOD show this to be true.

What they G7 is proposing is Option B1. It is a virulent form of Option B, where power and wealth is even more centralized. It will be a true meritocracy, and actually a plutocracy, where the rich and powerful before richer and more powerful. It, effectively "elite insider management." Unacceptable.

What I am proposing is option C. I propose outside management, but one that is focused on the benefit of the entire activity - not just the member corps. What should this management team have as their charter?

1) Outside management should be held accountable for one thing - the growth and expansion of junior drum corps, both in size and popularity. Any financial incentives to outside management should be based upon this - not the year-by-year profitability of the corps. This should be their primary Key Performance Indicator (or KPI, for short.) The outside management should set 5, 10, and 20 year objectives, for criteria such as the number of corps, MMs, and shows. Any renumeration to the outside management should be based on their ability to meet these criteria.

2) Outside management should be tasked with effectively marketing drum corps beyond its current niche market (which consists mainly of drum corps alumni, music educators, band students, etc.) Excess revenue (i.e., profits) should be pumped into marketing programs that will expand the activity's fan base - not concentrate it, as the G7 wants. If necessary, cut the reimbursements to existing corps, in order to expand these programs significantly. And to this end, I would give the outside management full artistic control, to make any changes necessary, to support these marketing efforts. This will allow the outside management to keep the product on the field, and the marketing program, in sync.

3) Outside management should develop an economic model that will benefit all junior drum corps - not just an elite, priviledged few, as the G7 wants. Seed funds should be given to young corps, and organizations that want to form corps, so that the numbers of corps and MM expands. Show proceeds should be equalized, so that new, struggling corps have a fighting chance.

You will never get this charter from G7. In fact, G7 wants to take junior drum corps in the exact opposite direction. So I am setting a completely divergent path from where Gibbs and Hopkins want to take us.

[The Other Mike]

What I think we need is Option C.

Option A is the model we had with VFW, AL, and CYO. The activity was managed by outsiders, but they had serious problem with tour management and event staging. That was unacceptable. This was ultimately the reason that Gail Royer, and a select few members, decided to break off an form DCI. In 1972, this made perfect sense, because of the climate that the corps were operating in. The activity needed new management - "inside management" - and got it.

What DCI has given us now is "inside management" - which is what I will label Option B. The corps directors run the activity for their own benefit. In truth, the BOD run the activity for the benefit of the BOD members. Numerous rule changes and decision by the BOD show this to be true.

What they G7 is proposing is Option B1. It is a virulent form of Option B, where power and wealth is even more centralized. It will be a true meritocracy, and actually a plutocracy, where the rich and powerful before richer and more powerful. It, effectively "elite insider management." Unacceptable.

What I am proposing is option C. I propose outside management, but one that is focused on the benefit of the entire activity - not just the member corps. What should this management team have as their charter?

1) Outside management should be held accountable for one thing - the growth and expansion of junior drum corps, both in size and popularity. Any financial incentives to outside management should be based upon this - not the year-by-year profitability of the corps. This should be their primary Key Performance Indicator (or KPI, for short.) The outside management should set 5, 10, and 20 year objectives, for criteria such as the number of corps, MMs, and shows. Any renumeration to the outside management should be based on their ability to meet these criteria.

2) Outside management should be tasked with effectively marketing drum corps beyond its current niche market (which consists mainly of drum corps alumni, music educators, band students, etc.) Excess revenue (i.e., profits) should be pumped into marketing programs that will expand the activity's fan base - not concentrate it, as the G7 wants. If necessary, cut the reimbursements to existing corps, in order to expand these programs significantly. And to this end, I would give the outside management full artistic control, to make any changes necessary, to support these marketing efforts. This will allow the outside management to keep the product on the field, and the marketing program, in sync.

3) Outside management should develop an economic model that will benefit all junior drum corps - not just an elite, priviledged few, as the G7 wants. Seed funds should be given to young corps, and organizations that want to form corps, so that the numbers of corps and MM expands. Show proceeds should be equalized, so that new, struggling corps have a fighting chance.

You will never get this charter from G7. In fact, G7 wants to take junior drum corps in the exact opposite direction. So I am setting a completely divergent path from where Gibbs and Hopkins want to take us.

Ummmmm NO

Put cash prizes for winning the crowd's appreciation. Play a show to the audiance and be rewarded

Private sponosered shows where 50% of the gate is split to the crowd favorites would be worth paying $100 a ticket to see ( for me)

A show where every corps gets a slice of the pie for playing to the judges ? I'll stay in the lot.

What should be #1 on any new models is bringing the audiance back into the show.

Stop playing JUST to the judges.

Stop ignoring the people in the stands

More and more people are / have left because it's just not entertaining.

Make it entertaining and the stands will fill thus bringing in more money, more fans, more kids, more souvi sales, more corps.

[Abbevillekid26]

I like the idea of "outside help" when it comes to marketing and fundraising, but it concerns me with putting a lot of power into the hands of people not familiar with drum corps. I'm just thinking that maybe outside people may tend to agree with some people who push toys and woodwinds in the idea that it will expand the fanbase.

[TerriTroop]

I like the idea of "outside help" when it comes to marketing and fundraising, but it concerns me with putting a lot of power into the hands of people not familiar with drum corps. I'm just thinking that maybe outside people may tend to agree with some people who push toys and woodwinds in the idea that it will expand the fanbase.

They might suggest canned music and smoke machines for Finals retreat, too.

I honestly am not worried right now about the G7. I think the pushback took them by surprise. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if only 2 or 3 corps make a move to drop their DCI affiliation. At that point who knows what will happen, but I am putting my money on the people who have had the guts to say "nope, no more" and shut this thing down before it got rammed through.

[oldschooldbc]

Did I say that the outside management should be people who are unfamiliar with drum corps, or the pagaentry arts? No, I did not. I would not pick someone who is unfamiliar or unexperienced with the activity, to sit on this board. They should understand the workings of drum corps, and specifically how it is operated and financed.

However, they cannot be insiders. They cannot have financial or competitive allegiances with any of the member corps. Period. They whole point behind outside administration, is to remove conflict-of-interest. And right now, the system is rife with conflict-of-interest.

And beyond that, they need to bring a new skillset to the fold - marketing. Right now, the G7 is essentially trying to remove what little marketing infrastructure that DCI has. See slide 28 of the G7 presentation:

"All activities not related to events and tickets are farmed out."

We need individuals in charge of the activity, who understand finance, operations, and marketing. DCI has individuals who understand the first of these 2 aspects of management, but I see little understanding of the third - marketing. Lamentably, DCI's marketing staff consists of Bob Jacobs (who has his own corps to run), and whatever part-time efforts come from the other staff. That is woefully inadequate.

Right now, DCI essentially has little marketing headcount, budget or resources, and the G7 want to eliminate what little is there. The G7 corps effectively want to market themselves, and themselves only. The G7 would pay DCI to market the Triple AAA events, which only they participate in and benefit from. (See slide 37 of the G7 proposal.) This leaves zero marketing effort, for the rest of drum corps. The AA and A tours and shows will have zero marketing support, under the G7 proposal. Can the AA and A tours survive - let alone succeed - under these circumstances?

Once again, I propose that we go in the exact opposite direction. Invest in marketing, to bring people to the stands, and see the product - for the first time. You must also coordinate the marketing plan, with the product on the field. Then when people come to see the product, they will like what they see. Then, they will come back for a second time. That will generate repeat business, as well as word-of-mouth, which can be the most effective marketing tool of all. And spend the marketing dollars on the entirety of the activity - not just a precious few members.

Look, it's been a dog's age since I earned my MBA and studied marketing. But there is one golden rule of marketing, that I remember from those classes back in the day: "People only buy what you market." If we only market the G7 corps, then people will only buy tickets for those outfits. What will be the outcome for the other corps? I hate to say it, but it will mean steadily declining revenue for those corps, and for many of them, that will mean extinction.

Edited July 28, 2010 by oldschooldbc

[oldschooldbc]

Any marketing program must be designed around the 4 P's - product, pricing, placement, and promotion. This is one of the essentials of marketing, and if you took a marketing 101 class in college, you probably understand this. A marketing program must account for these 4 dynamics. Plenty of marketing programs over the years have failed, because they were deficient in one of these areas. An effecitve marketing program must be coherent - it must make sense, when the 4 P's are put together. That is what makes or breaks a marketing plan.

Let's review the G7 proposal, from the perspective of the 4P's, shall we?

1) Product. Your product must be something that the buying public wants, and wants enough to pay for. It must be designed for a specific market (be it broad or narrow). And it must be designed for the market conditions today (not in the present or future.)

Review the last half of the G7 proposal. Do the writers of this proposal really understand the market for their product (namely drum corps)? Do they understand the wants and needs of the people who pay for their product?

They aparently want to tailor their product to high-school band programs. This is their new target. I must fundamentally ask the question: are they targeting the correct market? Will the people in this market pay for this product? Do they have any market research, that will bear this out? Are you targeting a market with disposible income, and the desire to spend it on your product? High school students do not have the disposible income of other demographics.

2) Pricing. Your product must be priced properly. It cannot be underpriced (which will lead to lost revenue), or overpriced (which will drive away customers.)

What will be the price set for the AAA events? The G7 proposal has very little. I susect that the prices for these events will be steep. With shorter tours and less events, G7 corps will attempt to maximize their revenue, by charging premium prices.

Here is where the G7 proposal begins to show its flaws. If prices go up, are you targeting your product to the correct market? Will your average HS band student be willing to part with $75 to $100 for a drum corps show - even a Tour of Champions show?

3) Placement. Is your product in a place where customers can readily buy it?

See slide 43 of the G7 proposal. They want to play "tour of champion" shows in these places: Texas, Nebraska, Chicago, the Carolinas, and the NY Metro area. Some of these choices make sense, and some don't.

But here is my bigger concern: what percentage of the target market lies within a 2-hour driving radius of these shows? Again, your target market is now HS band members. Perhaps 10% of the U.S. population - and your target market - is within this radius. So how are the members of your target market going to get there? Effectively 90% of their customer base is cut off, by this placement approach.

At this point, the plan really begins to lack coherence.

4) Promotion. Your customers have to know about your product, and be motivated to buy it.

On this front, the plan becomes very, very vague. There is no specific promotion plan that is part of the G7 proposal. But here's is one key aspect of the proposal: they essentially want to cut the event promoters out of the business. (See slide 26 of the G7 proposal.) Most of the promotion of DCI events is really done by event promoters today. The G7 proposal removes these entities, so that the G7 doesn't have to pay them. If these organizations are essentially cut out of the picture, then who will do the promoting?

Supposedly, the G7 will pay DCI to market the "tour of champion" shows. And how exactly is DCI supposed to accomplish this, with no infrastructure for promotion and advertising? And who will pay to promote the rest of the DCI events, other than "tour of champions" shows?

======================================================

So to summarize: this plan lacks cohesion, from the perspective of the 4 P's. The product and pricing, when taken together, do not combine to make sense. The placement strategy removes much of the target audience. And much of the promotion backbone of DCI will be removed, by the elimination of event promotors.

This plan looks like it was written by someone who never took a marketing course. If I were a marketing professor, and someone turned in this plan for a grade, I would give it a D. Maybe an F.

Edited July 28, 2010 by oldschooldbc

[CrunchyTenor]

here I think is where outside help can work for DCI:

an entertainment lawyer. can help with rights and negotiating for PR outside of band related magazines.

Hmmm...I dunno. Lee might be a little too busy to help DCI. Plus, I wonder if they've ever recovered from the time they threw him out of the DCI-Pacific meeting a decade or so ago.

Garry in Vegas