The World Series of Drum Corps

[mobrien]

That is what I have been calling for, for over a year now.

Find a board with the proper skills and experience for the job. Find a board with skills in marketing, promotion, and finance. That is the skills that the leadership of this activity need. How many of the current board members have backgrounds in this area? I don't know, but I would imagine that most or all of them have backgrounds in music and music education - not finance and marketing.

Let me make this point clear: The board should not be made up of people with no knowledge of marching music. They should have some understanding of the product their organization is producing, which in DCI's case, is marching music.

To be clear, the whole point of DCI's founding was to put the major corps (via the corps directors) in the drivers' seat. Were I one of the directors of a drum corps in DCI, why would I want someone who doesn't represent my interests being in charge of making the rules and financial decisions that affect my organization?

DCI was conceived as a co-op more than anything, and is there for a specific business purpose; to sell tickets to contests and sell multi-media content, and return the proceeds to the corps. Well, let's say you get an all-outside director set-up, and the directors collectively vote to make DCI the real star of the show, divertiing an even greater portion of the net proceeds each year toward the DCI organization rather than to the member corps - if you want to see the G7 (plus a sizable number of other corps) look for an alternative organization to run their shows, then that's a quick way to get it.

The fields of expertise you cite are the province of paid staff members, not the Board members - being an expert in marketing, etc is what the Board members PAY for when they hire someone to work for their company. In the vast majority of non-profit Boards, outside directors are the rule, but those Board members are generally seen as being FUNDRAISERS for the organization - Board membership is the perk they get for using their abilities and contacts in the business world to bring in money for the organization. In a mid-sized to large non-profit arts org, Board membership will typically have an expectation of each member being responsible for donating $5,000-10,000 in personal cash each year, plus being responsible for raising another $20,000-100,000 each year from their family, friends, and companies. Now, can DCI put a Board like that together for themselves? It'd be cool if they could - but I doubt they could. Drum corps just doesn't have the cache of being a Board member at Steppenwolf, or the Met, or the Getty.

The non-7 Board members did the right thing in forcing changes to the Board that would protect their interests, but I don't find a similar rationale for the organizations who ARE DCI's product turning over control over their destinies to a bunch of other guys with no skin in the game, unless those outsiders are bringing some serious cash to the table first.

Edited August 27, 2010 by mobrien

[garfield]

To be clear, the whole point of DCI's founding was to put the major corps (via the corps directors) in the drivers' seat. Were I one of the directors of a drum corps in DCI, why would I want someone who doesn't represent my interests being in charge of making the rules and financial decisions that affect my organization?

DCI was conceived as a co-op more than anything, and is there for a specific business purpose; to sell tickets to contests and sell multi-media content, and return the proceeds to the corps. Well, let's say you get an all-outside director set-up, and the directors collectively vote to make DCI the real star of the show, divertiing an even greater portion of the net proceeds each year toward the DCI organization rather than to the member corps - if you want to see the G7 (plus a sizable number of other corps) look for an alternative organization to run their shows, then that's a quick way to get it.

The fields of expertise you cite are the province of paid staff members, not the Board members - being an expert in marketing, etc is what the Board members PAY for when they hire someone to work for their company. In the vast majority of non-profit Boards, outside directors are the rule, but those Board members are generally seen as being FUNDRAISERS for the organization - Board membership is the perk they get for using their abilities and contacts in the business world to bring in money for the organization. In a mid-sized to large non-profit arts org, Board membership will typically have an expectation of each member being responsible for donating $5,000-10,000 in personal cash each year, plus being responsible for raising another $20,000-100,000 each year from their family, friends, and companies. Now, can DCI put a Board like that together for themselves? It'd be cool if they could - but I doubt they could. Drum corps just doesn't have the cache of being a Board member at Steppenwolf, or the Met, or the Getty.

The non-7 Board members did the right thing in forcing changes to the Board that would protect their interests, but I don't find a similar rationale for the organizations who ARE DCI's product turning over control over their destinies to a bunch of other guys with no skin in the game, unless those outsiders are bringing some serious cash to the table first.

I agree with a lot of your post - especially the expectation of contributions and fundraising. Most NP arts orgs are GREATLY financed by BOD members themselves and their contacts. The DCI board is much more of an oversight body, not a fundraiser (which, frankly, attracts me to it and I sit on 3 NP boards currently). I think the DCI board should be made up primarily of outside directors that have long experience in the activity and its best interests at heart (the WHOLE activity). Charging a corps director with the responsibility of the activity, while his primary is his own corps, is the source of the problem, IMO.

I think the BOD should be made up - 5 to 4 - of non-corps directors. I think the right personality of non-affiliated BOD members would guide the activity as a whole while having significant input from the 4 directors providing input as representatives of all of the directors.

Edited August 27, 2010 by garfield

[DC Guy]

... I think the DCI board should be made up primarily of outside directors that have long experience in the activity and its best interests at heart (the WHOLE activity). Charging a corps director with the responsibility of the activity, while his primary is his own corps, is the source of the problem, IMO.

THIS is the most intelligent statement of this entire sub-forum (and something I've been saying for a long time! )

I cannot for the life of me think of how corps directors, who have a fiduciary responsibility for looking out for the best interests for each their organizations, can impartially guide an activity of which they are a part.

We need a set of people with diverse business experiences (i.e., finance, legal, technical, administrative, etc.) who have experience and a passion for drum corps to impartially lead DCI. THAT is what will save the drum corps activity.

[mobrien]

So DCI, a member-based organization, made up OF members, would be better suited by letting a lot of NON-members make their rules and run their business for them? Why the hell would any of the corps want to put themselves in that situation? That's what they formed DCI to get away from.

DCI isn't a non-profit organization designed to run all of drum corps. It was formed as a co-op, made up of the member corps. It only exists because those member corps are committed to keeping it going. Originally there were 13. Now it's pretty much anyone who wants to join. But in any case, "self determination" has been the concept that brought the organization to life and guided it for nearly 40 years.

These calls for people who are experts in marketing, finance, etc are missing the point. What, exactly, would the head of a major advertising firm bring to the table as a Board member? Unless it was "I can have my company cover all the design and production costs pro bono", all he'd be offering is oversight and advice. Well, you don't need to be a Board member to offer advice - you can form committees from the Board that include non-Board members in advisory capacities. But my experience with those committees is that they're good with special events (like benefit events), but not so good when it comes to day in, day out work of the organization, since the professional staff members you hire are made crazy by too many cooks offering their advice on what is, after all, the staff member's supposed field of expertise. If DCI needs better marketing (arguable, imho), then they should hire a better marketing staff - not replace Board members who know the business inside and out with others who don't.

Unless outside Board members bring money and contacts worth even MORE money to Board meetings, they're really not necessary in what is, otherwise, a private club. The club does the work, the rest of us are free to buy their product or not, but in any case, it IS their club.

[audiodb]

So DCI, a member-based organization, made up OF members, would be better suited by letting a lot of NON-members make their rules and run their business for them? Why the hell would any of the corps want to put themselves in that situation? That's what they formed DCI to get away from.

Oh, we have a few things to correct here.

Prior to DCI, top junior corps were gravitating toward the VFW Nationals as their "championship". Problem was not simply these VFW "outsiders" making the rules, but rather, that the VFW was a whole other entity, with their own set of priorities (one of which was to make most of the profit from that contest). The interests of the VFW were in conflict with the interests of the participating drum corps.

Now, as for your comment about the corps not wanting anyone else to "run their business for them"....quite the opposite, actually. Many corps directors are busy enough running their own businesses (the corps), and would rather not have to run DCI too. That's why they've gone from monthly meetings to an annual meeting, and delegated as much as possible to an executive BOD. And, of course, that's why they hire an executive director for DCI, because it is he and his staff that actually "run" DCI, with the BOD providing oversight.

Speaking of "oversight"....amid what little I know of business, I thought the purpose of a BOD was just that - to provide oversight. As I understand it, the BOD is there to maintain focus on the mission and long-term best interests of the business. This is done partly as protection against employees or the CEO putting their own short-term interests ahead of the interests of the business....but it can also be a mechanism to get a wider perspective from experts in a variety of relevant areas. With both of those tactics in mind, BOD members are typically "outsiders"....doesn't mean they don't have expertise in that type of business, but they are not employees of the business they are overseeing, or similarly entangled in the day-to-day operations of that business such that their interests are likely to conflict with the long-term mission of the business.

Apply that philosophy to DCI, and ask yourself if current corps directors are best able to provide that impartial, independent "oversight" that a BOD should provide.

[N.E. Brigand]

So DCI, a member-based organization, made up OF members, would be better suited by letting a lot of NON-members make their rules and run their business for them? Why the hell would any of the corps want to put themselves in that situation?

Isn't that the case for each individual corps? Like most not-for-profits, aren't their boards of directors composed of people not actually active in drum corps, who were selected for the board either because they can "give or get" significant contributions, or for expertise (legal, financial, marketing, h.r., etc.) they can provide?

[AmFlag61]

As a Cavalier alumnus, I will always love my Corps. I trust that the Cavalier BOD will continue to provide the right direction for The Cavaliers, while remembering that they are one part of the Drum Corps community. My continued support depends on their future decisions in regards to G7. For clarification I suggest they & you read my DCP signature.

[mobrien]

Isn't that the case for each individual corps? Like most not-for-profits, aren't their boards of directors composed of people not actually active in drum corps, who were selected for the board either because they can "give or get" significant contributions, or for expertise (legal, financial, marketing, h.r., etc.) they can provide?

Unlike DCI, t e individual corps were NOT set up as co-ops (ie: the Board members weren't there to represent their own interests in the management of the corps).

The individual corps Boards act as traditional Boards do: to provide funding resources and outside eyes in the interest of protecting a community asset and making sure that the organization is acting in a financially and socially responsible manner. While you hope to have Board members with some expertise in law and accounting and marketing, those qualifications are non-existent from a legal standpoint (state laws don't require it - you can have anyone you want on the board), and in the cases of large non-profits, any outside expertise is secondary to the fundraising element of Board membership.

Again, we think of DCI as a non-profit, but it was originally envisioned as a members-only club, with the primary purpose of running events that would benefit the members competitively and financially. The mission has evolved over time, but I'm unaware of any resolution that officially forswore that element of the org. The role of the Executive Director is as much "outside" as the original members wanted in the DCI end of the business, and while they have added a few outside directors over the years, the Boards have consistently maintained a position that indicates that they want to retain decision-making capabilities for themselves vis a vis any DCI positions.

I say DCI, you think "NFL." Same basic idea. And I doubt any of us would believe that Jerry Jones or the Maras, or the Rooneys would turn over Board-level decision making for their league to a bunch of other people who might mean well, but would not necessarily know how to protect and promote the interests of the individual franchises as much as the owners of those franchises.

Edited August 28, 2010 by mobrien

[supersop]

So DCI, a member-based organization, made up OF members, would be better suited by letting a lot of NON-members make their rules and run their business for them? Why the hell would any of the corps want to put themselves in that situation? That's what they formed DCI to get away from.

DCI isn't a non-profit organization designed to run all of drum corps. It was formed as a co-op, made up of the member corps. It only exists because those member corps are committed to keeping it going. Originally there were 13. Now it's pretty much anyone who wants to join. But in any case, "self determination" has been the concept that brought the organization to life and guided it for nearly 40 years.

These calls for people who are experts in marketing, finance, etc are missing the point. What, exactly, would the head of a major advertising firm bring to the table as a Board member? Unless it was "I can have my company cover all the design and production costs pro bono", all he'd be offering is oversight and advice. Well, you don't need to be a Board member to offer advice - you can form committees from the Board that include non-Board members in advisory capacities. But my experience with those committees is that they're good with special events (like benefit events), but not so good when it comes to day in, day out work of the organization, since the professional staff members you hire are made crazy by too many cooks offering their advice on what is, after all, the staff member's supposed field of expertise. If DCI needs better marketing (arguable, imho), then they should hire a better marketing staff - not replace Board members who know the business inside and out with others who don't.

Unless outside Board members bring money and contacts worth even MORE money to Board meetings, they're really not necessary in what is, otherwise, a private club. The club does the work, the rest of us are free to buy their product or not, but in any case, it IS their club.

Most of that can easily be solved with a well planned and thorough by-laws. Let's say Me, Reem, Garfield ADJWAD and a few others with diverse backgrounds were to become the new BoD. It's fairly simple to set the guidelines for the board to be advisory to the CEO, oversee the yearly/5 year business plans, make suggestions for weak portions of the business model by way of sub panels/exploratory caucuses/information fact finding and much much more. This would not put the board in a position of making rules ... rather doing the legwork to explore potential marketing direction, fan feedback studies, core demographics of the fan base .. etc ad nauseum. These are all things a good BoD does. Then the BoD would write their own report on what they expect the CEO to do, all the while in transparent conference with the CEO (working in harmony). The corps directors would have their own caucus and regular meetings with the BoD in order to share their concerns and suggestions. This takes a ton of work off of the corps directors backs. If the board is doing a good job, the CEO will do a good job and vice versa. It should be the CEO's position to come up with the best business model for success and offered to the BoD for consideration and approval ....... this would also require a caucus meeting with the corps directors in order to hash out the plan .. but ultimately, it would be the board who does the final approval with the CEO. I would suggest 2 honorary positions on the board. 1 World Class director and 1 Open Class director (voted to this position by their peers).

The end result is that everyone has a voice. The board is ultimately the balance in the entire plan. The CEO has a business to run that is still modeled to maximize returns to the corps profit sharing coffers. Maybe then there would be some real investment in future gains, a healthy balance in marketing approach with an eye on new customers and retention of legacy customers. Rules changes would have to be authorized by the board as well. Corps directors would still have their rules caucuses and send all approved proposals to the BoD for final consideration. At that point, the BoD could and should have all the marketing research data they need in their hands in order to turn around to the directors and say, "Hey this is a good idea" or "Hey, What the heck are you guys thinking?". The BoD should be there to support the long term growth, sustainability and legacy of DCI first and foremost. With that understanding, there shouldn't be an issue with the corps directors. It would just take time to build the working relationship and instill the trust needed to keep things moving forward with due diligence and a level of trust that would be built by way of results rather than ego and power-mongering.

[mobrien]

The BoD should be there to support the long term growth, sustainability and legacy of DCI first and foremost. With that understanding, there shouldn't be an issue with the corps directors. It would just take time to build the working relationship and instill the trust needed to keep things moving forward with due diligence and a level of trust that would be built by way of results rather than ego and power-mongering.

That's possible, as a model, but it would require a seismic shift in the thinking of the whole organization, a shift that the membership has resisted for the better part of four decades.

Again, we're thinking that DCI is the benevolent org out there to "protect and promote drum corps", but that's not what it was set up to do. As with MLB and the NFL and other professional sports leagues, it was set up to manage the competition between the top franchises and make sure that they were all seeing as much financial gain from their shared activities as they could.

Asking the corps directors to shift to a model in which they are sidelined as decision makers in favor of an all-outside Board would require a fair amount of salesmanship (and were I one of the current Board/corps directors, you can bet I'd be a hardass in terms of wanting to know how much MORE money my organization would be seeing from this re-alignment - if the answer was "none - in fact, maybe less", there's no way I'd support the change; no one in their current position is going to give up self-determination AND agree to a situation in which they find themselves relegated to merely being supplicants of an organization for which they generate the revenues.

Edited August 28, 2010 by mobrien