Dan Acheson contract renewed as DCI Executive Director

[Phantombari1]

I believe DCM had the same stance and look where they are now. When you look at what corps have changed the activity it's not the corps at the bottom and it's not the DCI Board.

The comment was made earlier about the G7 ruling the final standings, apparently the judges think the same thing, that the G7 dominate the activity.

I for one believe there should be 8-9 corps in the G-series, as I also mentioned with the Madison leadership changes they will be dominate within the next two years., Bluestars have also made their mark.

It was mentioned in other threads about streaming finals for a price. I call this lost revenue a bad decision by the BOD. Just like other events only so many people can attend finals.

If you make people commit financially to the premium option to see finals live I think more will see value in going that route. It should only be available to fans wanting to make that financial commitment.

[audiodb]

Whether you think he's done a good job or not, isn't 14 years is a little too long for someone to be the head of DCI?

Or the Cadets? Or YEA!? Or the Blue Devils?

[audiodb]

Who says he’s done a good job? How much has the activity grown under his tenure? How many more fans? How many more corps? How many more shows? How much more exposure?

If those are the metrics a DCI leader should be evaluated on, no other DCI executive director would hold a candle to Dan Acheson.

[jasgre2000]

Yes. I most certainly would.

The IRL split from CART/IndyCar was similar- the IRL had the "weaker" product, CART had the big teams and names. CART ran out of money, the top teams came back to IRL so they could compete at Indy (ironic, isn't it!?) and re-merged.

It might mean for a rough go at first for what is left, but they do produce a more than acceptable product, and given the G7 want to turn themselves into some kind of super-BoA band thing, Drum Corps fans will want to see CORPS- not BAND.

They want to go- wave goodbye. As Hancock more or less said on the second day of Gettysburg when Sickles moved his troops into the wheatfield out of position... "don't worry, they'll be back..."

Oh, and one more thing- since DCI shows in the PA/MD/NJ area would no longer all be run by YEA! (except for DCI East), I'd be inclined to spend my money to take a couple in and enjoy the show. I'd also bet the ticket prices would be far more reasonable as well....

You could be right. If they do an upper level "band" thing, then there would be an easy way to differentiate DCI and keep it going.

Edited August 15, 2010 by jasgre2000

[jasgre2000]

The G-7 can't survive on their own outside of DCI either. 7 Corps would have a shelf life of maybe 2 years at best outside of DCI. Even the successful " BLAST " ultimately ran it's course.

But if some or all of these Corps want to leave DCI ... then go, and don't let the screen door hit you in the back as you head out.

The G-7 concept proposal is as dead as the fictional character Geoffrey is now.

That battle was fought. We have the winners. We have the losers.

The overall health of the activity will now be restored to it's proper place. And the majority of fans will now benefit from that restoration in the coming years, imo. The loss of 1 or even all 7 Corps ( as good as they are ) will not be the end of Drum Corps as we know it. We've lost dozens of once great Corps and survived... some say got better. This might even be rebirth Rennaisance period that finally takes the activity out of the Dark Ages..... "Change is good". Isn't that what we hear all the time ?

I hope you are right, but I actually think the battle is just beginning. The renewal of Acheson was a shot across the bow, not a resolution of the standoff.

[audiodb]

Before we all jump up and down about this, how about a look at the other side of the coin. During Acheson's 14-year tenure:

- Many drum corps have folded and ceased operation

Dan Acheson only ran one corps, and they're still around. And seriously, if you want to compare the attrition rate under Acheson vs. earlier in DCI's history, the results are not going to support your case.

- DCI lost all forms of Finals broadcasts (The ESPN failure, then PBS altogether)

Frankly, continuing the expensive live broadcast in this era of theater shows, streaming video and social media would probably have been an enormous waste of money.

- The end of the Regional tours and organizations

How is that a failure of DCI? For that matter, DCI assuming the operations of DCE, DCW and eventually DCM could be considered an additional accomplishment.

- Sagging attendance

You have any data to support that assertion?

- The horrible move to Indy and locking in 10 years in an acoustic dungeon

OK, you found one DCI decision I disagree with. But let's be fair:

1. It's only 8 years in the acoustic dungeon.

2. Let's not ignore the complicity of others in this decision. The corps and DCI's BOD supported the development of indoor shows nearly a decade before this decision was made. DCI's events in San Antonio and Indy's RCA Dome became perennial five-figure attendance events, so even among the fans, there is a contingent that are willing to compromise acoustics for creature comforts (much to my chagrin).

3. As a business decision, the overall tradeoff in lost/relocated ticket revenue was expected to be offset by cost savings. From what we are told, this has proven to be true.

- The complete transformation to judge-driven shows that are arguably alienating and turning away a large group of fans

Dan Acheson does not design the shows.

- The possible defection of the G7 - and all of it's conflict and controversy

Perhaps your concerns should be directed to the perpetrators of that conflict (the G7).

I don't know the guy personally or have an opinion about him. But as a long-time member/fan of DCI, I can't help but notice that the state of this activity that I love so much has declined quite a bit on his watch. I would love for some folks to post a list of positive things he has done for Drum Corps to help sway me in the other direction.

For starters, there was bringing DCI back from the brink with innovative cost-cutting measures and business partnerships. Dealing with Disney and IBM enabled DCI to repair the damage of events earlier in the '90s. Dan's ability to assemble, train and manage a younger, leaner and more tech-savvy team helped not only on the balance sheets, but also in DCI's ability to develop new marketing techniques in evolving media platforms.

Let's try to remember that the job of the DCI Executive Director under current governance is NOT to make policy (the BOD does 99% of that), but rather to implement it. Success at that job is measured in whether he did what the BOD directed, and how the balance sheets look in the process. And from the late-1990's turnaround to today's profit-in-a-great-recession, seems like Dan is performing exceptionally well.

[BRASSO]

I hope you are right, but I actually think the battle is just beginning. The renewal of Acheson was a shot across the bow, not a resolution of the standoff.

I hear you, but the unaimous vote by the Board of Directors is simply a recommitment to continue with the Mission Statement of DCI that all the Corps.... including the G-7 Corps.. subscribe to with their membership. Now... if a few Corps want to alter that fundamental philosophy that has guided DCI since it's inception in 1972, that's simply not going to happen, jasgre2000. It will be up to the G-7 to come back into the fold and be on board with the established principles and guiding philosophy of DCI or they are the ones that will be out of line and looking to take yet another " shot across the bow" against their member colleagues. Either way, DCI will be moving forward as planned.

Edited August 15, 2010 by BRASSO

[audiodb]

The finances of DCI and quite a few of it's member corps are in bad shape.

The sky is falling!

(In case you're new here, this is my response to anyone that repeats the baseless assertion that DCI is in financial trouble. You may want to take a look at their 2009 balance sheet and revise your statement accordingly.)

As for the corps, which ones are you referring to as being in bad shape financially?

Edited August 15, 2010 by audiodb

[audiodb]

I'll have to disagree with you there. Anything that is a "mess" for the top 7 corps in the organization (the corps that bring in a majority of the fans and sponsorships) is a "mess" for the organization.

Can you tell me where that is documented? I don't recall seeing a list of which corps bring in what percentage of the fans or sponsorships.

A link will suffice, if it's on the Web.

[jasgre2000]

Can you tell me where that is documented? I don't recall seeing a list of which corps bring in what percentage of the fans or sponsorships.

A link will suffice, if it's on the Web.

Just an assumption on my part. I could be dead wrong. I don't think I am though.