DCW article regarding touring...

[garfield]

“What DCI’s doing -- what their plan is and I’m a part of that -- is to build the activity, basically at a grassroots level, to generate more kids into the drum corps and more moms and dads and grandparents, and over time, more attachments,” Hopkins said. “And I would agree that has been a part of the fall-off -- less corps, less people, less participation, less moms and dads.

“So, that’s pretty much what Dan’s [Acheson] trying to generate from a mandate or a challenge of each show -- well, 50 percent of them are run by corps these days -- to pull 250 more people for DCI; to pull their attendance up by 10 percent per show. And in terms of his four- to five-year plan, that’s what he’s looking at to pull things forward. (bold not in the original)

“Is that a change? No. Is there anything that could be argued against that? I don’t think so,” Hopkins noted. “It’s solid and feels good and everyone voted for it. But I don’t know that that’s enough. I do think they need something dramatic. I think we have to find a different population in order to do this.”

When I read this I thought it was such a cheap shot. I spent considerable time reading the DCI 5-year plan and for Hop to summarize the DCI effort into one sentence is nearly slanderous. I hesitate to surmise that it was his hubris that allowed him to minimize the Plan into one, short sentence so I'll leave others to rationalize that.

But the point is two-fold, despite his dismissiveness:

Number 1. The DCI plan contains 5 strategic objectives, followed up by no less than 18 tactical sub-objectives. These include:

a. Assisting members, directors, volunteers, etc in promoting the events they participate in

b. Grow the group sales effort in 2010 and hire staff to focus solely on group sales in 2011

c. Expand the reach of all Tour Event partners promotion and sales

d. Challenge all TEPs (added: not JUST corps-run shows) to increase BITS by 250 per year

e. Launch execution of multi-faceted approach to audience growth, starting with "the year of the fan"

f. Provide age-outs with two comped tickets to increase retention after age-out

g. develop 5 live and interactive learning experiences for non-corps students, and 10 in 2011

h. develop and refine technology and operational systems to support tactical goals

i. Schedule two corps per year to go west to promote that circuit

j. place two new Premier events to attract new or legacy fans, like Minn and Kalamazoo, early TX show and late-season top-8 show in 2011

k. implement in 2011 an aggressive corps operational and artistic growth support plan to go alongside the existing review process. Commit a DCI staff position to corps development support

l. develop a comprehensive support program to assist organizations wishing to start a corps

m. develop an online educational support system similar to "The Director's College"

n. By 2011 develop a comprehensive Open Class branding and promotion initiative to increase OC membership from 65 to 100 by 2014

o. develop a 10-day OC tour leading up to Indy that allows all corps to participate in at least 7 events

p. in 2011 develop On The Field Society social networking for current MM, containing motivational, health, conditioning programs, and updates from DCI

q. in 2010 add 12 additional items to the corps purchasing program that save 20% each

and Number 2: He couldn't convince enough of the board members to agree with him that this is a bad plan, so it passed.

Not being satisfied his behind-the-scene caucusing to derail the plan began.

I really wish he'd been more forthcoming in the DCW article of his reasons why the DCI plan won't work , instead of minimizing the obvious effort and thoughtfulness that went into its development.

Edited September 4, 2010 by garfield

[soccerguy315]

all of hopkins other ideas haven't worked... why not let him keep pushing more of the same?

how many chances does he get to push ideas that do not have the effects he claims they will before people realize he doesn't actually know what he's doing?

[audiodb]

When I read this I thought it was such a cheap shot. I spent considerable time reading the DCI 5-year plan and for Hop to summarize the DCI effort into one sentence is nearly slanderous. I hesitate to surmise that it was his hubris that allowed him to minimize the Plan into one, short sentence so I'll leave others to rationalize that.

Oh, I don't know. I was surprised that he acknowledged as much as he did about the DCI business plan's benefits, before delivering the inevitable cry of "the sky is falling!".

Hearing Greg Orwoll echoing this Chicken Little attitude was disturbing, though. I don't think the quotes in the DCW article are truly representative of the mood and depth of reasoning of the activity's leaders....if they were, we'd be in a heap of trouble.

DCI's world-class has spent the past dozen years convincing me that this 11-week full-time drum corps model is sustainable. It will take more than a few months to convince me that it is not.

[Jeff Ream]

George is not entirely to blame for all this. yes he is loud voice, but the others went along with it. they have no one to blame but themselves

[mobrien]

The "5-year plan" looks like an unfocused mess with a lot of feel-good ideas, but no central truth driving it.

The central truth is that drum corps is in peril because it's gotten too expensive to do and because there aren't enough competing corps to make it interesting at the low to mid-level (most lower-tier WC corps and OC corps aren't really any different than the better marching bands, imho). Add in that with the shrinkage of corps, there are not enough alums from the 90s and 00s to show up and buy tickets for shows. Most of those ideas dance around those two points, when the "plan" should have been to address both of them head-on. They're all bandage solutions, when the activity needs a shot of adrenalin in terms of creating new corps and increasing participation. Create more people on the field, and you increase the butts in the seats (thinking you can recruit Joe Public with no connection to drum corps to be a fan is simply deluded, given how difficult it is for mainstream art forms like theatre and ballet to recruit new audiences).

I'd be more impressed with it if I saw concrete proposals that would

1 - create a new format of drum corps for those who want to march local, part-time, and cheap. Creating a new Open Class or World Class corps is cost-prohibitive, but more importantly, puts the potential new organization in a situation where the deck is already stacked against them winning, because the standards are "Blue Devils and Cavaliers are great; why aren't you that big and professional?", which is a standard newbies are hard pressed to offer their kids. Give them a small-corps format of their own where they can excel, with a mindset that rewards presentation novelty and performance energy, and maybe you can spur some innovation at the grass roots.

2. If they're not going to reward the major corps for their efforts in selling tickets, then at least take a significant percentage of all DCI revenues and target it specifically to equipment assistance toward start-up corps on a matching basis. If DCI had $200-300,000 available each year to give matching grants to start-ups and emerging organizations assistance with outfitting themselves, they make it possible for a new generation of corps founders to feel that they're not alone in this thing.

3. Change the judging standards to reward effect EARNED via audience communication rather than simply DESIGNED, and make that their "fan reward" to keep the existing audiences invested. It was a good idea when Scott Stewart presented it 15 years ago, and it's a good idea now. Gibbs would never go for it, of course, and Hopkins might or might not, depending on whether the Cadets had a good year or a bad year. If they win, he'd hate it; if they were down in 5th place, he might support it. Nice guy, but has a hard time being consistent.

But the numerous bullet points of the plan adopted are nibbling around the edges of the problem without addressing them head on. More members, more corps are necessary to grow the fan base. Cheaper cost of entry and operation are necessary to grow more corps. Anything that's not about those two concepts is a waste of energy, imho.

Edited September 8, 2010 by mobrien

[garfield]

The "5-year plan" looks like an unfocused mess with a lot of feel-good ideas, but no central truth driving it.

The central truth is that drum corps is in peril because it's gotten too expensive to do and because there aren't enough competing corps to make it interesting at the low to mid-level (most lower-tier WC corps and OC corps aren't really any different than the better marching bands, imho). Add in that with the shrinkage of corps, there are not enough alums from the 90s and 00s to show up and buy tickets for shows. Most of those ideas dance around those two points, when the "plan" should have been to address both of them head-on. They're all bandage solutions, when the activity needs a shot of adrenalin in terms of creating new corps and increasing participation. Create more people on the field, and you increase the butts in the seats (thinking you can recruit Joe Public with no connection to drum corps to be a fan is simply deluded, given how difficult it is for mainstream art forms like theatre and ballet to recruit new audiences).

I'd be more impressed with it if I saw concrete proposals that would

1 - create a new format of drum corps for those who want to march local, part-time, and cheap. Creating a new Open Class or World Class corps is cost-prohibitive, but more importantly, puts the potential new organization in a situation where the deck is already stacked against them winning, because the standards are "Blue Devils and Cavaliers are great; why aren't you that big and professional?", which is a standard newbies are hard pressed to offer their kids. Give them a small-corps format of their own where they can excel, with a mindset that rewards presentation novelty and performance energy, and maybe you can spur some innovation at the grass roots.

2. If they're not going to reward the major corps for their efforts in selling tickets, then at least take a significant percentage of all DCI revenues and target it specifically to equipment assistance toward start-up corps on a matching basis. If DCI had $200-300,000 available each year to give matching grants to start-ups and emerging organizations assistance with outfitting themselves, they make it possible for a new generation of corps founders to feel that they're not alone in this thing.

3. Change the judging standards to reward effect EARNED via audience communication rather than simply DESIGNED, and make that their "fan reward" to keep the existing audiences invested. It was a good idea when Scott Stewart presented it 15 years ago, and it's a good idea now. Gibbs would never go for it, of course, and Hopkins might or might not, depending on whether the Cadets had a good year or a bad year. If they win, he'd hate it; if they were down in 5th place, he might support it. Nice guy, but has a hard time being consistent.

But the numerous bullet points of the plan adopted are nibbling around the edges of the problem without addressing them head on. More members, more corps are necessary to grow the fan base. Cheaper cost of entry and operation are necessary to grow more corps. Anything that's not about those two concepts is a waste of energy, imho.

I've got nit-picks with several of your statements, Mobrien, but in concept I understand where you're going.

Creating a small corps series that physically closes down the field so a 40 members are not spread end zone to end zone makes sense, and there was an earlier thread where this idea was kicked around briefly. A problem developes when trying to integrate a "wide-open" rules-set into the DCI format, but I think getting kids experience marching would be the major focus of a small corps circuit.

DCI's plan admits and attempts to begin to address the attrition of age-outs from the fan base by giving away comped tickets to bring them back. This may be "nibbling around the edges", as you put it, but it is addressing the issue none-the-less.

Your Number 3 is a slam-dunk necessity, IMO. I would be in favor of trashing the existing sheets and starting over entirely. Maybe "tinkering" with the sheets is a start in the right direction.

But your Number 2 is the single, most important and the single most difficult to implement. (And I disagree with the opening sentence of that paragraph - DCI rewards handsomely the "elite" class through cash payout, sponsor preference, marketing, etc.) Getting "DCI" (remember, it's the member corps) to agree to fund a maintain a slush fund for the exclusive benefit of starting and funding new corps is the crux of the issue. Just consider the G7's primary point: they are not getting enough of the pie from DCI now, and they believe the small corps don't deserve any pie because they don't draw fans. While I whole-heartedly agree that that such a "growth fund" should be established and maintained, the reality is that even if Dan A, or a group on the new BOD, mandated this change the "elite" corps would simply threaten to leave the activity, do their own circuit, and keep the proceeds for themselves - exactly as the proposal threatened.

To implement this plan a sea-change of mentality among the "elite" has to take hold. One that allows them to save face, do the magnanimous thing and support their "little brothers and sisters", and still reap enough of the pie for themselves to keep their programs going. I tend to think that this idea of seeding corps is not new and, for whatever reason, the BOD has not implemented it. My hunch is that if the "elite" see DCI hoarding cash and building a nice nest egg that the "elite" would come knocking to increase the payout to the corps and deplete that fund. Yea, something like what the G7 proposes, in fact, which is why this solution is as much a mental change among the BOD as it is a financial one.

Just MHO.

Edited September 8, 2010 by garfield

[audiodb]

The central truth is that drum corps is in peril because it's gotten too expensive to do and because there aren't enough competing corps to make it interesting at the low to mid-level (most lower-tier WC corps and OC corps aren't really any different than the better marching bands, imho). Add in that with the shrinkage of corps, there are not enough alums from the 90s and 00s to show up and buy tickets for shows.

The sky is falling!

Seriously, though, what follows is one of your best posts, IMO. Sorry I'm not more enthusiastic about it, but right now I see #1 and #2 akin to voting for Ross Perot. Those ideas just aren't going to gain enough traction now. There is no way DCI is going to throw significant sums of money into assisting startup corps when the G7 are proposing a new money grab every other month, and simultaneously accusing DCI of fiscal extravagance. And they just got through eliminating the small-corps division in favor of "open-class"; it would take some time to persuade people to reverse course there.

#3, however, addresses the judging system, where DCI is already re-examining things.

More members, more corps are necessary to grow the fan base. Cheaper cost of entry and operation are necessary to grow more corps.

[CorpsFan710]

Giving an organization cash wouldn't be a good business decision for DCI. Any resources dedicated to helping startup corps should be used in a way to develop those organizations' infrastructures. Throwing cash at problems is an easy way to run your business into the ground.

If DCI would dedicate some resources to providing practical training sessions for potential corps directors and board members, they could help them find their own funding, and, more importantly, teach them to run their organization properly. The Academy has done it. Carolina Crown has done it. Obviously there are people in the activity that know how to do it. I think a starting point would be to organize workshops that will give very specific ideas on how to run a drum corps as a not for profit business. Getting the people who developed these (recently) successful corps to lead the workshops would be ideal.

A workshop like this could be done for far less than what would be considered a "significant" donation to a single corps. Ultimately it's about how valuable you can make each dollar you spend...especially when running a non-profit.

[N.E. Brigand]

3. Change the judging standards to reward effect earned via audience communication rather than simply designed, and make that their "fan reward" to keep the existing audiences invested. It was a good idea when Scott Stewart presented it 15 years ago, and it's a good idea now.

Fascinating -- I had no idea this idea had been officially proposed before. However, despite my repeated suggestions here that audience response needs to be a factor in the way corps are rewarded --I suggested two systems, like the movies, which are rewarded both with Oscars and with box office returns: judges' rankings for prestige and fans' rankings for money-- I do think this has its own risks. Popular Hollywood movies tend to be formulaic and often not very good.

[Medeabrass]

The "5-year plan" looks like an unfocused mess with a lot of feel-good ideas, but no central truth driving it.

The central truth is that drum corps is in peril because it's gotten too expensive to do and because there aren't enough competing corps to make it interesting at the low to mid-level (most lower-tier WC corps and OC corps aren't really any different than the better marching bands, imho). Add in that with the shrinkage of corps, there are not enough alums from the 90s and 00s to show up and buy tickets for shows. Most of those ideas dance around those two points, when the "plan" should have been to address both of them head-on. They're all bandage solutions, when the activity needs a shot of adrenalin in terms of creating new corps and increasing participation. Create more people on the field, and you increase the butts in the seats (thinking you can recruit Joe Public with no connection to drum corps to be a fan is simply deluded, given how difficult it is for mainstream art forms like theatre and ballet to recruit new audiences).

I'd be more impressed with it if I saw concrete proposals that would

1 - create a new format of drum corps for those who want to march local, part-time, and cheap. Creating a new Open Class or World Class corps is cost-prohibitive, but more importantly, puts the potential new organization in a situation where the deck is already stacked against them winning, because the standards are "Blue Devils and Cavaliers are great; why aren't you that big and professional?", which is a standard newbies are hard pressed to offer their kids. Give them a small-corps format of their own where they can excel, with a mindset that rewards presentation novelty and performance energy, and maybe you can spur some innovation at the grass roots.

2. If they're not going to reward the major corps for their efforts in selling tickets, then at least take a significant percentage of all DCI revenues and target it specifically to equipment assistance toward start-up corps on a matching basis. If DCI had $200-300,000 available each year to give matching grants to start-ups and emerging organizations assistance with outfitting themselves, they make it possible for a new generation of corps founders to feel that they're not alone in this thing.

3. Change the judging standards to reward effect EARNED via audience communication rather than simply DESIGNED, and make that their "fan reward" to keep the existing audiences invested. It was a good idea when Scott Stewart presented it 15 years ago, and it's a good idea now. Gibbs would never go for it, of course, and Hopkins might or might not, depending on whether the Cadets had a good year or a bad year. If they win, he'd hate it; if they were down in 5th place, he might support it. Nice guy, but has a hard time being consistent.

But the numerous bullet points of the plan adopted are nibbling around the edges of the problem without addressing them head on. More members, more corps are necessary to grow the fan base. Cheaper cost of entry and operation are necessary to grow more corps. Anything that's not about those two concepts is a waste of energy, imho.

Great ideas Mo...without going into specifics, you've opened up my thinking on the subject. I really think something along the lines of what you're proposing is what NEEDS to happen. Possibly, one of the greatest aspects about the structure of DCI is also it's weakness. That aspect is the fact that the corps get to govern themselves. On the one hand, ALMOST everyone gets a say in the what, how, when etc of the activity as opposed to having it dictated to them from from a detached governing body such as the VFW. The problem with the pseudo-democracy is that it's impossible to have any true leadership. Imagine a representative republic without a president? (ok you political goobers...no current affairs comments please)...As an outside observer, it seems to me that we either get "too many chiefs" or "the loudest voice wins."

Now for my glass 3 quarters empty/doomsday observation. The situation with drum corps reminds me of global warming (humor me here if you're one who doesn't believe in global warming). I really don't think we as a society or as a species will reach for any of the drastic measures that it would take to reverse something of the magnitude of global warming until we're in a situation where major cities (would probably have to be American) are under water. Until then, we might moderate our lifestyles somewhat but not drastically. The same goes for the measures you've outlined.

The "activity erosion" is occurring so slowly that you can miss the foreshadowing if you are too busy staring at your own navel or the without the benefit witnessing the history of the activity over serveral decades. We can read about what it used to be like, but sometimes we have to viscerally know what it was like in order to be truly aware and thus motivated to take groundbreaking action. I don't think we'll see movement to any substantive and productive changes until it's become readily apparent that DCI is on an imminent track to folding. In addition, we could have a dci alum who is one of the most brilliant "turn around artist" CEOs out there to volunteer to lead the charge but the powers that be would not want to relinquish their control. I hope I'm wrong and I hope they're willing to get more creative than "let's get more people involved by putting oboes and recorders on the field."

So far in my reading, this has been one of the best threads on this subject...maybe I'll just stop reading now before it's ruined

Edited September 9, 2010 by Medeabrass