Incentives for corps experience

[charlie1223]

it's all in the marketing

Is that you're new catch phrase, Jeff? lol

[audiodb]

Not that I hold much hope of worthwhile discussion proceeding....but here's where I was headed:

This isn't even about recruiting for the roster of 150. DCI corps are beginning to develop their camps into a product of their own, with revenue-generating capabilities. Let me offer a non-Cadet example....Pacific Crest runs their two December "Experience Camps" not just as an audition process, but also explicitly to offer educational value to people with no intention of marching with the corps.

I imagine they're not the only corps vying to attract kids to their camps for that reason....and thus, we essentially have a competitive market for the educational camp experience. The same DCI member corps who must cooperate with each other to form a league (or just to survive, for that matter) could find themselves working against each other....if they cross that thin line between advertising to the overall market vs. targeting the "customers" of another corps.

If the discussion ever climbs out of the muck of accusations of Cadet-bashing, I'd like to know if people think there ought to be some sort of moral, ethical or DCI-defined policy concerning corps competing for each other's educational camp kids. There is ample precedent for drum corps circuits having "release" rules to discourage corps from going after each other's competitive rosters. Should the educational camp student pool have a similar policy?

[DrillmanSop06]

Not that I hold much hope of worthwhile discussion proceeding....but here's where I was headed:

This isn't even about recruiting for the roster of 150. DCI corps are beginning to develop their camps into a product of their own, with revenue-generating capabilities. Let me offer a non-Cadet example....Pacific Crest runs their two December "Experience Camps" not just as an audition process, but also explicitly to offer educational value to people with no intention of marching with the corps.

I imagine they're not the only corps vying to attract kids to their camps for that reason....and thus, we essentially have a competitive market for the educational camp experience. The same DCI member corps who must cooperate with each other to form a league (or just to survive, for that matter) could find themselves working against each other....if they cross that thin line between advertising to the overall market vs. targeting the "customers" of another corps.

If the discussion ever climbs out of the muck of accusations of Cadet-bashing, I'd like to know if people think there ought to be some sort of moral, ethical or DCI-defined policy concerning corps competing for each other's educational camp kids. There is ample precedent for drum corps circuits having "release" rules to discourage corps from going after each other's competitive rosters. Should the educational camp student pool have a similar policy?

It's a free market where consumers are allowed to define their spending. If the Cadets make a more attractive offer than Teal Sound, for example, then our economic system tells us this is a failing on Teal Sound's behalf. Then, the only debate we have left is a moral/ethical one. Is it RIGHT for Cadets to use incentives that draw people from one product to their own? That question doesn't have an answer and shouldn't. What we're seeing is simply reflective of our economic system. And we've learned anything, it's that over-regulation can often lead to negative results. The commitment to one's first choice is a matter of the individual; if an individual auditioning at Teal Sound leaves because the Cadets offer a better bang-for-the-buck experience, it might not be right to jump ship. But again, that's an micro-level ethical question.

[MikeN]

In those terms, it's no different than selling method books - multiple corps do it, and are technically competing against each other from the miniscule pool of brass and percussion students looking for such, yet it's simply market competition. I look on the camps the same way. There's nothing precluding students from attending multiple camps, and honestly, for these sorts of things I assume travel and cost play a much larger factor than anything else - I just don't think the overlap is going to be that huge, honestly.

Mike

[Jeff Ream]

Is that you're new catch phrase, Jeff? lol

for this topic .

really...i see both sides, and see valid concerns both ways. if worded differently...I see it being less of a potential concern to some. as stated before, sometimes, Cadets and YEA pr is it's own worst enemy

[JimF-LowBari]

Personally, I think this is a great idea and I think many Open Class corps would do well by implementing a similar offer.

Have to disagree, doubt if getting $25 off of the thousands that would be paid (counting all expenses) will help any corps.

As for Open Class, can anyone picture someone saying "Yeah, it's not my dream corps, but I just couldn't ignore that 25 bucks".

[glory]

If that was their intent, they should have invited auditionees that were cut....not all 2011 auditionees...

I get your point that this might seem a form of poaching - a direct appeal to individuals who might otherwise be contemplating another corps, perhaps one with fewer resources or talent. It's a valid point though likely exaggerated a bit - maybe even a lot - in its implication of guilt or impact.

In the Cadets' defense, we shouldn't crucify them for their choice of words. It might just be that the additional explanation needed wasn't convenient or worthwhile. What were the Cadets to say? Were they to be specific in limiting the offer to those were auditioned but were cut in 2011? What about those who cut themselves? What about the ones who don't know their status but realized they don't want to march at corps X anyway? What about those for whom Cadets are beyond reach this year? Maybe they're content marching another corps but just want a chance to glimpse a possible Cadet future? Or maybe there is someone who auditioned and knows he can't afford the summer tour but still can afford one more weekend? There are plenty of permutations more accepting of the gesture.

You're right the language doesn't preclude poaching. Then again, it never did.

HH

[glory]

...The Cadets aren't exactly handing out cash or hookers to lure some spinner away from Surf or to keep that hot pair of lips off the Spirit line.

And by the way, I'm PO'ed that no one had anything to say about this. Come on. "Lure a spinner way from Surf" or keep "hot lips off the Spirit line." Isn't that drum corp poetry? Where's the love?

HH

[Jeff Ream]

And by the way, I'm PO'ed that no one had anything to say about this. Come on. "Lure a spinner way from Surf" or keep "hot lips off the Spirit line." Isn't that drum corp poetry? Where's the love?

HH

oh it was funny

[audiodb]

This statement implies that you think Auditionees “belong” to a corps when this is false. Just because I may audition at Cavies does not mean I'm "their" auditionee. I have the right to audition at a different corps if I so choose. The Cavies are not loosing me because I was never their's to have in the first place. I just auditioned.

Doesn't that depend on the outcome of the audition? You can't say how many kids have verbal or written commitments from the corps before they even leave the audition camp....or how many kids make verbal or financial commitments to that corps before the weekend is over. I understand your rationale, but it only applies to kids that leave the audition with both themselves and the corps undecided.

This statement is false, since you didn’t read the ad correctly. If you did you would find: (taken directly from the ad..)

“Bring proof of your prior drum corps experience or 2011 audition camp experience from any organization, and we’ll take $25 right off the top of your registration fee!”

--"Prior drum corps experience" means any year, any corps, any division. This proves that your statement is false because you said they are not offering the discount to experienced marchers (snip)

I never said that.

I said they were targeting auditionees. I also said they were targeting alumni. In one post, I only mentioned the targeting of auditionees....and from that, you conclude that I "said they are not offering the discount to experienced marchers"?

This is all very true. Except for the "irony" part of this all. Your logic here is that because the incentive program does not offer 25 dollars to individuals who have not affiliated themselves with drum corps (specifically to individuals who have "marching band" experience ONLY) that the Cadets do not want, or value it. This is such an incorrect ASSUMPTION to make about the Cadets organization and the incentive program. There is no evidence of this, and it fails to take in a number of other possible scenario as to why the incentive program does not give 25 dollars to students with ONLY marching band experience.

Like what?

You also assume that the cadets had DELIBRATELY EXCLUDED non-drum corps affiliated individuals for the simple reason that they are not part of the incentive program. This is false. Like you said,Cadets value marching band and the experience it holds (I would think most people would agree) and the organization would not "delibrately exclude" individuals on the basis of it's lack of value (what you assumed).

So you can read my thoughts now? Not very well, apparently. Obviously, the Cadets are not excluding band kids....they just aren't offering them this particular incentive. They can still come, and pay full price.

To answer your question anyway. The "possible logic" is completely irrelevant because given all of your assumptions it would portray the cadets in a negative light.

I'm sorry - I thought "logic" was a positive attribute.

If we remove all of your FALSE assumptions then maybe this question would not appear as being so negative towards the cadets organization. but overall, they way you contrived the question not only appears as if you're diving "too deeply" into this subject, but also diligently seeking a way to find a fault that is not there. This comes across as being sinister.

Good grief. And I'm the one reading too much into things?

This does not make sense at all. All 2011 auditionees encompasses individuals that were cut. I can already tell that this logic refers to the idea I started the discussion with (that corps auditionees somehow "belong" to the corps that they audition for). Here you think that the cadets "SHOULD NOT" appeal to members who already auditioned or are currently auditioning for another corps (if they have not been cut yet).

Misreading my thoughts again?

So to rephrase, you assumed I already made up my mind what the answer to my question was, based on my sinister agenda to find fault with the Cadets. Got it!

Hope this helps answer your question! This has been fun...

Well, then it wasn't a total loss. Now, can we get back on topic?