cowtown Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) I was a gold level and wasn’t all that impressed by my Friends Customer Service Rep, the dome stadium for finals and Bob Jacobs (of Surf) antics on this site which, put him in cahoots with my Friends rep whom betrayed my privacy thusly, allowing Bob to further betray my privacy and security on this very board. It killed most, if not all my spending with DCI as I really don’t trust them So their own bad judgment and their own idiocy cost them Edited March 9, 2011 by cowtown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Steep rise at the top, while most other groups stayed level. A "booming economy" doesn't necessarily correlate to individual incomes, and individual incomes are a better indicator of what kind of money is available for discretionary purposes like charitable giving. As I said, both numbers were correct, but from a professional fundraising standpoint, the absolute number is more key - because each donor is a person, not a statistic. Without knowing who the donors were, why they left, etc, it's hard to pull much meaningful information from the numbers. And, again, the more interesting question to me is why the program was so anemic to begin with. I'll concede the point to avoid an unnecessary hijacking of the thread (while I admit to finding data from the St. Louis Fed on Real Disposable Income for the decade more credible than Doug Short's compilation from the census bureau). To the point, though, in the decade in question, the distinction of a "steep rise" in the upper quintile is lost on me in this chart, when compared to the relative horizontal movement of the bottom four quintile. Although the top quintile was more volatile all 5 quints finished with roughly the same nominal gain/loss. Would it be more palatable to say that "...the decade began with 400 Friends and ended with 300."? Either way is fine with me (I fail to see the distinction); the real question is why the program seems to be losing interest among fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) the real question is why the program seems to be losing interest among fans. You have to see that it wasn't really popular with fans to begin with... compared to the total amount of drum corps fans in the country? We're talking about >1% of people who actually thought this program was even worth their money even when the going was "better". So when we are trying to figure out what this trend actually means, its nearly impossible because the numbers we are dealing with are too few, the numerous individual circumstances compound and its hard to "really" tell anything unless you asked all 400 or so people why they were a part of the program and why they stopped. The sample is too small. So, if people have first hand account of their own participation in this program that's the best place to start. As a side note, I can see that individual corps probably get more direct donations than DCI does... Edited March 9, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFitz19 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 A buddy and I had a joint Friends membership for many, many years and finally dropped after the 2007 season. It had nothing to do with our financial status. It was my impression from the beginning that the people running Friends were clueless regarding customer service. For example, every year for many years, the notice of the location and program for the annual Friends event at Finals was sent out so late that we frequently had made our plans for the weekend and either couldn’t go or had to change plans. We inferred that DCI was giving lip service to fans, because although we often complained about this to the staff, it didn't change for years. Another example of what we both interpreted to be DCI's cavalier (not the corps) attitude toward us Friends: At the 2004 DCI Friends event, which was held between Semis and Finals my buddy and I approached Dan Acheson with a concern. During Quarterfinals and Semifinals, the old, familiar problem of corps warming up too close to the stadium and the sound interfering with the fans’ enjoyment of the performing corps reared its ugly head. When we related this concern to Mr. Acheson, he was unsympathetic, gave what I inferred to be a snotty and dismissive answer that this was the way it had to be and then walked off. The straw that broke the camel’s back, however, was another matter. By 2007 my buddy I had been active and continuous Friends (Silver Level) since 1990. Despite the longevity of our membership there was no consistency in the quality of seats we received. Some years later on it was not good. When we inquired as to why this was the case, it was explained to us that seating priority was decided solely on the basis of the level of that year’s membership. So, a platinum member of one year would get better seats than we would, silver members for 17 years. Long-term membership (and the $ and loyalty that demonstrated) was not thought important enough by DCI, I guess, to throw us long-timers a bone. DCI promised to look at this more than once, but it never changed. Needless to say, after years of frustration and abysmal customer service, we did not renew. Like others here, I was never surveyed or questioned about this decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 From the chart, the biggest drop was with the "Friends" level. These were likely people that were hit harder by the economic crunch and had better things to do with their money. A lot of Silvers dropped out or possibly dropped to the bronze level. You only get one ticket, so there isn't a lot of value there. Gold dropped but Platinum has increased. I'm guessing that groups of friends get together to purchase a Platinum package to get good seats together. The Diamond level is too small to determine anything. If you ignore the $100 Friend level, I think the chart looks far less ominous. Some stats: For the time period shown: Friend dropped 63% Bronze gained 205% Silver dropped 44% Gold dropped 42% Platinum gained 48% Diamond gained 400% For 2009 the program generated $308,850 As a percent of that total: Friend was 1.33% Bronze was 2.02% Silver was 12.46% Gold was 19.43% Platinum was 53.42% Diamond was 11.33% (all unofficial and unaudited data) What's bothersome to me, and why I believe it's erroneous to "ignore" the Friends level, is that members typically enter the program as a Friend (when they are young and money, presumably, is tight) and then they "graduate" up the levels as their growth in age typically mirrors their disposable income. As a "feeder" program if they're not feeding from the bottom, and only concentrating on the top donors because of their percentage contribution of the whole, who's going to replace to big contributors when they do die off or leave, for whatever reason? Shouldn't DCI be getting people into this ultimate "fan program" as early as possible even at the lower levels? Can they really afford to "ignore" the Friends and Bronze levels as relatively unimportant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 You have to see that it wasn't really popular with fans to begin with... compared to the total amount of drum corps fans in the country? We're talking about >1% of people who actually thought this program was even worth their money even when the going was "better". So when we are trying to figure out what this trend actually means, its nearly impossible because the numbers we are dealing with are too few, the numerous individual circumstances compound and its hard to "really" tell anything unless you asked all 400 or so people why they were a part of the program and why they stopped. The sample is too small. So, if people have first hand account of their own participation in this program that's the best place to start. As a side note, I can see that individual corps probably get more direct donations than DCI does... Sorry, Charlie, this is incorrect. The sample size is 100% of the total (in the years shown). The question is not "How many fans, of the total fan base, are members of Friends?" As if the Friends membership represents the greater fan base. That's clearly not the point here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) I was a gold level and wasn’t all that impressed by my Friends Customer Service Rep... A buddy and I had a joint Friends membership for many, many years and finally dropped after the 2007 season. It had nothing to do with our financial status. It was my impression from the beginning that the people running Friends were clueless regarding customer service... should we be looking at DCI's customer service as possibly having a negative influence? Edited March 9, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Anyone know if Friends of DCI has asked why freinds/ex-friends why the downturn? Seeing Garfields last post, doesn't sound like it, which ain't exactly smart. Heavens knows my college talks and listens enough when they're dialing for dollars.... well in PA, now they know with what the governor wants to do to college funding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 ...who's going to replace to big contributors when they do die off or leave, for whatever reason? Maybe I'm confused about how the program works but I think just about anyone with the money can join as a big contributor... you don't need to be in the lower tier first. based on the trend is seems that losing big contributors isn't DCI's main concern... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) Sorry, Charlie, this is incorrect. The sample size is 100% of the total (in the years shown). The question is not "How many fans, of the total fan base, are members of Friends?" As if the Friends membership represents the greater fan base. That's clearly not the point here. Your asking why there is a downturn in the number of people a part of Friends. And I'm saying the number of people in the program is just small to begin with. It would help us to understand why people are NOT joining more than it would help us to figure out why people are leaving, since more DCI fans are not a part of Friends. In fact they very well may be for the same reasons but seeing as the "Non-Friends" group has greater number of people the trends and findings from that group would be more reliable. Edited March 9, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.