Give it away give it away give it away now

[danielray]

Go back and look at what you just said. 20th place is not a "level"....all it indicates is that there were 19 other corps that got a better score from a judging panel in the most recent contest. We've seen 20th place occupied by corps of less than half the size limit, training members from scratch....and we've seen it occupied by corps of full size, corps with experienced marchers, corps with strong financial/logistical support, and corps with design that innovates and entertains.

Thinking of 20th place as a "level" places an unnecessary and closed-minded limitation on the size, scope and success of the "level" above.

Oh, well, if you want to talk about financial/organizational criteria such as these....DCI has an evaluation process that addresses those criteria, and steers corps toward the appropriate levels of participation (i.e. full-tour world-class, limited-tour world-class, open-class, regional open-class).

Finances are absolutely tied to competitive placement.

If you want to place higher, spend more money to hire and retain the right staff and provide the level of conditions that will attract and retain top performers.

If you don't have enough money to do this, get it. If you don't know how to make more money and can't figure out how to find someone that can... then just accept the fact that you will remain at the same level.

To complain that lower placing corps are not getting a fair shake is silly... because anyone can place higher if they want to.

This isn't rocket science.

Bluestars didn't move up by magic. They made more money, hired and retained better staff, which helped in their recruiting and retaining members.

Madison is back in finals doing the exact same thing.

Star did exactly this.

Again, not rocket science.

[byline]

Some people have made charitable donations to DCI. Just because you are not one of them, they aren't a charity?

I'm not sure that people making charitable donations to DCI automatically equates with DCI being a charity, in the most literal definition of the term. I think the poster's point that DCI is really a co-op, but one that operates under the rules of a charity, is valid. The way I see it, the governing structure is more akin to a co-op (since the member corps are the decision-makers), even if the formal structure falls within the confines of a charity.

So if all you say is true, why do you think the top corps stay with DCI?

I think no one has figured out how to reinvent the wheel in such a way that the top corps know will guarantee greater financial security for themselves. DCI came about when there were far more corps competing. Those original top corps were cutting off a slice of a much bigger pie. Now, it seems to me there's not much point; the pie is so small that cutting off a sliver for themselves might actually endanger their own existence, if they can't improve upon and compete with the touring model already in place within DCI.

[danielray]

Some people have made charitable donations to DCI. Just because you are not one of them, they aren't a charity?

They are as much a charity as PGA.

That is not "mission creep". DCI has had dozens of other corps involved since their founding 1972 season. Whether their mission is to "serve" or "use" those other corps is an issue of "mission clarity"....but either way, those other corps have been (and still are) an indispensible part of the DCI model.

There are loads of examples of mission creep. OnQ anyone?

[Todd Tanji]

I have 20 years of experience working with mid-size to large non-profit theatres ($4m to $20m). At one of the best-known Chicago theatres, there are 50 people on the Board of Directors. Of that group, only the Executive Committee has real input with the professional management of the organization; the rest of the Directors are there to provide personal financial support and make sure that they bring their friends and companies to the table as well. Yes, the entire Board votes to approve the budget or any other decisions that might have long-term impact, but before they see anything to vote on, it's been managed by the 4 members of the Exec Committee, so the vote is more or less pro forma.

So those big Boards aren't there to manage things; they're there to write checks. Give someone who has means a Board membership at a prestigious organization, and you're more likely to turn them from a $5,000 annual donor to a $40,000 personal giver (the level of support that is required/expected from the theatre in question, in fact). And with companies like that, if a Board member loses his position at Influential Company X, it's expected that they'll be resigning their Board position at the non-profit as well. The balance of power lies really not with the individual Board members, but with the organization.

That being the case, large charity boards aren't as big a cluster-hump as you'd think; in that case, at least, the Board is quite literally worth $2 million plus every year to the org's revenues.

The problem DCI will always have is that it's not a charity; it's a co-op that thinks it's a charity. As such, I've never been inspired to write a check to support it, though I'm pretty generous with one of the big corps in it. The other problem is that the organization was founded with a very distinct purpose (to provide self-determination for the top corps and to make sure they saw the cash from the shows they produced), but has allowed itself to mission creep over the years without changing the structure of the organization to accommodate the mission change. Thus you have the dynamic of the top corps still needing and expecting the revenues from their labors (the original idea of DCI) while DCI is really supposed to be servicing not only them, but managing competitions for another group of corps who generate NO revenue, oh, AND doing what it can to foster the growth of new corps.

It's like asking major league baseball to take over management of Little League too. They might be playing the same game, but aside from that, there's not that much shared purpose.

There might be some cash value in a professionally managed group o fthe World Class corps. but then again, that's really at the heart of the TOC concept this year. But the rest of DCI's operation, as it stands, has no commercial value. Short of creating a new form and format that was more broadcast-friendly (7 minutes or less, and staged indoors rather than on a football field), encouraged much more free-form programming concepts, had more transparent judging standards, and was geared toward new units iwth much smaller membership (max of 40 members), DCI's got nothing to offer any outside promoters past the big corps.

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

My experience is that no matter how large a board is, a few people (4-5) end up being the primary decision makers. This can happen as an executive committee or even ad hoc. You don't want a single person making all the decisions. That is a disaster because no one person is capable of seeing all of the many nuances of complex business situations. There are some instances of successful dictators but they can only take you so far. And when they are gone the organization is left in a tail spin. There are many examples of this in the drum corps activity, both in the past and in the present day.

But having too many decision makers leads to indecision and inaction. 4-5 people seems to be the right number to get both action and a strong perspective. It just seems to be a mathematical law.

I suspect, however, that those 60 other board members contribute more than just money. They likely provide networks into important professional skills such as legal, marketing, PR, technology, etc. Large boards, like any other organizations, need not be cluster ####'s. They just need to be properly managed.

The most important thing is to have the right people doing the right jobs. Some people should be decision makers and some people should not. For an organization in transition, which DCI clearly is, the process of sorting this out becomes very political. Some people who have been decision makers will have to be told - and forced - to step aside. Somehow those capable 4-5 decision makers have to be identified and a way to put them in charge figured out.

A messy state of affairs but I hope the activity will emerge stronger.

Edited April 25, 2011 by BDUFLS

[audiodb]

Competitive placement is a key driver in ticket sales. It is impossible to even pretend the 2nd place corps and the 22nd or even the 12th have the same draw. Pretending they do isn't fair to anyone. The activity has become way too politically correct to the point of becoming self-defeating.

Corps should be compensated based on draw. Period.

And now we cut right to your main issue....you want compensation based on competitive placement. You want to revert to the win-or-fold mentality that made drum corps touring unsustainable and necessitated DCI's creation in the first place. You would have loved the days of the VFW and American Legion, and shows that paid prize money to the top three finishers and nothing to the others.

Say we have the DCI you envisioned in an earlier post....24 world-class corps. Only, we start paying the lower-placing corps much less, so that the lion's share of the proceeds go to the top-placing corps. What do you think will happen to the corps that get paid less, but incur all the same expenses as the top corps? How do you expect to maintain a sustainable 24-corps league?

Just to illustrate the logical lunacy here, what you suggest is akin to saying that if we put the NFL on tour, that a game between the two most recent Super Bowl teams would draw better than a game between two losing-record teams staged at the same location/same time....therefore, we should give the champs most of the revenue, all the top draft picks, and so on. Obviously, that is not the method the major leagues have adopted to run sustainably....and DCI has even greater sustainability concerns for their competitors.

If there is another way that some corps can prove that fans bought tickets specifically because of them, then maybe they should be compensated directly for those.

You can't prove how many ticket sales are attributable to which corps. There is no such thing. People pay to see a contest, not just one individual corps.

[danielray]

And now we cut right to your main issue....you want compensation based on competitive placement. You want to revert to the win-or-fold mentality that made drum corps.

I suggest compensation based on draw. If more corps are at similar levels, that draw could eventually become more equal. I don't suggest 24 corps with a caste system... but 24 corps all on more or less the same level where any one of them can take it home on any given night.

That is a lot more interesting than a lot of little corps.

You can't prove how many ticket sales are attributable to which corps. There is no such thing. People pay to see a contest, not just one individual corps.

Not difficult technology here. If they bought the tickets online, who did they click through to get them. This is like early 90's technology.

This model puts the level of compensation back in the hands of the corps, not just with the event promoters. More people at shows also means more merchandising.

As it is, corps are dependent on revenues they have no influence over. Makes no sense.

[JimF-LowBari]

I suggest compensation based on draw. If more corps are at similar levels, that draw could eventually become more equal. I don't suggest 24 corps with a caste system... but 24 corps all on more or less the same level where any one of them can take it home on any given night.

That is a lot more interesting than a lot of little corps.

So 24 corps more or less the same with no big distinction between them?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Why I enjoy seeing Minis in the evening. Next moring small corps leading up to the big guns. I believe in "variety is the spice of life".

[MikeN]

So 24 corps more or less the same with no big distinction between them?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Why I enjoy seeing Minis in the evening. Next moring small corps leading up to the big guns. I believe in "variety is the spice of life".

I think he means 24 corps with a more-or-less equal talent, to make things more competitively interesting. Not necessarily same style of show, etc.

Mike

[Todd Tanji]

Audience draw is not the same as competitive placement but there is a lot of overlap. Some elements that create competitive success also create audience appeal - performance quality, technical virtuosity, etc. But some elements are opposed - artistic simplicity, convention, repetition, etc. So the top corps tend to be the most popular but there are notable exceptions, like the 10th place 2010 Madison Scouts, or the Velvet Knights and Bridgemen of old.

But if you really want to know who the draw is, ask someone who produces a local drum corps show. Trust me, they know.

Edited April 25, 2011 by BDUFLS

[danielray]

Audience draw is not the same as competitive placement but there is a lot of overlap. Some elements that create competitive success also create audience appeal - performance quality, technical virtuosity, etc. But some elements are opposed - artistic simplicity, convention, repetition, etc. So the top corps tend to be the most popular but there are notable exceptions, like the 10th place 2010 Madison Scouts, or the Velvet Knights and Bridgemen of old.

Absolutely.

But if you really want to know who the draw is, ask someone who produces a local drum corps show. Trust me, they know.

Yep. You know they feel it when the lineup changes.