DCI and Corporate Sponsorship

[danielray]

Some good points but you have way to much time on your hands...

Sometimes. Should probably get a job.

[Citizen-Seth]

What you are talking about here is a pretty standard approach for many large-scale events. There are a few aspects of the approach that should be sort of tweaked for use with DCI, for example, category sponsorship.

I've worked with clients on event related promotions that were for both global sponsors and category sponsors for projects like the Olympics and World Cup, and understand the priorities also from the sponsor side. There is a big separation in terms of the value of category sponsorship in DCI vs. other larger events.

What I mean... for the category sponsor, the logo use and promotion opportunity does not extend past the events and the core audience for DCI. Pick up a bag of something at McDonald's and you'll see that it says it is an Olympic sponsor, even though there isn't any Olympics coming up any time soon and there is no current Olympic promo. It is just there. It is because this has a distinct value for them to use this outside the event and to want to pay to put it on every bag worldwide. DCI doesn't really have any distinct value for the category sponsor outside the context of the actual event.

Currently, only the categories related to the activity have a similar appeal for category sponsors. This should somehow be tweaked for a single category sponsor, because, as you point out, with so many uniform or instrument manufacturers... how does any one of them stand out or receive any unique value from the relationship?

Well, DCP is probably not a good representative sample of the actual DCI audience. It is pretty much the more engaged or more vocal fans. It is an interesting place for discussion, but not that practical in terms of getting a true pulse on the fanbase. It is a lot of squeaky wheels.

There is one point that is always missing from this discussion concerning motivations... it is not only more control over revenues, but better control over making sure tickets were sold and how many people showed up. One of the biggest frustrations has been that these corps are getting a percentage of the gate but have no means to influence the number of people actually attending the shows... as, in many cases, these are not run by DCI, but local promoters. I don't think the aim is so much to circumvent DCI, but to gain greater control over the events from the local amateur promoters and promote a series of events in a more uniform and dynamic way and to have greater control over the revenue potential of the shows.

This then opened up an opportunity for greater experimentation in the format, which is a great thing.... who wants to watch 10 minutes of dead time while one corps goes off and the other comes on? You have people there... you have their attention... maximize, make it more interesting.

Anyway, the Tour of Champions proposal and concept is actually an essential step in moving towards something that would be more attractive to corporate sponsors. What I mean, one of the biggest current problems in pitching potential corporate sponsors is that there is no unified tour brand or management. It is a collection of shows with random names and varying levels of production quality. Unifying the tour brand is essential for corporate sponsorship... until this is done, the options are limited.

This would work for sponsorships that are not related to corps equipment. When dealing with corps equipment, corps are often not purchasing their equipment, but it is provided to them under various sorts of arrangements. This model is very well established and many contracts are long-standing and not set to expire in the near term. It is not realistic to mess with any of these at all... but, this model can be applied to sort of non-equipment purchase.

A perfect example of this would be to cut a master deal with a food supplier like Kraft or Unilever or Nestle... who could supply all corps and have a global sponsorship opportunity with all corps. These are the areas which should be focused on for this... and not really mess much with the equipment sponsorships.

$160,000 is low. An interesting model could include a flat fee with guaranteed reach in different channels - guaranteed X number of people at events, X theater events, X live streaming, X on YouTube, X at education events, etc. On top of that, they get X number of additional activity sponsorships... like sponsored sweepstakes or mailings as part of the package.

Additional stuff, costs extra.

The opportunities for general consumer goods and services have not even been touched on. This is where the greatest potential is.

I think you will see individual corps exploring these opportunities sooner than you will DCI.

This exists in some sort of format... just not so official.

This comes down to the harsh reality that is a major sticking point on these forums. Corps do not contribute equally to the draw in the activity. This is just fact. Cavaliers, Teal Sound and VK shouldn't all be getting the same share of revenue. World Class and Open Class don't have even close to the same draw.

DCI needs to prioritize investments on World Class and Open Class needs to fend for themselves. This is just reality.

There should be an additional class added... A Class... and the model for A and Open should be more like WGI (local shows & regionals)... but that is a whole other discussion.

Anyway, sponsorship is absolutely the way forward and the best path to growth for the activity. Emphasis in this really needs to be placed on the top corps and brand association with those... Tour of Champions is a more reasonable lead in to corporate sponsorship for the activity than a full-tour sponsorship to start. This is something doable... and could be a starting off point.

These are a lot of great issues, and hopefully I can answer all of them. I've also worked with WC and Olympic clients, great to see we have a similar background.

I can buy that it may be best to not mess with the corps/supplier relationship. I'm sure there's a lot going on there that I don't know about. Are these relationships generally VIK or what?

As for $160,000 being low, what price would you suggest? Originally, I thought about $200,000 for a 2 year contract, but I guess it's really open ended. And I wasn't suggesting that the rights package didn't include streaming, theatre, etc. I just didn't type it all out.

As for your point on the revenue split, I can't say I agree. Maybe I've been working with the IOC too long, but I'm a firm believe that everyone, regardless of how much the bring to the table, gets a fair share.

[whitedawn]

Sometimes. Should probably get a job.

I see what you did there.

[danielray]

I can buy that it may be best to not mess with the corps/supplier relationship. I'm sure there's a lot going on there that I don't know about. Are these relationships generally VIK or what?

There are a number of different type of deals different corps have... ranging from simply discounted gear, to equipment loans, to free equipment, to being deeply engaged in the equipment design, development and promotion. Depends on the manufacturer and their priorities/objectives and how they fit with the corps' and what additional value-add the corps can bring to the relationship.

As for $160,000 being low, what price would you suggest? Originally, I thought about $200,000 for a 2 year contract, but I guess it's really open ended. And I wasn't suggesting that the rights package didn't include streaming, theatre, etc. I just didn't type it all out.

Well, right now there is really no hard data and a comprehensive package for what could be offered to a potential sponsor... so, the first year would he a hard sell. I'd suggest you almost give the branded tour sponsorship away to a group for the first year, just to get something quantifiable in place (need to know better demographics and numbers of reach for each channel - live event, broadcast event, live online, online video, web, email, etc. Right now it is just sort of guesswork and an old survey... need actual).

The price of it should not be fixed but based on the ultimate value for both the sponsor and the activity itself.

Take someone like Unilever for example...

If they could step up and offer free and/or deeply reduced product as well as expertise and logistical support for food services for participating corps, that is something that has incredible value for the activity beyond a simple cash donation. What they get is a unique channel for things like product sampling at events, mobile demo kitchens (for the scholastic food services unit) and a great way to collect sample feedback from all over the country or seed a launch of a new product.

In this case, it wouldn't be cash out of pocket necessarily, but could be an actual cost for them of about say $350k for something that has a retail value of well over a million. For that spend, they would get the same reach they would have for a campaign spend of roughly the same out of pocket cost, but then you have additional deduction opportunities, depending on how it could be structured and booked.

These are the sort of opportunities that should be pursued, rather than just straight cash. As the opportunity would become a bit more mature, it could probably shift to more cash... but, probably not as much impact initially.

As for your point on the revenue split, I can't say I agree. Maybe I've been working with the IOC too long, but I'm a firm believe that everyone, regardless of how much the bring to the table, gets a fair share.

IOC is a whole different animal. Drum corps would be more like just a small subset of the activities that make it up ... more like say, World Figureskating Championships or more closer to something like the DEW TOUR, which is a bit better of a model.. as it is a touring project and has about the same level of reach as drum corps.

[BoyWonder1911]

Next thing you know, we will have the Comerica Phantom Regiment, CitiBank Cavaliers, Goodyear Cadets, Ford Bluecoats, Microsoft Cascades, and Apple Blue Devils, and they will all perform at the "Coca-Cola DCI World Finals, brought to you by Lucas Oil". Oh and forget about INT - that corps will fold. It would then be "The Yamaha Intermission Show" where Yamaha will take the field and peddle their products while people use the restrooms and buy $7 hamburgers.

Gimme a break.

EDIT:

And ya know, I'm for capitalism and all that free market stuff, but not to the point where you sell your soul by plastering corporations and their names on the front of everything, just to make a few bucks.

Edited July 13, 2011 by BoyWonder1911

[audiodb]

Next thing you know, we will have the Comerica Phantom Regiment, CitiBank Cavaliers, Goodyear Cadets, Ford Bluecoats, Microsoft Cascades, and Apple Blue Devils, and they will all perform at the "Coca-Cola DCI World Finals, brought to you by Lucas Oil". Oh and forget about INT - that corps will fold. It would then be "The Yamaha Intermission Show" where Yamaha will take the field and peddle their products while people use the restrooms and buy $7 hamburgers.

Gimme a break.

You forgot to identify the restroom and hamburger sponsors.

[audiodb]

DCI needs to prioritize investments on World Class and Open Class needs to fend for themselves.

(sigh)

The elitism....the nerve....the total lack of common sense....not sure which aspect I should respond to.

Oh, wait - there's this. Open-class pretty much does fend for themselves under the current DCI setup.

[audiodb]

To the OP....like others on this thread, I find most of your ideas worthy of consideration, but am concerned about this particular one:

2)Category Exclusivity

As I said, DCI currently has 31 corporate partners, which, to me, if WAY too many. Lets look at the companies that are percussion related: Pearl, Yamaha, Remo, Zildjian, Vic Firth, Dynasty, and Evans. That's 7 sponsors all trying to sell the same thing. Trust me, no one's message is through to consumers with that kind of brand clutter going on. Think of it this way, would someone understand you if you and 6 others were talking at them at the same time? How about in stead of having 7 different sponsors, each paying varying amounts, lets have just one. They'll be the official percussion sponsor of DCI, the summer tour and Champs. They will also be the presenting percussion sponsor of every corps on the field. Let's charge $160,000 for a 2 year contract (2 years is long enough for a good test run), and see who buys it. Do the same for brass equipment, electronics, color guard equipment, corps proper uniforms, plus a few other things. How about courting Procter & Gamble for a "household goods" category? How about working with an official insurance partner? That would cut out the problems of no refunds at rained out shows. I don't think Gatorade as the official sports drink is too far fetched. Who knows what categories could be sold? The point is that we reduce the brand clutter and branch out of the marching-specific companies. Both of those things will drive up the price.

In essence: A corps could still use any product from any company, but only one company per category could actually get the publicity of the DCI sponsorship.

Leave the equipment manufacturers out of this. In an activity whose competitive outcomes depend on subjective judging, having DCI endorse any single manufacturer as their "official drum/horn of DCI" would imply (and possibly cause) preferential treatment on the contest field.

[JimF-LowBari]

And ya know, I'm for capitalism and all that free market stuff, but not to the point where you sell your soul by plastering corporations and their names on the front of everything, just to make a few bucks.

Or maybe the idea is to help pay for the stuff.... Live near two minor league sports teams and would rather the local chain supermarket and a bank pay into the buildings rather than my tax money. (Irony is a major corpration owns one of the teams and their name is not on the areana.)

Edited July 13, 2011 by JimF-LowBari

[danielray]

(sigh)

The elitism....the nerve....the total lack of common sense....not sure which aspect I should respond to.

Oh, wait - there's this. Open-class pretty much does fend for themselves under the current DCI setup.

Lack of common sense? MLB and the minor leagues should be lumped together?

Open Class is the minor leagues. They are simply not performing on anywhere near the same level as top World Class corps... this is simply reaity. I'm all for more minor league corps with regional focus and more A Class corps with a local focus.

If there was a solid model out there to create A Class corps that would do local performances and contests, you could suddenly have a massive number of A Class corps. You could have hundeds of school programs partnering to put out A Class corps that could compete on a local level, could be pretty much bootstrapped, as they would have very few touring requirements.

If you really want to grow smaller corps... a community corps model is the way. Could be something fun for younger kids. Growing these smaller corps, however, should not come at the expense of the World Class. Priority should be placed on supporting the top tier of World Class... and all other corps will benefit as a result.