FHdork Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Wow...harsh criticism for what seems a well meaning, deeply thought, plan... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 The whole point is to remove corps directors from running the business aspects of DCI, which is in my opinion an excellent idea. Frankly, most corps directors shouldn't even be running the business side of their own corps, nor should "Executive Directors" get to basically mandate their will to the Board of Directors unless they happen to know what they are doing. (See also "Cook, Bill.") As for this being a "large" reorganization... well, I could knock 75% of this out *this afternoon* on the legal side of things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 The whole point is to remove corps directors from running the business aspects of DCI, which is in my opinion an excellent idea. Frankly, most corps directors shouldn't even be running the business side of their own corps, nor should "Executive Directors" get to basically mandate their will to the Board of Directors unless they happen to know what they are doing. (See also "Cook, Bill.") As for this being a "large" reorganization... well, I could knock 75% of this out *this afternoon* on the legal side of things. Dan's travelling today, and I don't have time to review more until tonight, but if "the whole point" is to remove directors from running DCI, Dan's plan falls quite flat in that goal. It seems that Holdings, LLC is, in fact, a business-generating unit of DCI, run by corps "members" according to his plan. And Congress' decisions directly impacts the fan experience and that, too, is staffed with "shareholders" made up of member corps. While I agree with the general idea of separating roles, I fail to see how Dan's plan accomplishes that goal. Perhaps you might consider knocking out a better structure to accomplish this and share it with us? Note to Dan: You didn't mention "Outside" opportunities much less your desire that the member corps generate 30% to 40% of their revenue "outside" of the show circuit. Don't forget that there are limits placed on corps on what types of "outside events" in which they can partake. For instance, running an exhibition with 3 other corps (presumably to generate extra income) is forbidden specifically to protect the intellectual property of DCI. You can see how each corps, or a group of them under "Holdings", would not have free reign and would have to clear performances with the intellectual rights-holder, i.e. DCI. If it were so easy to do why are the corps not generating 30% of their revenues outside of the tour NOW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Dan's travelling today, and I don't have time to review more until tonight, but if "the whole point" is to remove directors from running DCI, Dan's plan falls quite flat in that goal. It seems that Holdings, LLC is, in fact, a business-generating unit of DCI, run by corps "members" according to his plan. And Congress' decisions directly impacts the fan experience and that, too, is staffed with "shareholders" made up of member corps. I'm not speaking on Daniel's behalf, but where did you find this? My copy of the deck says: "DCI Holdings and DCI Events would have distinct management and separate P&L, and would report to the board of Drum Corps International." Daniel said: "No corps director or representative of any corps would be on the board of DCI or a shareholder of Holdings or Events (which would be wholly-owned subsidiaries)." If it were so easy to do why are the corps not generating 30% of their revenues outside of the tour NOW? BD is, via BD Entertainment. YEA! is, thanks to its events management business, aka USSBA. (Note that I have no idea how much money BDE or YEA! makes, and that this is just an estimation on my part.) Frankly, the answer is that most of the corps are run like drum corps instead of businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Note to Dan: You didn't mention "Outside" opportunities much less your desire that the member corps generate 30% to 40% of their revenue "outside" of the show circuit. Don't forget that there are limits placed on corps on what types of "outside events" in which they can partake. For instance, running an exhibition with 3 other corps (presumably to generate extra income) is forbidden specifically to protect the intellectual property of DCI. You can see how each corps, or a group of them under "Holdings", would not have free reign and would have to clear performances with the intellectual rights-holder, i.e. DCI. If it were so easy to do why are the corps not generating 30% of their revenues outside of the tour NOW? By unit, Dan is referring to DCI Holdings and Events, not individual drum corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Honestly Daniel, there's not enough money in the DCI system to warrant this large of a reorganization. The total budget for the entire org is a fraction of what some local charities spend in a year. A simpler proposal would be to modify DCI in the following ways; This is my point exactly. The fundamental reality is that drum corps is not a self sustaining activity in current form. There is simply not enough revenue that can be generated from within the activity to support the current scope and scale. Two options: 1) Change the scope and scale or form of the activity 2) Aggressively focus on revenue opportunities that come from OUTSIDE of the activity and that produce healthy margins (ex: not marching band, but corporate or pop culture events and media). DCI current has skills, expertise and infrastructure for producing events and media, yet use these resources for only part of the year and only for internal activities. My point is to flip this completely. Spin out this capacity, capability and infrastructure into a separate operating entities that are focused YEAR ROUND on production of media and events. This will not only generate revenues that will strengthen the support of DCI productions, but also attract top industry talent that will add their expertise to these productions. There is certainly much more to this... but that is the simplified view. In short... drum corps cannot support itself... needs external revenues.... DCI has infrastructure and expertise that could be applied to attracting outside revenues... but in order to go after this, the organizational structure needs to dramatically change. A Board of 7 members, with one appointee representing the Open Class corps, two reps from World Class corps, the DCI Exec Director, and three outside directors with business and marketing experience. Stagger the terms so that the Board is refreshed regularly without being completely changed in a single season. The primary focus of the new Board would be to grow DCI's revenues and participation at all levels of the activity, and they would have flexibility to look at a number of options in pursuit of those goals, including acquisition of like-minded organizations (like WGI) that can be used to increase the activity's footprint and expand avenues for participation. Corps directors and board members are crazy busy as it is. They should not be on the board of DCI. In addition, they varied and often competing or conflicting interests. Let them focus on their organizations, but build a structure that they are confident will have the potential to return greater revenues to them. Eradication of the annual rules congress in favor of having rules congresses just once every five years. No mature sport changes their rules as often as DCI does, and the frequency of the rules conventions allows for a mindset that sees changes as being cheap and easy. I really have no opinion on rules. I am completely indifferent to having bassoons or bazookas... just care about sustainability. A requirement that any rules changes that would require capital outlays for new equipment for the competing corps be paid for by DCI, which would make it less attractive for those corps with means and/or sponsorship deals to just assume that they can push through changes for everyone else without seeing some personal hit via reduced disbursements from the general fund. I'm not a big fan of blanket restriction in terms of spending. I think it is maybe better to simply ask the question of what problem does that spending resolve or what is the revenue impact of the recommended spending. Once DCI is in the range of $20 million a year, then there's enough money to start splitting into more focused areas of concern, but they're a long ways off at this point. The focus now should be on expanding the pool of participation - when you do that, you expand the pool of available dollars and increase the fan base commensurately. DCI isn't going to get to $20M in revenue without splitting into more focused areas of concern and applying unique capabilities to cows that actually have milk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm not speaking on Daniel's behalf, but where did you find this? My copy of the deck says: "DCI Holdings and DCI Events would have distinct management and separate P&L, and would report to the board of Drum Corps International." Daniel said: "No corps director or representative of any corps would be on the board of DCI or a shareholder of Holdings or Events (which would be wholly-owned subsidiaries)." BD is, via BD Entertainment. YEA! is, thanks to its events management business, aka USSBA. (Note that I have no idea how much money BDE or YEA! makes, and that this is just an estimation on my part.) Frankly, the answer is that most of the corps are run like drum corps instead of businesses. I don't have Dan's link available until tonight, but I distinctly remember it saying that the "shareholders" are the member corps. it wasn't until his followup to my post that he clarified that no corps directors would be connected. This is a descrepancy that I want him to clarify. To your point, I'd like provable citation to verify your claims of BD or YEA. YEA's USSBA supports USSBA first, then The Cadets second. Is that suggesting that Madison (for example) should start a competition circuit to support the corps? How about an events-management business? Oh wait, Crown already does that. How about a supplemental education/performance company to do things like clinics? Wait, BD already does that. System Blue is a great, great thing but it's not easily duplicated in the cloistered halls of the drum corps universe. Further, of what benefit are the "extra" entities to the general DCI structure beyond supporting their individual corps? In fact, CrownTickets competes directly with DCI for show production and ticketing (and does a marvelous job, BTW). I doubt that any of these organizations' earnings account for 30% to 40% of their respective corps' budgets, but I can be convinced if you have citable facts instead of speculation. I fully, enthusiastically, agree with your last sentence, and I believe it is the crux of most corps' problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 By unit, Dan is referring to DCI Holdings and Events, not individual drum corps. Yes, but he says their "shareholders" are member corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Wow...harsh criticism for what seems a well meaning, deeply thought, plan... Well meaning, definitely... but deeply thought out... those slides were not really that well thought out. :) Anyway, this is a point of discussion... a starting point... to get people maybe thinking in a different way... which would result in something much more thought out, much more concrete... and a proper and actionable business plan. This discussion is really quite simple... DCI needs to pull a Vic Firth. Check out Vic Firth Gourmet The company applied their knowledge, skills, infrastructure and capacity to expand into another market that had a different audience, different potential size, different volatility... creating greater potential stability for the company as a whole. DCI has all the raw materials... but is not applying them. Again, to be able to apply them effectively... there needs to be both structural and philosophical changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Yes, but he says their "shareholders" are member corps. No. I stated that member corps would only be shareholders of DCI Congress... and even now, since scribbling out that deck... thinking about it a bit more... it is probably not a good idea for member corps to be shareholders of any entity. There really isn't much point to that and makes it unnecessarily complicated. Corps would just receive revenues from DCI Holdings based on internal agreements. 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.