JimF-LowBari Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 This is the fundamental weakness of current sources of revenue... on top of the fact that these revenues do not cover the full bill... which is the whole motivation for this discussion in the first place. Haven't read the proposal yet but throwing out (up?) two questions in case anyone has an idea. What percentage (rough or otherwise) of a corps expenses is being covered by what comes out of the crowds pockets. And thinking of appearance fees since the crowd pays the show sponsor who pays the corps..... and souvie sales. (and more importantly) Is this percentage going up or down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) As for this being a "large" reorganization... well, I could knock 75% of this out *this afternoon* on the legal side of things. The reorg itself is pretty painless. The only thing that would be messy would be any existing agreements. I guess you could set some sort of reasonable horizon period that all need to be reassigned by and just take the mission critical ones on first. I've done this loads of times, having to split out and re-sign agreements after a merger, acquisition, fire sale, reorg, whatever. It isn't complicated, just time consuming if you have a lot of active agreements. There may be some that are going to be rough to get the other party to re-sign, but some could have provisions that allow to either assign activities to a subsidiary or third party.... and at very least, there could be agreements between the two entities (DCI and DCI sub) for fulfillment of services, with actual existing contracts just remaining in the current parent until they expire. The ultimate goal is to get the agreements with the subsidiaries and cash flowing directly to/through the subs to be able to build the case that these are independently operating units, which is essential if you are trying to insulate each unit and the parent from potential liabilities incurred by the other or have flexibility to independently seek financing or exit opportunities (building up and selling off one of the units has some interesting potential... could pump some stabilizing cash into DCI in the short term... but another discussion entirely). Edited October 17, 2011 by danielray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 2. Reduce operating expenses for corps? I don't really think this should be something within the scope of DCI exactly, but something that absolutely baffles me is that corps are all acting independently of each other with many common activities. Not only could there be greater economy of scale and efficiencies in pooling purchasing, but they are creating so many unnecessary operational redundancies for absolutely no reason at all. A thought... Activities such as food services purchasing and planning could be consolidated into one central organization that manages this service for participating organizations that contract services of this group. There is a much greater ability to negotiate price based on volumes and this type of scale becomes much more attractive to potential sponsors or partners. Costs reductions should be significant enough that this approach would be much cheaper than organizations doing this themselves and would improve administrative focus. In addition, there is an interesting opportunity for this organization to eventually build up their own fleet of mobile kitchen trucks which are leased back to the individual corps for duration of tour, similar to the bus leasing model. In the off season, this fleet can be used for special events, mobile demo kitchens, etc. and generate additional revenues which can help further subsidize the food costs of the organization. Similarly, it is absolutely baffling that corps are each acting independently in their merchandising activities. Again, economies of scale and longer lead times for purchases of core staples (solid base colors of shirts) that can be sourced from Asia could dramatically improve margins. In addition, OWNING a printing and embroidery operation would require an insignificant capital expenditure and could not only reduce costs but provide greater flexibility in purchase quantities to assure only best selling items are produced in volume. Also, as many corps are together at the same events... items could be shipped together (driven if centrally located) to show sites, saving on shipping costs. During the off season, there is a built in network of potential customers with every single marching band, guard, school athletic program or club out there purchasing these sort of services each year. Building up this sort of a business is so much of a no-brainer I am completely confused as to why this has not yet been done. Anyway.... there is much more to this... and could be an entire point of discussion in itself... but these are such obvious things to not fully explore them or for corps to continue to behave competitively about aspects of their operations that should be cooperative and then turn around and solicit donations to continue to fund operational inefficiencies... doesn't make sense. There is a considerable amount of money that could be saved and made here. This needs to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 OK...now I will play along. What if... all corps performed with certain "restrictor plates" applied. I liken it to some of the NASCAR races where the cars are topped out at a max speed, meaning...the driver...the pit stops...the strategy matter more. For instance..with the changes you suggest..each corps is allotted their funding based on travel distances alone. All tuition and fees are standardized. So corps A and corps B...if you are world class...start out from the equation as equals from a financial standpoint. Whatever each corps raises on their own outside of member fees, etc., should be unrestricted however. They are a reflection of the strength of an organization. For instance...if the Colts get a State of Iowa grant each year from the gaming commission...they get to add that amount to their kitty. So, the funding side would benefit the corps with the deepest roots in the activity as well...more alumni..for instance, etc. But, I believe that is as it should be. Now...with the staff and talent pool....I don't see it feasible to add any restructuring to this. Staff and students are allowed to go where they want to from year to year. I have tried to make the idea of trades work in my head, but I just can't see it being used enough to give it much thought. From there...it will matter more, who the staff is and how they create the product. It will also matter how they use their dollars. I think it should also be a break sum game. You spend it all...your entire allotment. The funds you raise are free to use or save for the future. Failure to spend it all means you get penalized. If you end up in debt at the end of the year...you end up getting penalized. I'll let others chime in as to the penalties...it could be anything from earlier start times to other ideas along the NCAA type sanctions. One of my favorite NCAA violations is cream cheese. Teams can provide breads and bagels after practice, but it was a violation to supply cream cheese. Too Funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I don't really think this should be something within the scope of DCI exactly, but something that absolutely baffles me is that corps are all acting independently of each other with many common activities. Not only could there be greater economy of scale and efficiencies in pooling purchasing, but they are creating so many unnecessary operational redundancies for absolutely no reason at all. Always leaned towards DCI corps pooling fuel purchases and leasing/renting motor vehicles. Individual corps supposedly get breaks from instrument manufacturers using advertising, why not DCI itself with motor vehicle usage. "DCI Trusts Ryder/Pensky/Greyhound/etc/etc". LOL, then again my family has a long background with automobiles and trucks so go figure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Failure to spend it all means you get penalized. LOL, be like Uncle Sugar... if you don't spend it all, you don't get all you request the following year. We call it "End of Year Money" and I've seen some dumb #### being bought with it before it goes bye-bye. In corps circles expect a lot of cowbells being bought at the end of the fiscal year. Edited October 17, 2011 by JimF-LowBari 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 OK...now I will play along. What if... all corps performed with certain "restrictor plates" applied. I liken it to some of the NASCAR races where the cars are topped out at a max speed, meaning...the driver...the pit stops...the strategy matter more. For instance..with the changes you suggest..each corps is allotted their funding based on travel distances alone. All tuition and fees are standardized. So corps A and corps B...if you are world class...start out from the equation as equals from a financial standpoint. Whatever each corps raises on their own outside of member fees, etc., should be unrestricted however. They are a reflection of the strength of an organization. For instance...if the Colts get a State of Iowa grant each year from the gaming commission...they get to add that amount to their kitty. So, the funding side would benefit the corps with the deepest roots in the activity as well...more alumni..for instance, etc. But, I believe that is as it should be. Now...with the staff and talent pool....I don't see it feasible to add any restructuring to this. Staff and students are allowed to go where they want to from year to year. I have tried to make the idea of trades work in my head, but I just can't see it being used enough to give it much thought. From there...it will matter more, who the staff is and how they create the product. It will also matter how they use their dollars. I think it should also be a break sum game. You spend it all...your entire allotment. The funds you raise are free to use or save for the future. Failure to spend it all means you get penalized. If you end up in debt at the end of the year...you end up getting penalized. I'll let others chime in as to the penalties...it could be anything from earlier start times to other ideas along the NCAA type sanctions. One of my favorite NCAA violations is cream cheese. Teams can provide breads and bagels after practice, but it was a violation to supply cream cheese. Too Funny. One question... Why limit anything? I mean... if some groups can figure out how to generate more money than others, why limit the amount they can spend on creating a program? If some groups can figure out how to create a show that absolutely holds interest for 18 minutes, why not? If another group can create a 6 minute show that is absolutely the most unbelievable thing you've ever seen, why not? I don't understand the idea of forced equality... it is simply limiting the potential of an art because not everyone can achieve the same level of artistry. I'd rather see no limits, no boundaries and watch groups explore the limit of human achievement. I came across through a friend's posting on Facebook. It is unreal. I did not know humans could do that. That is an example of what happens when you limit nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 No corps should have any equity stake in DCI or any DCI subsidiary. DCI Congress should not be a subsidiary of DCI and should act more like an association. Again, bad idea on my part to suggest that any individual corps should be shareholders... that's what I get for drinking beer on a Sunday afternoon and trying to think. Just so I'm clear to this point (catching up)... The corps, en masse, are being "ejected" from DCI, along with their cadre of judges and rules people and processes. They can negotiate between themselves on the end product, and DCI has little to do with them This "Congress", which has then only negotiating power with DCI and it's orgs, will "sell" their services to DCI, the org. I suppose in this setup, the corps are free to market themselves as they wish, in any form they wish, and are free, in fact, to start their own tour that would compete with DCI, right? Or do you envision a sort of "non-compete" that corps must sign that, in order to compete on DCI's circuit, they can not "compete" with DCI's revenue source? If the corps demand a certain price that DCI is not willing to pay, what happens to DCI? Do they compete to pick up USSBA traffic to schedule for? The bottom line is that DCI better be ready to pay to promote the corps in this "association", or else they don't get these corps at their shows. What product, then, would "Holdings" have to sell? Who's lost if the Congress demands too high a price? Who's won? How is that different than May, 2010? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 This is the fundamental weakness of current sources of revenue... on top of the fact that these revenues do not cover the full bill... which is the whole motivation for this discussion in the first place. Yep, troll. I have no idea what I am talking about. She/he? Um... you definitely know absolutely nothing about me (ex: I am of pretty unambiguous gender... and post under my real name). If you have Google and less than 3 minutes on your hands... you could easily verify anything you wanted. I'm not much of a mystery. Wait... don't you have me on ignore? I've gotten enough comments from people I trust to verify that Dan is legit. He's crazy. But he's legitimately crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 1-8: Yes (or that would at least be the goal) 9-10: Not equally applicable to all corps. If it makes financial sense for some groups to travel further distances or more travel earlier, not doing this is leaving money on the table. Oh, Dan, now you're reaching. You can't possibly have answered all those Holy Grails in just four slides. I know you'll keep at it. 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.