garfield Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) the guy in charge of the Fed when everything went haywire in 2008 He wasn't in charge of the Fed, Jeff. "The Bernank" was his accomplis. (Ben Bernanke is head of the Federal Reserve, Dan. See for an explanation) Edited November 28, 2011 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) DCI does have much more in common with concert tours. OK... I'll just tip the hand here.... DCI should establish the tour as a separate incorporated entity, an SPV jointly owned by DCI and a private investor. This investor would guarantee payments to individual corps (paid fully in advance of tour... cash paid in full in January could change the game for many corps out there) in exchange for various concessions. It would be the responsibility of the investor to secure relationships with various partners and sponsors.... with profits past a certain watermark paid back to the investor. Could you see the SPV between DCI and an existing corporate sponsor, like Yamaha? Or would it be better with an outside, non-related investor? EDIT: Thinking that a consortium of existing major sponsors, maybe with Yamaha or King as the lead, in partnership with DCI to accomplish the same thing would pick the low-hanging fruit, yes? Edited November 28, 2011 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 He wasn't in charge of the Fed, Jeff. "The Bernank" was his accomplis. (Ben Bernanke is head of the Federal Reserve, Dan. See for an explanation) oops thats what I meant. long day not enough jack daniels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Boy, you have been gone a while, haven't you? He's the dude, along with a few key others, who crafted the $700-billion bailout in '07 that saved the banking industry from collapse and the country from armageddon. I don't see the connection. The money was simply spent in the wrong way.. it wasn't about the amount. In fact, I think the US needs to inject a hell of a lot more into the economy and put it toward infrastructure... mostly public transport and energy. This would derail things into another discussion... but the problem is not the amount, but what it was used for and the conditions associated with it (should have been tied to small business loan quotas, as well). Again, it isn't an issue of money... but how it was spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Could you see the SPV between DCI and an existing corporate sponsor, like Yamaha? Or would it be better with an outside, non-related investor? EDIT: Thinking that a consortium of existing major sponsors, maybe with Yamaha or King as the lead, in partnership with DCI to accomplish the same thing would pick the low-hanging fruit, yes? Sponsor and investor would be different.... I invision the investor being either a private individual or 2-3 private individuals together. Regarding Yamaha... or some industry related sponsor... I just don't see the value in it for them to pony up a large sum of money. Their money is better spent endorsing corps and other activities. They also have a different sort of threshold in terms of marketing spend. Consumer brands, particularly Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are a good potential fit and have much higher spends for something like this. I do not see much more revenue coming to the activity from inside the activity at this stage... so, everything should be focused on how to bring in external interests, sponsors, support, revenues, etc. In order to do this... recruiting key players that have a solid track record and have absolutely no connection to drum corps at all are essential. Why I say no connection... not only will they not have any sacred cows and will have a completely different approach to many things... they will also understand how to communicate it in a way to someone else who has no idea what it is, in a way that will resonate with them. As talented as anyone may be, it is really difficult to abstract yourself from the activity if you have any experience with it at all. It is really time for drum corps to aggressively hire from outside of the activity in order to break outside of the activity in revenue opportunities and connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Sponsor and investor would be different.... I invision the investor being either a private individual or 2-3 private individuals together. Regarding Yamaha... or some industry related sponsor... I just don't see the value in it for them to pony up a large sum of money. Their money is better spent endorsing corps and other activities. They also have a different sort of threshold in terms of marketing spend. Consumer brands, particularly Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are a good potential fit and have much higher spends for something like this. I do not see much more revenue coming to the activity from inside the activity at this stage... so, everything should be focused on how to bring in external interests, sponsors, support, revenues, etc. In order to do this... recruiting key players that have a solid track record and have absolutely no connection to drum corps at all are essential. Why I say no connection... not only will they not have any sacred cows and will have a completely different approach to many things... they will also understand how to communicate it in a way to someone else who has no idea what it is, in a way that will resonate with them. As talented as anyone may be, it is really difficult to abstract yourself from the activity if you have any experience with it at all. It is really time for drum corps to aggressively hire from outside of the activity in order to break outside of the activity in revenue opportunities and connections. I cant believe Im going to bite BUT...whats in it for them? Investors that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I am not going to comment much about the specific ideas that have been floated in this and other related threads. Instead - cutting to the key hurdle for implementation of any of these ideas: Consent of the governed Ever since DCI began, it was all about self determination and control by the corps at the top of the activity. The founding fathers broke away from the VFW and the AL so they could have control over money, judging, touring, etc. This is one of the constants in the governance of DCI that has continued virtually unbroken to this day. Some of the ideas proposed are not new. They have had opportunities of various kinds previously presented. They have been unable or unwilling to relinquish a sufficient level of control to pursue those opportunities. So what can you do if those in control do not catch the vision or potential of your proposals (or just don't want to)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 ....like I said, if someone wants to create a separate entity dedicated to making tons of money and handing it over to DCI, they don't need DCI's consent. They can do it right now. All the talk of restructuring DCI itself, however.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It's about where the money comes from, who controls it. If DCI is generating revenues outside of sources tied to corps' performance... it's their piggybank and they decide how to spend it. The influence of individual corps becomes diminished. But DCI is the corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I'm still not sure how changing the board structure to exclude the corps directors will prevent another G7-type upheaval, (snip) It won't prevent another G7 takeover attempt....in fact, it could make it easier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts