Restructuring the DCI BOD

[Jeff Ream]

DCI grows corps under a consistent model and stays with them until they are ready to develop sufficient relationships outside of DCI to support themselves. While even fully developed corps may remain members, they must agree to redirecting a portion of revenue to the development of smaller corps. Those corps that want to keep all of the revenue they generate on their own may do so, and also receive DCI financial support up to certain levels. But they cannot use DCI's brand unless they are part of a DCI show or are a member corps. The most successful non-member corps are still offered non-financial "bulk buy" and logistics support as all other corps.

The key is that DCI develops its own, independent funding sources with partners to market, leverage and fund DCI's mission of growing corps. If DCI is not dependent upon the corps for its funding, then DCI can choose to do as it wishes with its revenues.

All corps have the ability to exit DCI and hold their own series of shows, but they cannot use the DCI brand in doing so. DCI must strictly manage its brand and its tour management expertise.

a luxury tax if you will. but...Daniel says thats socialist

[danielray]

The issue of DCI retaining power is a significant point of difference between Daniel's vision and mine.

In his vision, corps would negotiate directly with the joint venture partners to strike deals based upon the corps' draw and revenue. This put the strongest corps in the strongest negotiating position. DCI is excluded and only presents a Tour company to facilitate negotiations between the parties. DCI only receives revenue necessary to run the tour.

In my vision DCI is the controlling entity, acting as a liaison between the JV partners and the corps (this is where Dan will claim socialism). DCI controls the flow of DCI-originated funds to corps through negotiation with the non-member corps individually or via corps.org.

I suggest the parties be split into "member" corps and "non-member" corps.

Member corps must abide by the socialist rules and be willing for DCI to spend a certain amount of money on small-corps development BEFORE the "winnings" pool is established and distributed to the corps. Non-member corps are not required to share their revenue and are able to develop any program or partnership outside of DCI that they wish.

Member corps may use the DCI brand in all agreed-upon ways. Non-member corps may not use the DCI brand except is DCI sanctioned ways, shows included. If non-member corps wish to have a competition between themselves they surely may, but they can not use the DCI brand in doing so. Only DCI member corps may use the brand.

DCI agrees to support non-member corps up to prescribed limits, but only after the funding of the development bucket to support member corps. The actual construction of the development bucket is another topic but it's goal, simply, is to foster the fastest-possible development of it's member corps to compete against the top corps for the championship, regardless of who that might be, member or non-member. Minimum requirements, such as Stu's above, could be agreed upon in order to attain DCI support.

For example and illustration:

Non-member corps with balance sheets of $500m or less get full support from DCI. Corps with balance sheets of $500m to $750m would get reduced financial support, and those with balance sheets over $750m would get minimum financial support from DCI. Once a corps' balance sheet crosses $1mm, that corps must PAY DCI to participate in its sponsored shows.

Remember, the premise is that corps that don't go along with the socialist development ideas of DCI are free to strike deals with JV partners to develop their "non-related" businesses. As those JVs become successful the corps become less and less dependent upon the revenue from DCI, to the point where, when they are at their maximum attraction, they actually pay DCI for the privilege of marketing themselves under the DCI brand.

DCI is also able to construct non-related business and JVs to market its shows, whether they are member only or mixed member and non-member. All revenues flowing into DCI are used for the development of its member corps, and to provide a payout to non-member corps based on the sliding scale of their balance sheets.

DCI protects its brand and makes it available to use for member-corps and for non-member corps according to their balance sheet.

I see this clearly in my head and have probably done a poor job of introducing it here. But the premise is that DCI's brand is it's most-powerful asset, and turning over that brand to the corps for use in negotiating their own JV deals is giving away the bank. Corps that are able to strike JV deals because of their drawing power do not need ticket revenue to survive, but that revenue is, at least initially, a vehicle for significant support to the growth of smaller corps. And as DCI-led JV's come into existence the ticket revenue would become less important.

This model turns DCI funding on its head such that the most successful corps get the least financial support from DCI. What they get is the right to use the DCI brand and, at a certain point, they must, in fact, pay to use that brand.

If a corps is willing to be a member corps it gets the DCI brand anyway no matter the corps' size, but it must agree to have some funds siphoned off to grow its competition.

It is the top performing corps that bring in the cash. Don't take my word for it... just look at the difference in endorsement deals for the top corps vs. next tier vs. OC vs. bottom of OC. These manufacturers are putting money where they know it will make a return on their support.

Anyway, you pull revenue away from the corps actually generating the revenue to give to the corps that aren't... you will not have any top corps going along with this Robin Hood type scenario. It is a non-starter, as they would pull out.... and the whole thing crumbles.

Ask yourself this... right now, some of the strongest partners for DCI are the manufacturers. Will they will not stick around if the top corps are gone? It doesn't make financial sense for them to do so. And if they thought that corps below a certain level were something they were going to get behind, you'd already see them doing killer endorsement deals now. As it is, there is a huge gap in the level of endorsement deals between the top corps and the rest.

Anyway, what you are also proposing does not reward excellence.... it is "you did such a fantastic job, we're going to give the fruits of your labour to support to the guys who can't figure out how to get their #### together".

I do not see the need to support smaller corps or that they should be given any different treatment. There are a few excellent models of how to make the transition from OC to solid WC corps... Academy, Blue Stars, Crown. Look at what they did, do that. If you can't copy their model, you are not competent and are not deserving of support.

Again, every organization out there has equal opportunity to succeed as any other, they just need to do what it takes to make it happen. There is no need to reinvent the wheel... just copy what is successful and then add unique layer once it is successful.

Smaller corps that are out there that are not following recipes for success of corps that have made the transition are not deserving of support... as they are demonstrating they are not competent. If I was a director or board member of an OC corps, I'd be spending as much time as I could with the management team of those three corps that have very successfully made that transition and learning from their successes and mistakes.

Corps that haven't figured this most basic thing out, that think they need to reinvent the wheel, aren't deserving of support.

(had to say it 3 times in hopes that it will get through) :-)

Edited December 21, 2011 by danielray

[Stu]

Danielray: Here, both Garfield and I went deep sea fishing for you; awaiting your reply:

I am trying to work with you here to find a common ground, really, I am.

So how about this idea as a solution:

a) Minimum quality standards, but not a minimum number of corps, would be set in stone by DCI for a corps to be included in the OC. The evaluation for OC inclusion would occur by an independent group of financial professionals along with some independent musical judges during the spring rehearsal period. This evaluation would happen now for all current OC corps along with any new corps wanting to enter the DCI OC; and then every (2,4) years for existing corps and always for new corps (also all new corps would have to enter DCI as OC).

b) The OC would then compete amongst themselves, sometimes as warm-up acts for WC shows during the weekdays, sometimes apart fro the WC on big weekend shows, throughout the summer culminating with their OC Finals on Wednesday of Championship week.

c) Thursday of Champs week would consist of the WC and the top, say 5, from the OC finals.

d) Friday of Champs week would consist of the top (17, 20, 25) from Thursday.

e) Any OC corps which makes it to Friday would have the option to move into the WC if they so chose; and all corps which did *not* make it to Friday would become the next years OC.

This idea would fit into your paradigm, correct?

[danielray]

a luxury tax if you will. but...Daniel says thats socialist

You are then punishing, not rewarding success. People will either no longer have motivation to succeed, or would leave to do their own thing.

Think about it this way...

You go to work and bust your ###.... you are looking for ways to innovate and ways to really expand the company.

The other two guys that are working with you are just not as competent or motivated and maybe not as experienced as you.

Your boss thinks that, instead of giving you a bonus for your hard work and achievement, if he would take this money that you actually made for the company and give it to the other guys, maybe they will improve... and he'll have 3 great workers.

The reality is that they guys would remain at their same level, or even worse, as they were now getting better compensation for no discernable improvement.. and you would either slump down to their level... or leave.

Incentivise the star performers and encourage others to reach that same level by keeping rigid minimum standards, but incentives for clear progress.

[danielray]

Danielray: Here, both Garfield and I went deep sea fishing for you; awaiting your reply:

I am trying to work with you here to find a common ground, really, I am.

So how about this idea as a solution:

a) Minimum quality standards, but not a minimum number of corps, would be set in stone by DCI for a corps to be included in the OC. The evaluation for OC inclusion would occur by an independent group of financial professionals along with some independent musical judges during the spring rehearsal period. This evaluation would happen now for all current OC corps along with any new corps wanting to enter the DCI OC; and then every (2,4) years for existing corps and always for new corps (also all new corps would have to enter DCI as OC).

b) The OC would then compete amongst themselves, sometimes as warm-up acts for WC shows during the weekdays, sometimes apart fro the WC on big weekend shows, throughout the summer culminating with their OC Finals on Wednesday of Championship week.

c) Thursday of Champs week would consist of the WC and the top, say 5, from the OC finals.

d) Friday of Champs week would consist of the top (17, 20, 25) from Thursday.

e) Any OC corps which makes it to Friday would have the option to move into the WC if they so chose; and all corps which did *not* make it to Friday would become the next years OC.

This idea would fit into your paradigm, correct?

That's all fine. I'd like to see the divisions a bit more organic... in the sense that corps can move up or down in divisions, based on performance (maybe on a 3 year average). Exception to this would be reaching certain score watermarks... that could automatically, even during the course of a season, move them up a division for that season (ex: Star starting out in Div I simply by their performance level).

I think the financial evaluation in the OC tour would simply be a certain amount in cash. Also, I would make it a requirement that OC corps purchase goods/services though the same supplier providing for WC corps. This would guarantee quality and consistency of experience, along with reduced pricing.

[Stu]

I do not see the need to support smaller corps or that they should be given any different treatment. There are a few excellent models of how to make the transition from OC to solid WC corps... Academy, Blue Stars, Crown. Look at what they did, do that. If you can't copy their model, you are not competent and are not deserving of support.

Again, every organization out there has equal opportunity to succeed as any other, they just need to do what it takes to make it happen. There is no need to reinvent the wheel... just copy what is successful and then add unique layer once it is successful.

Smaller corps that are out there that are not following recipes for success of corps that have made the transition are not deserving of support... as they are demonstrating they are not competent. If I was a director or board member of an OC corps, I'd be spending as much time as I could with the management team of those three corps that have very successfully made that transition and learning from their successes and mistakes.

Corps that haven't figured this most basic thing out, that think they need to reinvent the wheel, aren't deserving of support.

Did the thought ever occur to you that success is also defined as something other than becoming a winning WC corps? The Academy, for example, gave up a shot at the top twelve in 2011 because they took time off for tour, not to succeed at competition, but to succeed at staying in the black! Surf succeeds by providing a good WC outlet for the local youth due to their school year extending way into June. Winning and competition to win are not the only qualifiers for success!

[danielray]

Did the thought ever occur to you that success is also defined as something other than becoming a winning WC corps? The Academy, for example, gave up a shot at the top twelve in 2011 because they took time off for tour, not to succeed at competition, but to succeed at staying in the black! Surf succeeds by providing a good WC outlet for the local youth due to their school year extending way into June. Winning and competition to win are not the only qualifiers for success!

Jersey Surf is a great OC corps.

Academy is growing smart. Pretty young kids there, so, if they can get them to stay... that is what is going to push them up to the next level.

[Stu]

That's all fine. I'd like to see the divisions a bit more organic... in the sense that corps can move up or down in divisions, based on performance (maybe on a 3 year average). Exception to this would be reaching certain score watermarks... that could automatically, even during the course of a season, move them up a division for that season (ex: Star starting out in Div I simply by their performance level).

I think the financial evaluation in the OC tour would simply be a certain amount in cash. Also, I would make it a requirement that OC corps purchase goods/services though the same supplier providing for WC corps. This would guarantee quality and consistency of experience, along with reduced pricing.

So, if an independent team of financial professionals along with an independent team of musical evaluators concluded this May (based on an agreed upon DCI evaluation criteria) that current corps blank, blank, blank, etc... in the OC and new corps blank and blank were cleared to be in the OC for 2012 you would be fine with that conclusion (without setting an OC number limitation)?

[danielray]

So, if an independent team of financial professionals along with an independent team of musical evaluators concluded this May (based on an agreed upon DCI evaluation criteria) that current corps blank, blank, blank, etc... in the OC and new corps blank and blank were cleared to be in the OC for 2012 you would be fine with that conclusion (without setting an OC number limitation)?

I don't think there needs to be a limit to the number of corps.... if there were a hundred... would be cool.... just as long as they met minimum standards.

Financial review would be pretty simple... what are obligations, receivables, cash on hand.... vs. cost of operations/tour. Done.

[Stu]

Academy is growing smart. Pretty young kids there, so, if they can get them to stay... that is what is going to push them up to the next level.

Agreed! That is exactly what happened to Crown.

Jersey Surf is a great OC corps.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that to me Surf is a great corps (whether OC or WC) who cares more for the interests of the local youth than in winning a DCI WC ring. I think our disagreement is with the definition of success within the WC status.