Restructuring the DCI BOD

[audiodb]

I really don't know who made the statement first and I don't care. I absolutely agree.

I'll gladly cede naming rights to you for adding this:

The main objection I heard to the idea was that judges in the seating area would distract fans by talking throughout the performances.

[MikeD]

Hey! This is my idea! You stole it from me...

I even suggested they use those court stenographer voice cones.

Or maybe this:

[garfield]

Or maybe this:

Funny!

I can't tell if it's an actual Get Smart episode or the SNL version. Both were hilarious.

[Wadep66]

As soon as DCI were to try any of these innovative suggestions, 90% of DCP'ers would start threads like "DCI is trying to ruin Drum Corps Again!" or "The idiots at DCI are determined to destroy Drum Corps as we know it". Last year how many threads were about the G7 was going to put the other corps out of business or DCI is about to go out of existence?

Why do people continue to think their ideas represent John Q Public in every way?

[garfield]

As soon as DCI were to try any of these innovative suggestions, 90% of DCP'ers would start threads like "DCI is trying to ruin Drum Corps Again!" or "The idiots at DCI are determined to destroy Drum Corps as we know it". Last year how many threads were about the G7 was going to put the other corps out of business or DCI is about to go out of existence?

Why do people continue to think their ideas represent John Q Public in every way?

Awww. And we were having so much fun.

Dangit.

EDIT: POSTER ALERT!

DCP has more than 26,000 members (not a bad take, actually - twice the finals attendance!), and represents only about 4% of the 600,000 fans that DCI "touches" every year.

DCP is NOT a representation of John Q Public's opinions or attitudes.

(or the niche within the niche within the niche that represents the roughly 12 people who bother to visit this thread)

Now back to your regularly-scheduled discussion.

Edited December 23, 2011 by garfield

[Bruckner8]

So far, my take-aways from this thread are:

1) De-couple the BOD of DCI (or create a new entity entirely), in a way that allows them to focus on one single mission: Raise money to support DCI. (danielray seems to have lots of ideas on how to do this, including non-drum corps related ventures.)

2) Assuming 1) is successful, how then does the DCI org distribute the money generated by 1)?

3) What will corps be allowed (or not) to do in raising their own money?

4) What are the conflicts of interest (or difficulties), for groups like Blue Devils, YEA, and SCV, that have multiple organizations under them already, supporting other arts ventures besides "drum corps?"

5) What mechanisms can be put in place to ensure 'fairness?'

In answering these questions, some have brought up the baseball model. IMO, that doesn't work, because the Yankees can outspend everyone AND STILL PAY THE LUXURY TAX. The tax is another cost of "winning." No biggie...it's not a deterrent at all when SO MUCH MONEY is in their hands.

I don't understand the logic of "limit the number of drum corps." I wish the demand was so high that we'd need 1000 drum corps to meet it! Now, the chance of all of them being Excellent is pretty much zero, but I'm on board with "creating as many QUALITY opportunities as possible."

And there's the rub. How does one create a QUALITY opportunity? The answer gets back to the heart of the entire situation, now and long ago. We need quality individuals. We need quality leaders. We need quality minds working on these problems. No amount of money will solve the dearth of quality leaders. Is every drum corps today providing a quality opportunity? (Personally, I don't think so.) How is it measured? If everyone on the "inside" thinks the quality is OK, but everyone on the "outside" disagrees, then what? (The DCP Pioneer threads come to mind.)

I'm not a fan of the "centralization" encouraged by some in this thread. We have to find a balance between "the greater good" and "freedom." On the one hand, if [corps director X]is so great at raising money, and if their ego truly is bound to creating awesome opportunities for youth, then they SHOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON HIRED by the new BOD to run the fund raising operation for all of DCI! But if their ego is bound to the entire operation of a single competitive entity, they should be allowed to do that, without judgment or guilt!

You can't force people to give money to a "greater good" when they want their money to go directly to a single corps. How would this be monitored or regulated? If I thought my donation to SCV was instead going to support "the greater good of DCI," when I think "the greater good" is actually "mostly bad," I'd just stop supporting SCV/DCI altogether, or I'd start volunteering/working directly with SCV. <wink>

I've always supported different classes of corps, based on membership count, $$ and competitive success. Hear me out on this. The count/$$ parts are real variables...the competitive success is an outcome. Let's assume you have three tiers of each variable (Small, Med, Large), then you have 9 possible outcomes:

Corps Size/Dollars

S/S

S/M

S/L

---

M/S

M/M

M/L

---

L/S

L/M

L/L

I've arbitrarily chosen to group the SIZES together...I could just as easily grouped the DOLLARS instead:

S/S

M/S

L/S

---

S/M

M/M

L/M

---

S/L

M/L

L/L

Be sure to think through each scenario, and how we'd go about the process of creating "classes." Ideally, there'd be 500 drum corps, so it would make sense to have 9 different classes, one for each combination of membership and dollars. But since we only have 50 (? or so?) drum corps, it makes sense to limit the classes to 2-3. We now have to determine the most contributing factor to 'competitive fairness': Is it NUMBERS or DOLLARS?

The answer in this thread seems to be DOLLARS. Then we have to make our classes based on DOLLARS, or some kind of logarithmic ratio between the two (in the situation where a smaller corps has HUGE dollars, they should be forced to compete with the larger corps as well...after all, the logic in this thread concludes that DOLLARS=COMPETITIVE SUCCESS. For the reverse; a large corps scraping by, they can compete in the lower tier, since their dollars are not going as far, right?)

Has anyone noticed how I've gone from "efficacy of the human element" completely over to "derive everything from the dollar?"

What's going to happen if anyone observes the LOWER DOLLARS corps happen to be more popular? Or more Excellent? Is that even possible?

Finally, I'd make the "touring schedule" part of the class structure. Any corps in the "highest" class would be on the cross-country-tour model by definition. Then the lower classes would tour less; only regional or local. This would solve lots of problems, and provide more marching opportunities. Obviously, these local shows may (or not) have a corps or two from the country touring group, but that would be more of an exhibition. The show would be all about the local/region competition. There'd be no such thing as classes competing against other classes. (Who cares if BDB is capable of beating a WC corps on WC sheets? The mission is entirely different! But if BDB continues to be competitive, and gets more $$, they will be FORCED to compete in the higher group someday! Otherwise, they have to spend their money on something else, "for the greater good.")

I'd get rid of the terms "higher" and "lower" class, or anything that implies hierarchy. Instead, I'd use the touring model as the class name: USA Class/Region Class/Local Class. The idea--hopefully--would be that by creating a competitive circuit based on dollars and members, you might grow the activity locally. And if a locally borne drum corps wishes to "travel more" they can start figuring out ways to get bigger, attract more members, and then join the Regional circuit, etc.

If you dream (other thread, lol), you'd have, say A Northeast Region of 7-8 drum corps, happily operating on <$500,000 with 30 members, all with local part-time jobs, who happen to KICK ### against each other a few times per summer.

Hmm, it's starting to sound like DCA....nevermind.

[Jeff Ream]

Hmmm, the first DCI show I went to I sat on the 5 yard line on row three (and fell in love with the quality even from that perspective). Now, of course, as a diehard fan I can see the difference, but not that first time; I was inspired from the 5 yard line that first time. Anyway..., if you are fine with empty seats past the 30's, and DCI missing out on the opportunity to introduce the genera to a whole new group of potential fans, I can see your point. However, I thought the point was getting more butts in the seats (to use your phraseology) and most of those unfilled seats are closer to the 10 yard line than the 50. So, again I am curious as to what would be the downside of introducing new people to the genera at art festivals and offering them discounted tickets to get more butts in the seats which are just going empty anyway?

I'm not fine with empty seats anywhere.

the problem is shows are designed for the 50 now. there's so much that can be missed.

I know last year I got Allentown seats really late...I was on the 10. Thank God I knew the shows going in, because otherwise I'd have been lost

[Stu]

As soon as DCI were to try any of these innovative suggestions, 90% of DCP'ers would start threads like "DCI is trying to ruin Drum Corps Again!" or "The idiots at DCI are determined to destroy Drum Corps as we know it". Last year how many threads were about the G7 was going to put the other corps out of business or DCI is about to go out of existence?

Why do people continue to think their ideas represent John Q Public in every way?

If you had read the G7 threads carefully you would have discovered that there were only 2, that's right, only 2 real objections against the entire proposal:

1) The elitism of the 7 forcefully relegating (demoting) all the other 16 WC corps into level B and level C lower status.

2) The elitism of the 7 forcefully eliminating all DCI support whatsoever for 19 of the OC corps, while retaining support for the two G7 feeder corps placing them in level C.

So; the objections were about an attempted elitist power grab *not* about innovative ideas on how to change DCI into a stronger organization.

[Stu]

I'm not fine with empty seats anywhere.

the problem is shows are designed for the 50 now. there's so much that can be missed.

I know last year I got Allentown seats really late...I was on the 10. Thank God I knew the shows going in, because otherwise I'd have been lost

Ok, adjusting show design to perform to all patrons is a legitimate discussion (and it has just started in this thread about moving judges to the sides to help with that issue). However, that issue, though related, was not what was being discussed. A way to expose more people to the activity with creative entertainment at art festivals to put more butts in the seats was the topic at hand. So, you would be in favor of something like that if show design was tweaked to perform to the newer patrons sitting in the wings, correct?

[Stu]

It happens all the time. Especially in the ranks of corps who really want to move up. Those corps make choices that leave kids high and dry. And for what? Tenths of points. Doesn't sound like success to me...

Then again, that's only me. It's their choice to operate in this fashion. Some corps WILL NOT do this in order to win. They'll keep members. They'll be loyal regardless of talent (within reason).

I can think of 3 notorious offenders off the top of my head.

I am all for freedom of choice, but I am also an advocate of various degrees of limiting choice options based on the particular situation. Show me one activity, just one, in which those involved have complete unbridled freedom of choice; you cannot do it. There are always strict regulation of choices within any activity overseen by the body of that activity; there has to be or you would have complete anarchy. And I am for allowing different degrees of choices and different treatment of participants within different activities based on the age and the amateur/professional status of those participants. ABC managing the adult/professional NFL team is a very different situation than XYZ managing the youth/amateur DCI corps; therefore the choices allowed to be made by those individuals by their overseeing organizations (NFL/DCI)should also be different. So to me, the scenario I described of that kid in DCI is an atrocious situation in which that choice for the corps staff should have been curtailed by the DCI body. Why? Because he was a kid; a KID; not an adult paid professional. And a kid who's family had sacrificed over $5000, and a kid who was contracted to perform in a particular spot then thrown to the wolves when someone else appeared at the last minute who was slightly better. That is not a choice in which corps staff should be allowed to have within DCI, IMO.