Restructuring the DCI BOD

[garfield]

Again, after consideration... I've come to believe that it is the mullet/mustache combo that somehow rewires the brain, ushering in an era of unprecedented productivity and creativity.

I think it is the absence of the mullet/mustache combo that has slowed the rate of innovation in the activity, as clearly illustrated in the in the chart* below.

*Note: Mullet only figures take into account West Coast Inflation.

Now, overlay this with the length-of-shorts bell curve, cross indexed with the increase in the number of lugs on a marching snare, and I think you might be able to spot the trend.

Plus one. Sardonically creative.

[danielray]

Watch

, and tell me there isn't something to the mullet/mustache theory.

Honorable mention:

ScoJo... he's still

with the combo (see the current 1% in the graph).

[Jeff Ream]

Here is where we probably agree: With a few exceptions (ie Regiment Spartacus), I am not a fan of giving shows conceptual titles. Why? Because it is that very thing which unfortunately injects most of the cerebral/esoteric issues for the audience to intellectually interpret the music/drill/visual. Moreover, at DCI contests I do not want to be forced think about deep intellectual connections or be educated like I am sitting in a university classroom; I want to be entertained like I am sitting at a rock concert. So, if we go with titles/interpretation/intellectual connections while watching the DVDs I am with you 100% on disliking most shows over the past ten years.

That said, while you and I are older farts and we agree on most issues, here is where we might disagree. I reviewed the WC finalist shows for the past ten years (without trying to tie in the cerebral/esoteric title concepts). Left on their own, without forcing a concept title into the show, to me most shows are entertaining on their own merits. And it was actually easier for me to list the ones which made me go huh, nope, not my cup of tea (for DCI) than to list all of the shows I enjoyed:

Remember, this is taking out conceptual titles:

Did not like:

2011: Blue Stars visual, otherwise loved all finalist shows

2010: Blue Devils visual, SCV music

2009: Regiment visual, Blue Stars visual, Boston (enjoyed it but found it too risqué for a family atmosphere)

2008: Blue Devils period, Cadets props and talking

2007: Cadets talking

2006: Cadets period

2005: Cadets period, Blue Devils shouting announcer

2004: (loved all)

2003: Cavaliers music (but loved the visual)

2002: Cavaliers music (but loved the visual)

yeah we disagree. have to be honest, i liked a whole whopping 5 shows period in 04 and 05

[Jeff Ream]

if youth were driving it, it would have been out of business long ago. Many youth in the activity can barely keep a commitment financially. Winter programs find alot of youth instructors. They tend to over write, complicate, more trick driven and pretty much clueless. Many think because they have maybe marched lets say PR..BD..cavies..cadets crown or whoever that makes them an instructor.ahhhh no, not close. On the other hand its good to have some youth that show promise on staff but guided by experience. They could have some good ideas to nuture.

[Jeff Ream]

I just mean on the creative side... not management.

Look at the major innovations in the 70's and early 80's... and how young these guys were driving these changes. Also, most of them had mustaches... so... it could be the mustaches. I suggest all staff members grow mustaches (and mullets) again... see what happens.

Random sampling...

... ok.... maybe it's just all about mullets and mustaches?

several of those "youthful guys" are still driving the creative prcoess, so either you're saying what we have now is stagnant cause they're now old farts, or you just like destorying your own arguments

[danielray]

several of those "youthful guys" are still driving the creative prcoess, so either you're saying what we have now is stagnant cause they're now old farts, or you just like destorying your own arguments

I'm not saying that things have become a bit stagnant because they are old.... it has become stagnant because they no longer have mullets and mustaches!

Things really are sort of too similar these days.... there are no radical standouts in finals.... like the Bridgemen or VK or Suncoast.

A lot of stuff looks too much the same with similar Star Trek uniforms, guard all spinning the same equipment.... so many playing wind ensemble music. Last year started to shake things up a bit... hopefully this year will continue.

I do fear until the mullet/mustache properly returns, however, there will still be a bit too much competitive conformity.

[garfield]

Charts!

This chart is from the baseline assumption representing World Class sharing 95% and Open Class sharing 5% of the 2009 "Payout Pool" of $2.6mm..

The vertical bars represent "Total Revenue" from the corps' Form 990, and refer to the left scale.

The red numbers are the results of regression analysis to represent a rational (although fictitious) distribution of the DCI "Payout Pool" . The red bar is the portion of the corps' "Total Revenue" that is made up of the assumed DCI payout.

The green line represent the percentage of each corps' Pool payout compared to the corps Pre-DCI-Payout revenue. It refers to the right scale.

You can see a .ppt HERE that compares various payouts to WC/OC and the impact on the corps financials.

Some corps are not represented due to their 990 forms being unavailable (ex: BDB is not separated from BD in their 990, Crossmen 2009 990 data not available).

Interesting to note that based upon the presumed payout structure (detailed in previous post) that some "Top" corps generate considerably more of their total revenue from sources other than DCI's payout. Does this make them less "dependent" on DCI for the production they present?

It's clear that the smaller corps are less "dependent" on DCI than bigger corps (in this purely hypothetical example), and maybe that shows up in their performances.

Remember that some corps, such as YEA!, have significant "Total Income" but may not spend that income on their corps. Most corps without other programs spend about $1mm on their shows so it's probably a safe speculation that corps with large "Total Revenue" spend about the same on their shows.

The interesting comparison is in the .ppt (link above) that shows variations from this baseline and reflects the impact of changing the WC/OC payout structure.

Edited December 27, 2011 by garfield

[danielray]

Charts!

The real solution here is to subsidize costs of goods and services (food, fuel, transportation), offered to the corps through an aggregate purchase model. This also helps OC corps, even though they are not getting anything comped, they are able to have a reduced cost of goods and better quality of service due to the pooled purchasing scheme.

The reality is, even though the numbers aren't exactly on, none of those schemes in the ppt will work, simply because none will be accepted. You have some corps doing a considerably greater number of performances and greater amount of travel than others... this needs to be factored into the model.

Also, corps getting paid a % of aggregate revenues pays corps for shows they are not attending. As a result, it is then becomes better for some corps to choose to do less shows as they make the same amount.

Due to the nature of geography, some corps must travel more than others, or some may travel outside of the usual routes (east coast going west, early season swings, etc.). There needs to be compensation for the corps that must travel further, and regional clusters of show sponsor should be responsible for covering the wild card swings if they want them on their lineup.

Taking any other approach, one where you are under-rewarding the achievers and disproportionately rewarding the underachievers/capped-leverers/upsarts is absolutely unsustainable.

Some corps have chosen to limit themselves. While this may be financially responsible, it does not mean they are deserving of equal reward as those who figure it out. At the same time, those who can't get it together shouldn't be rewarded or supported at all. There are a lot of corps that have folded that would be even more of a disaster if they received undeserved financial support.

There have been some corps that have folded that were great on the field or great with the kids or had the most kindhearted, generous guys involved... but there has not been a corps that has ever folded that was well run. Well run corps figure it out.

Giving a hand out, as you are describing is simply enabling corps that are not well run.

I suppose the current model of bumping up to WC corps that are well run, but not really on par with WC performance, is a way to reward these corps... but maybe there is some other way to do this more effectively?

Anyway, I don't really have the answer... but maybe there should be a new model developed, one that evaluates a variety of factors, independently, and compensates or rewards for each factor individually. This is what I am getting at with each individual corps having their own unique compensation deal.

[garfield]

The real solution here is to subsidize costs of goods and services (food, fuel, transportation), offered to the corps through an aggregate purchase model. This also helps OC corps, even though they are not getting anything comped, they are able to have a reduced cost of goods and better quality of service due to the pooled purchasing scheme.

The reality is, even though the numbers aren't exactly on, none of those schemes in the ppt will work, simply because none will be accepted. You have some corps doing a considerably greater number of performances and greater amount of travel than others... this needs to be factored into the model.

Also, corps getting paid a % of aggregate revenues pays corps for shows they are not attending. As a result, it is then becomes better for some corps to choose to do less shows as they make the same amount.

Due to the nature of geography, some corps must travel more than others, or some may travel outside of the usual routes (east coast going west, early season swings, etc.). There needs to be compensation for the corps that must travel further, and regional clusters of show sponsor should be responsible for covering the wild card swings if they want them on their lineup.

Taking any other approach, one where you are under-rewarding the achievers and disproportionately rewarding the underachievers/capped-leverers/upsarts is absolutely unsustainable.

Some corps have chosen to limit themselves. While this may be financially responsible, it does not mean they are deserving of equal reward as those who figure it out. At the same time, those who can't get it together shouldn't be rewarded or supported at all. There are a lot of corps that have folded that would be even more of a disaster if they received undeserved financial support.

There have been some corps that have folded that were great on the field or great with the kids or had the most kindhearted, generous guys involved... but there has not been a corps that has ever folded that was well run. Well run corps figure it out.

Giving a hand out, as you are describing is simply enabling corps that are not well run.

I suppose the current model of bumping up to WC corps that are well run, but not really on par with WC performance, is a way to reward these corps... but maybe there is some other way to do this more effectively?

Anyway, I don't really have the answer... but maybe there should be a new model developed, one that evaluates a variety of factors, independently, and compensates or rewards for each factor individually. This is what I am getting at with each individual corps having their own unique compensation deal.

(Remember that the only factor that changed in the .ppt was the split from WC to OC. The impact on the financials is the comparison point.)

I really do get what you're saying here, and I can't disagree with your ending statements. But you're forgetting the critical point.

As an "incubator", DCI has to have the model that works, the one that most closely represents the growth path of those who "figure it out". and develop the system necessary to apply it to all corps. Not style, not bingo. But the strategy of growth used. While vastly different in their approaches, the "Top Corps" all share similarities in the way they are run. If corps were given incentives to follow that path, under close supervision and measurable achievement levels, the compression of scores that you're looking for would have a chance to succeed.

All corps in OC, and corps 16 to 22 in WC, would be required to follow the path DCI lays down in order to get supplemental funding.

Again, if growing competitive corps is beneficial to the Top corps in the context of external funding, they may be willing to consider any plan - and maybe spend a little money - in order to fund such a growth plan. In the alternative, a DCI that is generating its own outside income can compel the corps as part of DCI membership.

EDIT: Would you quantify the bold words above please? What does "figure it out" in your lexicon mean?

Edited December 26, 2011 by garfield

[danielray]

(Remember that the only factor that changed in the .ppt was the split from WC to OC. The impact on the financials is the comparison point.)

I really do get what you're saying here, and I can't disagree with your ending statements. But you're forgetting the critical point.

As an "incubator", DCI has to have the model that works, the one that most closely represents the growth path of those who "figure it out". and develop the system necessary to apply it to all corps. Not style, not bingo. But the strategy of growth used. While vastly different in their approaches, the "Top Corps" all share similarities in the way they are run. If corps were given incentives to follow that path, under close supervision and measurable achievement levels, the compression of scores that you're looking for would have a chance to succeed.

All corps in OC, and corps 16 to 22 in WC, would be required to follow the path DCI lays down in order to get supplemental funding.

Again, if growing competitive corps is beneficial to the Top corps in the context of external funding, they may be willing to consider any plan - and maybe spend a little money - in order to fund such a growth plan. In the alternative, a DCI that is generating its own outside income can compel the corps as part of DCI membership.

EDIT: Would you quantify the bold words above please? What does "figure it out" in your lexicon mean?

DCI is not an incubator. DCI also shouldn't be in the business of developing paths for corps to grow, etc.

An independent organization would be a more suitable as a corps incubator, one that has collected best practices from various corps and consolidated them into a comprehensive set of resources and provides guidance.

DCI should be focused on making money, period.

About the meaning of the phrase.... figure it out.... means exactly that.

There are 2 ways to figure something out...

Copy - find someone who has demonstrated success in something.... copy exactly what they did... add your own special sauce once successful.

Trial and error - learn how to do something by simply busting your ### and not giving up, trying every possible way until you get it right. This takes a crazy amount of determination, loads of work and is expensive.

The thing is that now anyone who is not copying is an idiot. There are plenty of successful groups out there that have become successful using a couple of different models. Copy that.

The main problem here is that there are not enough people who have both the skills/experience and interest to run a drum corps. Those that have the interest, but lack the skills/experience don't have a formal resource for obtaining skills training. Could be cool to have such resources for those that have the interest... but this should not fall under DCI's scope.