audiodb Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 You hit the nail on the head with this sentence, and you illustrate the root of the problem. If a director's responsibility is first and finally to his corps, how can he make decisions that are best for the whole activity? The entire free world is run by people with split loyalties. People representing political parties, corporations, unions or yes, even drum corps, carry their respective organizations' agendas (and their own self-interest) into the boardroom. Yet, there is still some constructive leadership coming from these situations....especially when those people can be shown how voting for the better interest of the group is also in their own best interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) Again... the board should only be about the business aspects of the organization and laser focused on generating CASH. All other issues are a distraction and are holding the organization back. Would the issue of corps survival be a distraction? If the board goes gung ho on generating cash in a way that hurts some corps which side (cash vs corps) should win? Thinking along the lines of major league sports where small market (Green Bay/Pittsburgh) teams butt heads with large market (LA/NYC) teams. I've know you've said in the past that less corps would not hurt but if you're running a DC organization with few corps, I don't see where that helps long term. To go along with the sports analogy, the NHL didn't take off until it expanded past the "Solid Six" number of teams. Edited November 28, 2011 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Would the issue of corps survival be a distraction? If the board goes gung ho on generating cash in a way that hurts some corps which side (cash vs corps) should win? Thinking along the lines of major league sports where small market (Green Bay/Pittsburgh) teams butt heads with large market (LA/NYC) teams. I've know you've said in the past that less corps would not hurt but if you're running a DC organization with few corps, I don't see where that helps long term. To go along with the sports analogy, the NHL didn't take off until it expanded past the "Solid Six" number of teams. I don't think this needs to be an either/or situation, Jim. There is salable drama all up and down the placement lineup. Troopers making finals, Glassmen beating Madison, Blue Stars movement up (and down) in the ranks, Music City doubling it's membership in 2 years, as well as the fight for the top-three positons. The actual field product becomes secondary to the drama, the kid's faces and situations, the staff changes, the reincarnations of corps left for dead. It's all salable product to a BOD who's thinking beyond simple placement. That salable product becomes the basis for payment from DCI so, in a correctly run org, all corps get face time, drama time, and placement dollars. Americans love an underdog, and underdogs are in more than just placement. The kid who marches a year with Pio then tries out for PR, only to get busted back to the "minor league" because his Pio spot is now gone. The young rookie star who has the guts to try out for BD his first year, and makes it, only to discover that "growing up" in the big leagues is a bigger bite than he envisioned. The poor, inner-city kid who has great talent, struggles to get noticed, fails over and over, then meets a director in an airport and happens to have his sticks with him. A quick play of "Ditty" on the ticket counter earns him a sponsorship, a chance to succeed, a college scholarship. These are the types of things that sell in reality shows. It's not taking advantage of the kids, it's showcasing their personal stories. Get that story out on the air or on the internet and you'll show kids that they should try; work hard and try. That's the drama. This is a key component of my disagreement with the G7 concept, where only the top-finishers get financial support. In such a production it's in the best interest of DCI to promote even startups because the drama of the activity is the same (and arguably even more-so) in a struggling/new/re-emerging corps as there is in the top seven finishers. When you get beyond the on-field product and, instead, focus on the lives of the kids, staff, management, volunteers - heck, even the starry-eyed age out who experiences the trials and tribulations of starting a corps - there's as much to sell in the bottom five as there is in the top five. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) <snipped rest as this gets to heart of my response> When you get beyond the on-field product and, instead, focus on the lives of the kids, staff, management, volunteers - heck, even the starry-eyed age out who experiences the trials and tribulations of starting a corps - there's as much to sell in the bottom five as there is in the top five. IMO, this goes against what Daniel says with the board should concentrate the business aspect and generating cash. I don't see anything about the members, other humans or even the corps in "business aspect/cash". And for clarification when I think of business models the human side is down the list of priorities unless it affects something more important (like the bottom line - $$$). I wouldn't say it's an either/or, more like all one (business/cash) and nothing on the other (what you posted about). Unless what you described is a happy unmentioned by product.... Edited November 28, 2011 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Frankly, I think this conversation has hit a threshold. So what are you waiting for? Go create the organization you envision. Why are you even wasting wind on talk of reorganizing DCI? You've already presented your case for why: - there needs to be a separate for-profit org focused on generating $$, which would then go to DCI - a BOD of outside people is required to run this revenue-generating machine Just do it. Don't fret over reorganizing DCI....you will be fighting over pennies with people who formed an organization precisely to give themselves self-governance, and thus are never going to relinquish that role. It is not quite as simple as that. Maybe in a year or two I might move my ### on a few thoughts I've had in my head of ways to more directly support. Regarding fighting over pennies.... people are less focused on pennies with dollars in their pocket. Focus should be on getting dollars in their pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The entire free world is run by people with split loyalties. People representing political parties, corporations, unions or yes, even drum corps, carry their respective organizations' agendas (and their own self-interest) into the boardroom. Yet, there is still some constructive leadership coming from these situations....especially when those people can be shown how voting for the better interest of the group is also in their own best interest. The entire free world is run by people with a single loyalty - cash. The only difference is the horse they ride to get it. My whole point here is that DCI is distracted by all kinds of things that do not impact revenues... taking attention away from cash generation... which is only thing that is make or break for the activity as a whole. More specifically.. if it is not connected with making money or operational efficiency... get it off the board's plate. Any issue addressed by the board that isn't related to either of these points is costing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The entire free world is run by people with a single loyalty - cash. The only difference is the horse they ride to get it. My whole point here is that DCI is distracted by all kinds of things that do not impact revenues... taking attention away from cash generation... which is only thing that is make or break for the activity as a whole. More specifically.. if it is not connected with making money or operational efficiency... get it off the board's plate. Any issue addressed by the board that isn't related to either of these points is costing money. you're right. focusing on kids safety, entertaining the fans, putting out a good product...none of that means #### Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 you're right. focusing on kids safety, entertaining the fans, putting out a good product...none of that means #### With more cash... you can do a lot better on those points. If you focus first on those points, you're going to have less cash to be able to do it. Money solves a hell of a lot of problems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 you're right. focusing on kids safety, entertaining the fans, putting out a good product...none of that means #### This brings up a good question, Dan. What activities that DCI is now involved in would you remove from their responsibilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The entire free world is run by people with a single loyalty - cash. The only difference is the horse they ride to get it. If that was true, there would be no such thing as drum corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts