garfield Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Interesting. However, none of the G7 believed that their brand was strong enough to ween themselves off of the DCI financial mammary gland and go out on their own; they instead decided to put forth a proposal which would kick most others off that gland and use it all for themselves. Why, then, would those corps now be willing to go along with your vision? "Benevolent Dictator" Corps no longer make the rules regarding funding because DCI is funding itself apart from the corps. As Daniel said many pages ago, when DCI is generating revenue outside the industry they have the right to determine how that funding is used, and the corps have no claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) While I am a private entity free-market capitalist, I am not against organizations which freely choose to exist within their own 501c3 social network. The key here is Freedom not Compulsion; in your vision, struggling or start-up corps would be free to choose to abide by the social pool or attempt to go at it alone. And if they chose the pool, they would be encouraged to develop ways to get out of the pool. Please expand more on your vision! More than encouraged, a defined, repeatable, and measurable model would be used to grow each corps. To be on the DCI teet requires advancement along a minimum-defined line and, if advancement does not continue along that line, corps risk losing DCI funding in favor of those who do progress. Ideally, all established and self-funding corps are non-members and either receive little funding from DCI or pay DCI for the brand dependent on their balance sheet success. The only member corps (ideally) on the DCI teet are those in development or growing towards independence. DCI is then in the position of offering their services and brand to the uber-successful corps. The brand provides the platform for non-members to perform/compete against like corps yet, if they want to receive DCI largess, they must agree to funding the development of more immature corps (their future competition). DCI has a successful brand and formula for tour management. We've discussed offering that expertise outside of drum corps. This model turns that expertise inward and provides that same service to the corps at declining levels as they grow, and at a fee if the want to use the DCI brand asset to market/display themselves. DCI also provides the benefits of leveraged assets such as food, fuel, housing, etc. The most immature corps get the biggest benefit of that leverage, while more successful corps get less gratis support even while they are offered the benefits of the leverage. In the end, DCI is an incubator, not a perpetual teet dominated by the "most-drawing" corps. Edited December 21, 2011 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 "Benevolent Dictator" Corps no longer make the rules regarding funding because DCI is funding itself apart from the corps. As Daniel said many pages ago, when DCI is generating revenue outside the industry they have the right to determine how that funding is used, and the corps have no claim. What you are proposing sounds like the *reverse* of the G7 proposal. While they were proposing to completely do away with all DCI financial support for the small or up-start corps and direct all DCI financial support to themselves, what you are proposing would be to remove the G7 (or those in their caliber) out of the DCI financial pool (because they are financially self-reliant) and direct DCI financial support to the pool of smaller or up-start corps. This is a very interesting proposal because it does encourage growth into financial independence. Ahhh, but then we are just discussing a theoretical are we not? I mean the current structure would not allow for this vision to transpire; and I do not see the current voting body or board members to relinquish all of their current power to restructure in such a manner. So, how do you propose to overcome that obstacle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 What you are proposing sounds like the *reverse* of the G7 proposal. While they were proposing to completely do away with all DCI financial support for the small or up-start corps and direct all DCI financial support to themselves, what you are proposing would be to remove the G7 (or those in their caliber) out of the DCI financial pool (because they are financially self-reliant) and direct DCI financial support to the pool of smaller or up-start corps. This is a very interesting proposal because it does encourage growth into financial independence. Ahhh, but then we are just discussing a theoretical are we not? I mean the current structure would not allow for this vision to transpire; and I do not see the current voting body or board members to relinquish all of their current power to restructure in such a manner. So, how do you propose to overcome that obstacle? EXACTLY! Danielray is NOT arguing the G7 angle as you have suggested repeatedly. Glad you've come to realize this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 In the end, DCI is an incubator, not a perpetual teet dominated by the "most-drawing" corps. DCI is already a very respected and viable entity which has the credibility to become a successful incubator; and I really like that idea. However, playing devils advocate here, what if DCI did become the venue solely for the G7 type caliber corps which would then place organizations like SDCA or DCNA into the role of becoming incubators. How would those organizations gain enough viability, credibility, and financial stability apart from the DCI connection/support to be those incubators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 What you are proposing sounds like the *reverse* of the G7 proposal. While they were proposing to completely do away with all DCI financial support for the small or up-start corps and direct all DCI financial support to themselves, what you are proposing would be to remove the G7 (or those in their caliber) out of the DCI financial pool (because they are financially self-reliant) and direct DCI financial support to the pool of smaller or up-start corps. This is a very interesting proposal because it does encourage growth into financial independence. Ahhh, but then we are just discussing a theoretical are we not? I mean the current structure would not allow for this vision to transpire; and I do not see the current voting body or board members to relinquish all of their current power to restructure in such a manner. So, how do you propose to overcome that obstacle? However, you've clearly not been reading at all. I've BARELY been reading and it's clear that what you're suggesting isn't anything like what is being discussed. Daniel wants start-up, lower-tier corps to do their own thing while DCI markets the cream of the crop. You're suggesting the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 EXACTLY! Danielray is NOT arguing the G7 angle as you have suggested repeatedly. Glad you've come to realize this! This vision for DCI to support the small corps was proposed by Garfield not Danielray!!! Danielray would still send most DCI financial support to the elite and stick a big rod into the you-know-what of the smaller or up-start corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm a Utah boy, after all. Heh, that's what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Daniel wants start-up, lower-tier corps to do their own thing while DCI markets the cream of the crop. You're suggesting the opposite. So, I have been reading it correctly. Danielray wants DCI to throw out the smaller corps just as the G7 proposed! Garfield, on the other hand, is attempting to propose weening the self-relent multi-million dollar corps such as the G7 off the DCI financial teet so that the smaller corps can have a way to grow and prosper within DCI. Edited December 21, 2011 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I don't understand your second sentence. A "good mix..." for what, would be what? And, in particular, forgetting WC for now, do you think this OC show, by itself, would be well attended and self-supporting? OC Finals isn't, so I don't know how any other OC show would be well attended.... Which is sad, but what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts