How can smaller DCI corps survive?

[Stu]

Why is that the best long term plan? Hopkins & Gibbs were very clear about what they wanted and made not-so-thinly-veiled threats to leave if they didn't get it. They didn't get it. If you were ED or a fellow director, what would that lead you to conclude about their probable future actions?

If I were in Dan's shoes, I'd work under the assumption that some of the top corps won't participate for much longer and figure out a plan to survive without them. I'd also have some quiet talks with the leadership of the other G7 corps - I'd bet that not all of them see the G7 vision as the best future for their organizations. If Hopkins & Gibbs decide to come back to the table, awesome. If not, well, that's why you made a plan.

There is a "misconception" about the kind of decisions Dan can and cannot make. Dan, God bless him, is doing the best he, or anyone else, can as the Director of DCI. Most corporations have a CEO who has the stand-alone buck-stops-here decision authority. The board of a typical corporation stays out of those tough decisions; and as long as the CEO runs the corporation in a legal, ethical, and profitable manner the CEO has full control of major decisions. If the CEO of a typical corporation runs the corporation aground, the Board then fires that person and hires someone else to make those major command pronouncement directives. DCI, however, is a way, way, way different animal. Dan can only manage what the board says to manage; Dan can only steer the ship in the direction, and in the manner, in which the board says to steer; while he can make some minor decisions within those parameters, he cannot make command pronouncements like CEO's of other corporations; the Board of DCI makes those command pronouncement decisions in DCI.

[ShortAndFast]

There is a "misconception" about the kind of decisions Dan can and cannot make. Dan, God bless him, is doing the best he, or anyone else, can as the Director of DCI. Most corporations have a CEO who has the stand-alone buck-stops-here decision authority. The board of a typical corporation stays out of those tough decisions; and as long as the CEO runs the corporation in a legal, ethical, and profitable manner the CEO has full control of major decisions. If the CEO of a typical corporation runs the corporation aground, the Board then fires that person and hires someone else to make those major command pronouncement directives. DCI, however, is a way, way, way different animal. Dan can only manage what the board says to manage; Dan can only steer the ship in the direction, and in the manner, in which the board says to steer; while he can make some minor decisions within those parameters, he cannot make command pronouncements like CEO's of other corporations; the Board of DCI makes those command pronouncement decisions in DCI.

OK, feel free to replace what I said with "Dan and the current Board of Directors". Changes nothing about the analysis of what they should do.

[garfield]

Appears the thread might be renamed "small corps are doomed by the greed of the evil empire...a discussion of the G7"

I don't think there would be anything wrong with asking the directors of the G7:

Do you feel that the original premise of the proposal, to reduce the DCI administration budget in order to return more money to the member corps, and to build a $500,000 reserve in DCI in 5 years, is becoming a reality as we move through the 2nd season of the TOC show model?

In the original proposal it was mentioned that a net of $100,000 could be expected from a TOC event in Texas. Has the net profit from these TOC shows been as expected?

The original proposal mentioned the idea of increases in show appearance money of 25% for the "AA" (non-TOC)"National Touring" corps in non TOC shows. Have the non TOC corps gotten "healthier"? Have the TOC corps gotten "healthier" at a proportionate rate?

The original proposal listed Teal Sound as a "regional A corps" in the reclassification section. Do you think that if that had happened that their issues this year could have been avoided? How do you feel that the loss of Teal effects the G7 and DCI?

After asking DCI to "trim staff and operating costs", it would appear that little has been done to reduce the staff and operating budgets of the touring corps, particularly the G7. Judging by the equipment required, admin staffs, etc, it looks like the top corps are increasing expenses to operate. Is that true?

The original proposal cited the need for change to benefit financial stability of the ENTIRE collective and the activity. Have the changes over the last 2 seasons done that? What do we do to protect the smaller corps we have, and how can we add to the number of those corps. How can we help them assist members with financial limitations?

Are the boards and directors of the G7 still united, and do they still have the same unified vision?

Too many questions in one post, but isn't the root of each of these questions this:

Is there discussion going on? Is there unity of purpose? Is there negotiation, a plan, a way forward? Someone who's guiding the ship? Are they talking?

I can appreciate that many fans simply don't care about what we talk about on these boards, and it's probably rational to be thinking that the "Powers-that-be" feel it's OK to not show unity of the group or it's purpose. It's probably fair to say that most people don't care about such things so long as it looks likes everything's fine. The directors, DCI, a commission, a planning committee may all be thinking that the appearance is established by their shows. And, regardless, their busy putting on a season. So there's little effort to show unity except to those of us on this little board to happen to have been paying attention in May of 2010, and have read the history, and can see where the trajectory is heading. And also develop the tin-foil-hat speculation that, although it's obvious doesn't matter, somehow stopped the G7 thing dead in its tracks. When the light snapped on the directors scattered to their protective corners.

The problem is that they've not come back in a meaningful way. Sure, we got the TOC but we don't know if that was a simple ultimatum or a gesture of solidarity. But since then we've got bupkis. No singing Kumbaya, No statement of mission, no alternate plan for the long-term health, no public announcements at all. There's probably bliss is the casual fan's viewpoint of ignorance; maybe DCI and those fans want it that way.

It took Dan and a few directors just days to issue their opinions during the G7 fiasco, why so silent since?

Wouldn't it be nice that we have some show of solidarity? Some indication of working on a strategic plan forward from here?

I've always wondered: We hear that the directors don't read DCP. Look at the banners on this site - do you suppose the sponsors are aware of our tin-foil theories?

Wouldn't "the leadership" want a strong public face of solidarity for sponsor's benefit?

I just keep hearing here, and other places, different versions of "Where's the leadership?" and "Who's in charge?"

"Why are they arguing about what's going to be played at retreat?"

[garfield]

Why is that the best long term plan? Hopkins & Gibbs were very clear about what they wanted and made not-so-thinly-veiled threats to leave if they didn't get it. They didn't get it. If you were ED or a fellow director, what would that lead you to conclude about their probable future actions?

If I were in Dan's shoes, I'd work under the assumption that some of the top corps won't participate for much longer and figure out a plan to survive without them. I'd also have some quiet talks with the leadership of the other G7 corps - I'd bet that not all of them see the G7 vision as the best future for their organizations. If Hopkins & Gibbs decide to come back to the table, awesome. If not, well, that's why you made a plan.

This is a great post that's rational in its presumptions. Despite that, with the activity as small as it is, the damage of fracturing it further is factors greater than the risk of trying to find common ground to keep it together. To have any marketing power at all, there is strength in numbers, regardless of your position, and splintering a few corps off is way more expensive that either side expects to gain by fracturing.

If I were Dan, I'd find a way to lead the parties back to the table instead of alienating some under the assumption that they are a lost cause. Sure, plan for the worst, that's rational, but work hardest to prevent the worst from happening.

That's what I don't see going on.

"It's amazing what can be accomplished when it doesn't matter who gets the credit (sic: or the blame)."

If the position is: nothing else can be done, then I'd suggest creating solidarity around finding a leader who doesn't believe that nonsense.

[ShortAndFast]

This is a great post that's rational in its presumptions. Despite that, with the activity as small as it is, the damage of fracturing it further is factors greater than the risk of trying to find common ground to keep it together. To have any marketing power at all, there is strength in numbers, regardless of your position, and splintering a few corps off is way more expensive that either side expects to gain by fracturing.

If I were Dan, I'd find a way to lead the parties back to the table instead of alienating some under the assumption that they are a lost cause. Sure, plan for the worst, that's rational, but work hardest to prevent the worst from happening.

That's what I don't see going on.

"It's amazing what can be accomplished when it doesn't matter who gets the credit (sic: or the blame)."

If the position is: nothing else can be done, then I'd suggest creating solidarity around finding a leader who doesn't believe that nonsense.

I can see where you're coming from. If the rift was just personality conflicts, then I could see a leader getting the two parties back together. But I guess I believe that Hopkins & Gibbs were sincere in what they asked for - they had analyzed the strategic needs of their organizations and sincerely believed that their requests for political control, money & restructuring were legitimate and necessary. If that's true, then you'll need more than time & talk to change their minds - you'll have to change something material about their situation.

As in any disagreement, both sides have to consider their best alternative to a negotiated agreement. If the BATNA looks better than an agreement, then it's pretty unlikely that an agreement will be reached.

I interpret the BoD silence as waiting for the G7 to make the next move. In the meantime, they're happy to let the G7 keep performing and selling tickets.

[truman]

Can anyone tell me for sure what the final determination was for the TOC shows as far as revenue sharing? The proposal had the pot split 9 ways, 8 corps each getting one, and DCI getting one. It also had the G(8) running everything for these shows. DCI is still running the shows it would appear?

Anyone want to take an educated guess at the possible net for tonights show?

The other part of the original proposal that seems to be happening concerns "at least two TOC corps touring the West Coast early season".

Edited July 20, 2012 by truman

[27Socal]

Why is that the best long term plan? Hopkins & Gibbs were very clear about what they wanted and made not-so-thinly-veiled threats to leave if they didn't get it. They didn't get it. If you were ED or a fellow director, what would that lead you to conclude about their probable future actions?

If I were in Dan's shoes, I'd work under the assumption that some of the top corps won't participate for much longer and figure out a plan to survive without them. I'd also have some quiet talks with the leadership of the other G7 corps - I'd bet that not all of them see the G7 vision as the best future for their organizations. If Hopkins & Gibbs decide to come back to the table, awesome. If not, well, that's why you made a plan.

BINGO! All parties involved should use all info acquired from all sources to plan for the worst case in the future. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Edited July 20, 2012 by 27Socal

[garfield]

There is a "misconception" about the kind of decisions Dan can and cannot make. Dan, God bless him, is doing the best he, or anyone else, can as the Director of DCI. Most corporations have a CEO who has the stand-alone buck-stops-here decision authority. The board of a typical corporation stays out of those tough decisions; and as long as the CEO runs the corporation in a legal, ethical, and profitable manner the CEO has full control of major decisions. If the CEO of a typical corporation runs the corporation aground, the Board then fires that person and hires someone else to make those major command pronouncement directives. DCI, however, is a way, way, way different animal. Dan can only manage what the board says to manage; Dan can only steer the ship in the direction, and in the manner, in which the board says to steer; while he can make some minor decisions within those parameters, he cannot make command pronouncements like CEO's of other corporations; the Board of DCI makes those command pronouncement decisions in DCI.

I think you should copy this post intact and start a new thread.

BTW, I disagree.

[Stu]

I think you should copy this post intact and start a new thread.

BTW, I disagree.

So, when you say you disagree, it is your contention that Dan can actually make pronouncements such as, "That is enough. G7 corps directors you are levied huge fines and penalties for placing the DCI touring system in a position of financial collapse"; or "That is enough. G7 corps directors you are hereby on suspension. I do not want you to financially collapse DCI so you can sit out a few shows and think about what you want to do"; or "That is enough. There will be, from this point forward, at least two Open Class corps included in every local show provided that the Open Class corps expresses a desire to be included in that show". CEO's of other corporations can make those 'types' of pronouncements, but are you saying that you disagree and that Dan actually has that authority?

Edited July 21, 2012 by Stu

[audiodb]

This may actually be the looniest post I have ever seen on DCP.

Slipped? Ehhhh... possible (maybe in a rant of anger or slightly tipsy).

When was the last time you saw....no, this doesn't even deserve to be phrased as a question. I see these corps directors coming in/going out with their corps at shows all the time. And in over 20 years, I have never seen a single one of them "in a rant of anger" or the least bit "tipsy" at such a time and place.

But what I just thought of, just now as I was typing, is that a few of these guys are rather shrewd, and they might say something like that to a casual fan to test the waters on the blogs because they would know a person who heard such a thing would not keep it quiet.

So how does that work?

"Hey George, I got an idea! Let's go down to the field tonight and start talking about pulling our corps out of DCI, real loud, so that people overhear us."

"Dave, that's a dumb idea. You want to get booed like I did at the Rose Bowl?"

"George, you said you wanted to test the waters. You said this whole G7 deal is off unless those five people bantering on Drum Corps Planet like it now."

"So?"

"So we blab this in front of a blogger."

"And how do you know who's a blogger, Dave?"

"That's easy. They're the ones with those DCP headsets, y'know, that cup the ears and make everything louder."

"Oh, yeah. YEA!"

"We'll say we have eight corps ready to split, maybe nine now."

"Got it!"

Seriously....we all know that seven corps threatened to leave DCI just a couple of years ago....therefore, a split is still a possibility, generally speaking. But just because some anonymous DCPer thinks he heard someone that might (or might not) be a corps director say something about corps leaving DCI as if it is still a plan (or maybe he didn't hear the past tense) is no reason to proclaim that the sky is falling.

Besides, the sky cannot fall now. We're in the Alamodome tomorrow.