How to Manage Financial Hardship

[JimF-LowBari]

I am confused by this post...the current DCI BOD is NOT comprised of those directors who were behind the G7 movement. Quite the opposite.

I also do not understand some people's viewpoint that the DCI touring schedule is causing corps to fold. I was marching/teaching in the 80's, when mathematically speaking, the majority of drum corps folded. In those days, with the exception of the West Coast corps, they were NOT 60 days tours. In fact, there was a Tour A and Tour B, both of which were about two weeks in duration----end of June into July and the first two weeks of August.....AND, corps were dropping left and right.

Most drum corps who have folded ended up that way due to mismanagement....including a couple HUNDRED corps in the 70's/80's who NEVER went on a DCI tour.

I would be the last person to suggest that tours these days aren't expensive, but everything is relative and if your organization is being poorly managed, it in disingenuous to suggest that the current DCI touring model the the sole cause.

What I am suggesting is that costs are continuing to go up and corps are getting to the point where they can't raise enough revenue for the increased costs (some corps earlier than others). If anyone considers that bad management that's their opinion but I feel the revenue bucket is not bottomless.

As for bad management BITD, I was around in the 70s to see a bunch of Sr corps fold and no idea how good their management was. But during my time gas tripled and the economy went in the toilet in a lot of blue collar (and some white collar) places. Corps had costs that couldn't be matched by revenue which in some hard hit local places was actually shrinking. Also people found it harder to be with or help with a corps as they were leaving the area or working/working weekends to help the struggling family. If someone wants to tell me how that was bad management, I'm all ears....

Edited October 25, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[garfield]

I am confused by this post...the current DCI BOD is NOT comprised of those directors who were behind the G7 movement. Quite the opposite.

No reason to be confused if you'll just look at the dynamics of the situation. The G7 is alive and well, and view themselves as the only corps in the activity worth supporting. With that view they want all of DCI's profits split among only themselves. This is not new news.

While I understand that those corps are not the ones represented on the BOD, I think it's misguided to think that the G7 is powerless in the boardroom. The G7 have exerted their muscle time and time again, crafting plan after plan for DCI that benefits themselves the most even while working closely with the BOD (A&E, Bb, member count); each nudge sold as being the savior for the overall activity while each put greater and greater stress on the balance sheets of every corps. They have established their own 501c3 in CA, they continue to threaten to bolt from the activity and run their own tour to draw fan income away from the other corps, and they hold this axe over the necks of the DCI BOD at every turn, creating a divide in the DCI "fraternity". Their power is significant and to dismiss them for not being on the DCI board only enflames their threat to cut away from the activity. The current BOD can only say No for so long before the G7 act on their threats and splinter the revenue stream from DCI.

Whether they are, in fact, the only draw to shows - a strongly debatable point - their exit from DCI would splinter the activity and cause both pieces (IMO) to be weaker. In sports, having divisions is not destructive because all division play the game the same way. The divisions actually strengthen the activity because it spreads the fan base geographically and grows attendance of the overall activity. But imagine the American League ball teams playing the game with tarred bats, oversize gloves, and 12 players per team on the field (for example) when the NL plays the game they do today. Revenue would be divided, fans would gravitate to one version of the game or another, strengths would develop and the version that suffers attendance would soon die away, leaving only one division with a great portion of the fan base not able to get to a game because of geographic limitations.

If the G7 had as their platform a promise to use their strength to help grow the overall activity by building and supporting weaker programs it would be viable. But along with that promise must be the recognition that the strongest corps now get the largest piece of the revenue pie, and a further promise to use some of that revenue to bolster the overall health of the activity. I've not seen any such promises from the G7. Their retort that, if non-G7 corps would simply run their businesses like the G7 does, they'd thrive ignores the fact that those same G7 corps pull out the lions share of the revenue leaving little else for other, growing corps.

Edited October 25, 2012 by garfield

[IllianaLancerContra]

DCM was just a regional association, but the rules and format were exactly the same as DCI. That's not what I'm talking about. Tiny corps had to compete with Cavaliers and PR and Star, etc, and that type of comparison and competitive environment does those small corps no favors, since the kids in them eventually start feeling like they're peeing into the wind.

I'm talking about a totally new animal using the same tools as the current format, but geared toward corps who only want to field 20 horns but perform at the same performance levels as the big dogs in WC. A much smaller physical space, more creative use of instrumentation, different time limits, and a judging system that rewards execution and audience connection first and foremost.

Rules were not the same as DCI. All corps were on the same sheets, for one thing. We never felt like we were "peeing into the wind". That type of attitude was not allowed - at least not in my corps. And it was pretty cool when article in DC World said we out-performed Phantom Regiment. Not to mention the 'contests within a contests' where like-sized groups went head to head.

[cixelsyd]

The right question is this: If there are around two dozen world class corps today, of which three or four are on their last dollar, does it make sense to keep those ailing corps afloat for an extra year or two with donations, etc., only to seen them collapse soon enough? Or would it make better sense to focus all the resources on a few fewer corps (still more than 20) who by virtue full membership, more parents and friends and (we hope) more donations could provide more to all stakeholders, including fans?

Seems like a silly question, when there are another 20 corps participating in DCI (open class) that are omitted from your consideration.

If this were a business, it wouldn't (shouldn't) tolerate units that can't perform to the standard of the organization. It would (should) have the discipline to extract itself from areas where the problems are insurmountable because it's in the best interest of the organization as a whole to maintain its standards and promote health and success.

Okay. The standards of the organization (world class) are to meet certain financial and organizational evaluation criteria, field at least 30 members, and compete at championship week. Since the latter two are already being enforced, you must be suggesting that DCI deal with the first one by evaluating all world class corps instead of just the new ones.

So which resources would you withdraw from the corps that do not pass this evaluation? Appearance fees? Revenue sharing? Access to future shows?

[cixelsyd]

While I understand that those corps are not the ones represented on the BOD, I think it's misguided to think that the G7 is powerless in the boardroom. The G7 have exerted their muscle time and time again, crafting plan after plan for DCI that benefits themselves the most even while working closely with the BOD (A&E, Bb, member count); each nudge sold as being the savior for the overall activity while each put greater and greater stress on the balance sheets of every corps. They have established their own 501c3 in CA

WHAT?

[Daave]

WHAT?

http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Concord/music-in-motion-performing-arts-inc/107442465.aspx

[MikeN]

"Music in Motion" is actually a pretty good name.

Mike

[ChiBoyinLA]

Take a look as I did at the DCM prelims scores from 1995, a year I picked at random. Of 32 corps scored that day, 14 July, only 11 earned more than 50 points. Half of the 32 couldn't reach 40.

And DCI killed DCM? I say mediocrity killed DCM - mediocrity among the demographic and social shifts that made participants and audiences raise their expectations. DCI just fulfilled the expectations the bulk of DCM corps couldn't.

You can't just resurrect something that didn't work because you liked it.

So you're saying that the scores given by nine judges are the principal determinant of whether the drum corps experience is worthwhile to kids? Wow.

Maybe this sort of emphasis upon scores and competitive placement have more to do with the decline of smaller corps than any other factor.

The "expectations" that should be raised are that doing drum corps is a super fun way to spend a summer, that will make you a better performer and lead to the creation of lifelong friendships. Most corps historically have met those expectations, regardless of the numbers they get assigned on a sheet.

[glory]

I get your point, H, but I think the comparison to a corporation jettisoning failing divisions is off the mark. Likely, a corporation will use the saved funds to bolster its bottom line (as you suggest DCI would do), but a corporation would then refocus on buying or developing other business lines to diversify its income stream. DCI won't do that because THIS entity - DCI - is not in the business of creating corps, or growing them for that matter. According to the G7 principles, in fact, it's exactly the opposite.

In the real world your very viable corporate solution would eventually shrink the "business lines" down to the strongest producers, dividing a shrinking income pie among fewer and fewer, jettisoning the weakest pieces as they fail, re-focusing the remaining income among the remainders, losing share, diminishing income, over and over and over until there's nothing left.

This is exactly what the G7 have in mind, and it's a failed plan because they are not addressing the business of growing the activity. They are only focused on saving themselves and buying time. A formal corporation's BOD would slash and replace an executive team that acted in such a short-sighted manner.

Only if DCI's BOD were replaced with outside directors would your analogy have merit and be a reasonable approach. Short of replacing the BOD, allowing the weakest to die one at a time is only death by 1000 (or, now 40) cuts.

I can't argue with most of this except to say my emphasis was directed less at DCI than at everyone else.

For the sake of discussion, let's use an extinct corps as an example. Before Capital Regiment succumbed to an empty bank account, it collected tour fees, souvenir sales and performance payments during tour. I'm willing to bet the total of those exceeded by a large margin the impact Capital Regiment had on sales of tickets, DVDs, etc.

Now I get the point that Capital Regiment accounted for more than 100 members and their parents and friends, etc. in its final tour. My point is most of them, along with the revenue and donations they represent, could have been absorbed into the holes that existed in 20 other corps, thus preserving much of that financial impact. Was there a home show or two that drew big crowds? I don't know. What I would say is a show with five or six top corps in any single geography is a better draw than that same show with a higher percentage of struggling corps.

Of course I'd prefer three dozen healthy corps. It just doesn't feel as if that's an option today.

HH

[Pete Freedman]

Most corps historically have met those expectations, regardless of the numbers they get assigned on a sheet.

I agree. Of course people want to be on a top team, given the choice. But they also know their own skill level, so they're fairly realistic. I doubt very much the members of those sub-50 corps complained about it. Based on their skill levels, they knew that's what they were getting into. Indeed, most of those corps that disappeared in the 80s were of this type, or lower. They were still an awesome experience that drove the popularity of the activity as a whole.

Of the two corps I was in, one consistently scored 30s and 40s. And that was in the Garden State Circuit. The other couldn't get to that level. In that corps we dreamed of one day doing an "M&M show". We competed in winter standstills (American Heritage Circuit, anybody?). And we got low scores there! Who cares? We played "To Dream The Impossible Dream" and our moms cheered.

We had a ball in both those corps. Drum corps was still awesome. In fact, drum corps needs that back again. Here's to mediocre drum corps!