How to Manage Financial Hardship

[soccerguy315]

I'm going to ask the unthinkable - not because I desire it but because I think we need to discuss it.

Are there too many corps? Without regard to any one corps, the question is whether the long-term health of the activity might be served better by fewer corps dividing bigger shares of a (more or less) stable pie of revenue and donations?

I know this is a difficult topic to broach. I know the reflex many of us have is to donate to a struggling corps in the hopes of "saving" it. But should we be discussing whether ultimately this activity can't support every corps and whether more corps would benefit if there were fewer corps?

HH - just asking, not saying

well, if you think there should be 7 corps, then there are some that agree with you...

would you find the summer as interesting if there were only 7 corps that performed at every show together? or they split up and did 3 and 4??

[JimF-LowBari]

well, if you think there should be 7 corps, then there are some that agree with you...

would you find the summer as interesting if there were only 7 corps that performed at every show together? or they split up and did 3 and 4??

Getting closer to my prediction of 10 or 12 corps that travel in 2 packs of 5/6 corps each (sharing travel eqipment). Then at the half way point there is a "Regional" where all 10/12 compete then the corps are shuffled into 2 new groups to finish touring. Then all 10/12 at the end for a big ###ed Finals night.

So how many shows a season does that work out to and how many MMs? So much better... eh?

Edited October 24, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[Pete Freedman]

I suspect the activity's biggest problem over the years is a subtle decrease in public awareness (it wasn't much, but now it's none, and that's actually a big difference). Talk to any old timer, and they will probably have heard of drum corps, and can name one that was in their area. Ask a 20-something and you'll get a blank stare. They have heard that drum and bugle corps exist, but that's all. No brand recognition for the activity anymore, let alone enthusiasm.

That's what leads to kids willing to spend $2000 to tour, which is what corps need to go on the road. Lack of popularity leads to a lack of new blood, which leads to insufficient members and money per corps, which leads to corps folding.

In part it was all the small local corps that created the enthusiasm in which far more people were aware of the activity. Just plain folks. Not 'drum corps people'. And a small percentage of them ended up in a corps. But that's gone.

I'm amazed that today's members even found out about drum corps. I suspect most of them see the broadcast on ESPN and get the bug that way, or get dragged to a contest by a friend. It doesn't take much - drum corps pretty much sells itself!

Come to think of it, many of them nowadays might be turned on to drum corps by their band teachers.

These are fine things, but notice what's lacking; real awareness by the general public of the activity. Find a way to fix that and you'll be back to 100 touring corps and more regional ones.

[Pete Freedman]

Just for consideration, DCI in the last decade *did* shorten the tour by 3 weeks (2 in June, 1 in August). No new shows popped up, and no corps started looking for replacement gigs.

Mike

Whoa, data! That's not fair!

It's interesting that if a corps does a shortened tour on it's own, the members aren't willing to pay the same amount (which means it's not worth it, according to Paul Milano's post), but if all of DCI shortens the tour, the members are apparently willing to pay. In other words, members aren't willing to get a shorter tour than other corps, but as long as their tour is the same length (approximately) as everybody else's (in other words, as long as they are getting the full drum corps experience) then all is well. This actually makes a lot of sense.

This argues for shortening the tour during tough times like these. But, as is so often said, the decisions are made by the top corps - those who generally can make it through the tough times.

[glory]

well, if you think there should be 7 corps, then there are some that agree with you...

would you find the summer as interesting if there were only 7 corps that performed at every show together? or they split up and did 3 and 4??

I understand why you're asking about seven corps. You'll pardon me, but it's the wrong question.

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?

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.

I'm not referring to any drum corps specifically in this discussion. And I readily admit that some corps we consider successful today were on the edge of the financial abyss previously. So there's not necessarily science here. There is, however, some logic. At least I think there is. Concentrating our resources can't be wrong. Or can it?

HH

[JimF-LowBari]

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?

Only want to respond to this part with a general question. If a corps folds and if additional money goes to other corsp because of that, where does that additional money come from? I can see people who give to any corps might change from a folded corps to another but can't see any Alumni money coming in as it's not "their corps".

I see full membership is referenced, are not the top corps already getting more people at try outs than needed? So how would more people at try outs help?

[frachel]

well, if you think there should be 7 corps, then there are some that agree with you...

would you find the summer as interesting if there were only 7 corps that performed at every show together? or they split up and did 3 and 4??

I think to a lot of people this would be somewhat invisible. There are a lot of fans out there that don't read DCP, check don't scores daily or follow the "season". They go to one or maybe two shows a year that they can get to without crazy travel for the entertainment (not to support a youth activity or any other altruistic reason, just for entertainment) and I think that yes, they'd probably like the 7 best corps since they're only going to see them once or twice.

[garfield]

I understand why you're asking about seven corps. You'll pardon me, but it's the wrong question.

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?

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.

I'm not referring to any drum corps specifically in this discussion. And I readily admit that some corps we consider successful today were on the edge of the financial abyss previously. So there's not necessarily science here. There is, however, some logic. At least I think there is. Concentrating our resources can't be wrong. Or can it?

HH

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.

Edited October 25, 2012 by garfield

[craiga]

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 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.

[kickhaltsforlife]

Another corps people might look at as an example is the Crossmen under Fred Morrison. The Crossmen under YEA! were NOT in good shape... that's why Hopkins was looking to sell or fold. Fold was not an option... or he might not be alive right now (have you met some of the alumni???)

But the Crossmen had help during the transition period in 07, but Fred and team took over business operations after the 2007 season. And I'm not 100% on their financials, but I'm pretty sure they are solid for the future.

Fred isn't a "drum corps" guy. He is a business guy. The first 4 years he had nothing really to do with any of the performance aspect of the organization except for teaming up with Mark Chambers and then having him assemble a staff. When Mark resigned after 2010 I'm pretty sure that was the only time he had to make a decision on some key staff positions. And he made some great informed decisions!

Other than that he secures some great sponsorships for the corps, gets a good deal on busses because the corps advertises who they ride very well. They also took from BD and they do various small group performances for corporate and other miscellaneous events during the off season. They do an experience camp at the end of spring training and then have a preview show that I'm pretty sure you can buy tickets to... and it is usually a very decent crowd (better than some actual tour events over the summer). And Fred is very conscious of every penny spent. Not to mention that they have a great alumni group, that can be even stronger if more alumni keep coming out of the woodworks as they become more competitive again. Also souvie sales are doing a lot better since they have a lot more fan friendly sales.

These are just things I can see that contribute to a good business model for a corps. I'm sure there are plenty more things behind the scenes that Fred and team do to keep the corps in good financial shape.

Maybe instead of the G7 trying to split from DCI... maybe they should help out the corps that are struggling financially by giving them business advice... granted some of the G7 might not be the best to get business advice from. But now is the time for the corps to work together! I'm not saying share money or any crap like that.. but HELP EACH OTHER. Share information. Give advice, TAKE ADVICE. Make smart decisions.

Instead of debating whether to split or not a DCI meetings we should be talking about making the whole activity stronger as whole. That means DCI and DCA. How can we all help each other out. Not how can "WE" (G7) make more money.

OH BTW... I wouldn't be surprised if Jersey Surf probably made more money in souvies this year than some top 12 corps. At least from quite a few corps above them. I know I saw quite a lot Surf and Xmen gear in the stands at the shows I was at.