Pete Freedman Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. You're implying that you can pick one corps that's struggling and divvy up its members among other struggling members. That would require a top-led control over those lower corps very existence. If you're just arguing that it's not so bad when a corp fails, because the members will still march in other corps, then you have a good point that the total number of marchers doesn't necessarily change just because the number of corps changes. But it still sounds like this is all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The root problem is not enough marchers in the activity, because (I believe) of a lack of public visibility of the activity, compared to decades past. This is in turn due to the loss of the small community-based drum corps. How you divide up the remaining marchers won't be the factor that determines the fate of the activity. It's what percentage of the 300 million population can, for example, name a drum corps. What the activity does about that will indeed determine the fate of the activity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Detweiler Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 You're implying that you can pick one corps that's struggling and divvy up its members among other struggling members. That would require a top-led control over those lower corps very existence. If you're just arguing that it's not so bad when a corp fails, because the members will still march in other corps, then you have a good point that the total number of marchers doesn't necessarily change just because the number of corps changes. But it still sounds like this is all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The root problem is not enough marchers in the activity, because (I believe) of a lack of public visibility of the activity, compared to decades past. This is in turn due to the loss of the small community-based drum corps. How you divide up the remaining marchers won't be the factor that determines the fate of the activity. It's what percentage of the 300 million population can, for example, name a drum corps. What the activity does about that will indeed determine the fate of the activity. Not sure about that. As I understand it, Spirit, which is a bottom of the finals list corps, has 850 people registered to audition. I don't think numbers is the problem. I think quality breeds quantity. If people feel like their experience will be a positive one and evidence proves that this is the case, people will come out. Sure seems that way for Spirit at least. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. No, I didn't say any such thing. This topic isn't about the kids or the experience. It's about finances. That's what we're talking about. It's what I was talking about. Like it or not, there is substantial correlation between performance success and financial success. The corps scoring highest tend not to fail financially. Meanwhile, the ones who struggle to break 50 in mid-July seem most likely to break the budget. The reasons why are complicated. The outcomes aren't automatic. The truth is undeniable. As for expectations, that is part of the equation, I'm sure - though not as you say. The score might not dilute the experiences. However, the expectations members increasingly bring to the experience might make it more difficult for low-scoring corps to recruit and thus survive. You can't have the experience if you don't march. The problem with scoring in the 40s is prospective members can anticipate the score long before they can imagine the experience. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Like it or not, there is substantial correlation between performance success and financial success. The corps scoring highest tend not to fail financially. Meanwhile, the ones who struggle to break 50 in mid-July seem most likely to break the budget. The reasons why are complicated. The outcomes aren't automatic. The truth is undeniable. HH Would you make the same contention if appearance fees and DCI payout to corps was flat across the board? In a system designed by the victors it's not hard to see why the victors claim the biggest prizes. Study the 990's of the "successful" corps and you'll see that most would not survive without their DCI payouts (to which they feel entitled because they are the only corps that draw fans). Take away the DCI contribution to any "performance-successful" corps and you'll see their balance sheets turn substantially red. In many ways, including financially, corps that survive in the lower placements are more self-sufficient than the "top" corps. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmhurstmusiced Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Here's a thought... Why so many people on the staff's of some of these corps. Now granted not all make the same money, some do it for free, I'm sure they all have different levels of pay, but let's take a look. Spirit-I counted over 40 on the 2012 staff Madison-59 if you count all designers, staff, and consultants Blue Devils-43 if I counted correctly SCV-I believe 49. Some of these corps have 10-15 people just working percussion. You mean to tell me that there are that many people needed to teach these kids to march, play, spin or do whatever they do. I mean, I know they can't all be on tour at the same time, but it wasn't that long ago when most corps had a staff of half. and the crazy part is that there are only 22 more eligible spots in corps now compared to 10-15 years ago. I don't get it. I also think part of the problem is the jump to 150 members. It leaves less kids for other corps which means less corps, less dues in many corps. It also means more buses. The 128 model was designed to get all members on 3 buses. Now we have 4-6 buses, 2-3 semi-trucks. Maybe go back and rethink the sizes of corps and staff's. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Like it or not, there is substantial correlation between performance success and financial success. Correlation? DCI pays the top corps more. That is not correlation - it is causation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 You're implying that you can pick one corps that's struggling and divvy up its members among other struggling members. That would require a top-led control over those lower corps very existence. If you're just arguing that it's not so bad when a corp fails, because the members will still march in other corps, then you have a good point that the total number of marchers doesn't necessarily change just because the number of corps changes. But it still sounds like this is all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The root problem is not enough marchers in the activity, because (I believe) of a lack of public visibility of the activity, compared to decades past. This is in turn due to the loss of the small community-based drum corps. How you divide up the remaining marchers won't be the factor that determines the fate of the activity. It's what percentage of the 300 million population can, for example, name a drum corps. What the activity does about that will indeed determine the fate of the activity. Alright. I'm fitting this in between bursts of actual productivity at my real job. So the example isn't perfect. But what about the central point? "Doomed" corps consume resources that might be better applied to other more sustainable corps. Donations are the most obvious example. Aren't we better off donating to fiscally sound corps than financially doomed ones? Aren't we better off placing half the members at corps that will tour for 20 or more years than make them alums of ones that won't put a single bus on the road two years hence? Isn't the activity made more healthy by dividing performance fees among the corps who will be here to collect them again in five years? HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Would you make the same contention if appearance fees and DCI payout to corps was flat across the board? In a system designed by the victors it's not hard to see why the victors claim the biggest prizes. Study the 990's of the "successful" corps and you'll see that most would not survive without their DCI payouts (to which they feel entitled because they are the only corps that draw fans). Take away the DCI contribution to any "performance-successful" corps and you'll see their balance sheets turn substantially red. In many ways, including financially, corps that survive in the lower placements are more self-sufficient than the "top" corps. Maybe you'll explain this? I'm sorry, I thought the payouts were flat (or mostly so). HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 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. There is no way to quantify the impact Capital Regiment, or any single corps, had on ticket sales, DVDs, or any other product of the DCI environment. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 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. Unless the other 20 corps were also headquartered in Columbus, and they had openings for all ten of those snare drummers rather than just the usual horn holes, I doubt that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Maybe you'll explain this? I'm sorry, I thought the payouts were flat (or mostly so). No. There are two types of payments corps receive from DCI. Appearance fees, paid during the season, are level for world class corps. Revenue sharing, paid to each member corps in a lump sum after the season, is heavily weighted by both current year placement and historical placements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.