Side discussion re: Corps in Trouble

[garfield]

To me this is about trust, and the subsequent loss of that trust. So, If Mark Richardson of the Academy, or other corps directors of non-G7 financially sound corps want to help create a business model for DCI I am all in. However, unless Hopkins, Gibbs and the other G7 directors offer up a deep sincere public apology for wanting to kill off many corps they have lost my trust. And if they want to create another plan without that public apology I will have a single portion of the middle of my right hand I can show them.

Yea, I understand the sentiment, Stu, but let's be honest. The G-7 is the pimple on a sentiment that's been around for many years. It was an act of desperation. Those corps should gain no quarter for their hubris, but their exasperation is understandable even though its condemnable. They've been led down the path of supposed fixes just like the rest of us and, more than a decade later, the activity is no better off than when it was then. We all feel that strain.

It's their solution that I disagree with, strongly. In their last-ditch effort they made a grab for the spoils, while, at the same time, simply ignore the fact that it was their policies, as leaders of this activity, that got us to where we are.

Still, I do believe that all of the G7 directors, every single one, would like nothing better than to preserve their corps and the activity at the same time. They want the best, but were sold a bill of goods on how to attain it. They forgot the spirit of "fraternity" even as they battled to attain the phrase "It's not bragging if you can actually do it".

I was taught that everyone gets the benefit of the doubt the first time They had their first. The question is: where do we go from here? I see them arguing about TOC shows, the rep for the closing ceremonies, and next years' widget gadget.but I don't hear much discussion about the BUSINESS of drum corps.

If their main contention is that the "lesser" corps haven't done (refuse to do) what's necessary to grow, then they ought to demonstrate their belief in the "fraternity" by laying down exactly what needs done and how to do it. If they want to have the power to veto failing corps participation, they should formalize it and make it an annual audit. But to offer no plan for success, and then base success on ever-changing competitive placement, is foolish and a crappy path forward.

Ask the kids who marched Surf last year if Bob Jacobs is fulfilling his responsibility to provide "excellence". And I'm very sure Surf's merchandising machine ran circles around every other corps this year. But because they finished below 15, they arent "excellent"?

They say "No" while they insist that intellectualism is the only path forward and chastise his efforts at the same time.

[glory]

...Can a non-G7 implement a successful program for maintaining it's alum and donor bases? Sure. Can a non-G7 establish a presence that feeds it's membership? Sure, there's are schools and youth groups around every corps town. Can a non-G7 implement a merchandising program that emphasises attractive design and quality that prompts sales? ...

Crown and Bluecoats did in a manner of speaking. They weren't legacy top corps the way SCV, Phantom, Cadets, Cavies and BD were. So I'd say the answer is yes. You can establish a program of success that elevates you to top corps status. If those two could do it, why can't others?

I know you were referring primarily to business attributes. I don’t have much insight into the business of most corps. I can only say that generally success on the field reflects success elsewhere.

Boston? Blue Stars? Blue Knights? Any one of them seems as well-positioned as Crown or Coats were a decade or so ago. Does anyone doubt that others can replicate the success of Crown and Coats? Academy seems like a quick study. Crossmen have had their moments. Let's take the focus off G7 because it's not accepting applications currently. But top corps status? You can earn that on the field the way Crown has since 2004 (the voice year, by the way).

HH

Edited November 2, 2012 by glory

[glory]

I presume you're talking about the OC corps, H, and maybe the lower-placing OC corps. Maybe you should specify for clarity...

...Competitive success cannot measure business success and the two should never be used to example each other...

Well...

Having just conflated business success and programmatic success yet again, I feel a little silly because I agree with you that they're not the same.

HOWEVER, they ought to be. It's what I heard Jack Welch of GE fame once say: Any manager can manage for the short term or the long term; it's managing for both that's tough.

If a corps director isn't managing for both, he's failed. You have to put on a good show - and you have to put on a good spreadsheet. Again corps like Crown and Bluecoats seem to be (I say "seem" because I don't see their books) able to climb the success ladder without falling off the financial cliff.

As for which corps I'm referring to, again I don't want to reduce this to a discussion about individual corps and our individual opinions on what they do well or not. That said, I've been referring to World Class corps primarily.

HH

[glory]

Yeah, I agree. But imagine the "tough love" as a systematic process that demonstrably leads to success. Exactly like the path that those successful corps took to get there.

Would you support sending "good money" after that cause if the participants were required to follow the "best practices" outlined by the top corps?

I'm in. And it doesn't seem like rocket science. Corps can't spend what they don't have any more than they should attempt a Crown hornbook with an immature line. It's about discipline on the field and off. That shouldn't be a new concept here.

HH

[FlamMan]

Are there any proposals to tax some corps, literally take their own money away, to redistribute it to other corps?

Please...lets not introduce left wing Obama style politics to the Drum Corp activity.

[N.E. Brigand]

Just a side note on the G-7 and competitive success, a bit ironically given the situation which has inspired these discussions:

If the G-7 had selected themselves just a decade ago, say January 2002 or January 2003, and used as their criteria the previous five years' standings, Glassmen would have been in. (Ahead of Phantom Regiment, as it happens.) So would either Madison or Crossmen, depending on which year you use. Bluecoats and Crown would have placed clearly outside the group -- Crossmen or Boston would actually be next in line, if it were a G-8.

Make of that what you will.

Edited November 2, 2012 by N.E. Brigand

[JimF-LowBari]

Are there any proposals to tax some corps, literally take their own money away, to redistribute it to other corps?

Won't it be a wizzer (can't say ###### on DCP) if this was implemented and some of the OC corps were "taxed" to help the WC corps......

[Pete Freedman]

Just a side note on the G-7 and competitive success, a bit ironically given the situation which has inspired these discussions:

If the G-7 had selected themselves just a decade ago, say January 2002 or January 2003, and used as their criteria the previous five years' standings, Glassmen would have been in. (Ahead of Phantom Regiment, as it happens.) So would either Madison or Crossmen, depending on which year you use. Bluecoats and Crown would have placed clearly outside the group -- Crossmen or Boston would actually be next in line, if it were a G-8.

Make of that what you will.

I make of it that we can't infer causality from correlation, even if we were to conclude that there is a strong correlation between good management and good placement. And I see little evidence even of that.

Of course there has to be some causality, but the idea that the causality is so strong that depriving lower scoring corps of funds in order to punish their presumed bad management is silly.

In my view, the trajectory of a corps' success over the course of years has much more to do with funding than any other factor, and while funding is clearly related to management quality, it is a loose relationship. Many corps have gone up the charts and then down the charts, all under the same management. But behind the scenes, funding is often said to be the cause of both the increase and the decrease (and possible demise). Of course this is all based on rumor and conjecture, we don't have access to the books of all the corps to do a scientific comparison.

Someone (glory?) made the point that they buy their tickets based on the fact that high performing corps are going to be there, so those units deserve the money. This is a good point, except that I would say that a big part of the reason we love this activity is because it is uniquely positioned as a competition between independent non-profit performing arts educational organizations, and that's exciting. We may go to the show to see BD, but we love the activity because of our knowledge of what the activity is (typically because of our own personal history in the activity).

When DCI establishes a strong fan base among those who have nothing to do with drum corps themselves, the G7 will have a better argument. Until then, I think the ticket buyer probably wants to support the entire activity.

[exgmdm]

I think the year was 1972, and I also have it in my head that it was the three or four day trip that 4 or 5 of us Glassmen guys drove my aging Chevy to Whitewater for the first DCI champioship. Probably accurate, maybe not completely, but it doesn't matter that much.

One of our guys had hooked up with the Argonne Rebels for the season, and they were staying quite some distance from Whitewater in Delevan (sp?) Wisconsin at a beautiful air-conditioned High School. By shear dumb luck, two of us encountered Mr. Opie, Argonne's Corps Director in Whitewater somewhere, and he offered us a lift back to Delevan to meet up with our bud.

During the long drive, we talked Drum Corps, of course, and we hung on Mr. Opie's words trying desperately to learn the secret formula to get our corps to be successful like the Rebels. I'm sure at some level I was aware that there was a mile in difference in the overall talent in our corps vs. the Rebels, and miles and miles of difference in the experience level and education of the two instructional staffs, but for that moment, I sought his wisdom like that was all it would take to lift the 50-member Glass City Optimists to the heights of the elite corps in the country.

Mr. Opie was an attorney, and a very articulate man. He seemed very tired, but patiently answered our questions like we were somehow truly worthy of his time and attention.

Most of the conversation is lost to the 40 years that have passed, but I remember distinctly, and can still quote nearly word for word one particular exchange, probably because I revealed nearly all of my ignorance and arrogance with one remark.

I brought up the Des Plaines Vanguard, who probably finished about 15th or so at that contest, or about 50 spots ahead of where we would have finished had we had the resources to make the trip, and observed that, "They appear to be right on the edge of folding." Mr. Opie paused for a long moment, and then said, "Son, there is not one drum corps in North America that is NOT right on the edge of folding."

After another long silent moment, he went on to talk about the challenges of outfitting, transporting, housing and feeding a nationally competitive drum corps. He focused on the terrible costs to the families and careers of the Corps adult leadership, and the parent/volunteers that made it all possible. He also said that many of the corps who seemed to us to be rock-solid would fold or nearly fold in the five years to come.

He then pointed out the one thing to me that hasn't changed at all in the past 40 years. He said that 90 per cent or more of the ticket buyers at Whitewater will have traveled there with a drum corps. He closed with this, said more like a sigh than a statement, "Until we can sell out the stadiums so there is no room to seat corps members and chaperones, there will be no financial security for drum corps."

Not sure where this all fits in with the thread, but it has given me pleasure to remember it, and to write it down.

Edited November 2, 2012 by exgmdm

[garfield]

Well...

Having just conflated business success and programmatic success yet again, I feel a little silly because I agree with you that they're not the same.

HOWEVER, they ought to be. It's what I heard Jack Welch of GE fame once say: Any manager can manage for the short term or the long term; it's managing for both that's tough.

If a corps director isn't managing for both, he's failed. You have to put on a good show - and you have to put on a good spreadsheet. Again corps like Crown and Bluecoats seem to be (I say "seem" because I don't see their books) able to climb the success ladder without falling off the financial cliff.

As for which corps I'm referring to, again I don't want to reduce this to a discussion about individual corps and our individual opinions on what they do well or not. That said, I've been referring to World Class corps primarily.

HH

I LOVE that phrase. It should be at the top of every corps mission statement and above the door at DCI.

I think Jack's comments (I'm a big fan) are twisted more than a little to meet your explanation. More accurately, corps should manage both program and balance sheet for both the short and long term.

But competitive success is, and always will be, a poor example of business practices. The show's designers should not be involved with the balance sheet (except to stay within its limits) any more than the business managers should be involved with show design.

The two are oil and water in practice, so how can one represent the other?