Side discussion re: Corps in Trouble

[garfield]

Good points generally, but I think it's too tempting to talk about a business whose role is to support the drum corps with it's profits. Bill Cook promoted this idea, and actually created four businesses to support Star. But he admitted that none of them actually produced enough to significantly support the corps, at least before the brass theater years.

It's really hard to start a company, and even harder for that company to turn a profit.

And when the people who run the company are not themselves profiting, there goes some of the incentive at the top. If, to deal with this problem, you place drum corps people as the company's managers (who would presumably be focused on the profit for the sake of the corps) will they necessarily be good at whatever the company is supposed to be good at?

To put it another way, why not just take the capital you were going to use to start the business and invest it in an index fund? An endowment, in other words. Then apply the profits from that to the corps. You'll make far more profit on average, and the director doesn't have to wear any more hats.

You make valid points about responsibilities and benefits, but an index fund? Really? Even if you mean "investments" and not literally an index fund, the potential returns on a risk-adjusted basis of an investment portfolio can't compete with the risk-adjusted return of owning a business. Even if one assumes the (fictional) 10% returns of long-term investing it would take $10-million to fully fund a corps annually. That same $10-mllion could be multiplied 3 or 4 times due to the leverage available to corporations that are not available to investors. Companies use gross revenue to run their businesses, but investors only grow based on net profits.

Interestingly, there are tons of companies out there that are constantly looking for ways to reduce their profits; on the tax forms a charitable contribution is worth about 2.5 times the cost of paying taxes on profits. A corporation that funds a drum corps utilizes the leverage of "above the line" deductions whereas a simple gift to a corps is "below the line". Perhaps there's a business in finding those companies and selling "profit harvesting" methods that benefit both drum corps and the company.

Ever been driving down the road and see those kids standing outside retail stores spinning those big signs to get your attention? I've often wondered...give me 4 or 5 guard members spinning flags and rifles... A corps could make a business out of providing attention-grabbing "spinners".

Or, how about pop-up party stores? The ones that rent space in strip malls for a seasonal event like Halloween. They ship you a truckload of supplies, signs, and products. What they don't have is manpower; they rely on local temporary help. A corps could be the central contact for an entire metropolitan area, running multiple stores, supplying adult volunteer supervision and marching -member labor (18-year olds running registers, younger stocking shelves) all for the benefit of the corps. The marching members who work the store are credited towards their dues for the following season...

I could go on with a dozen or so companies that fit nicely into a drum corps resources. There are lots of ways to make a business support a corps that don't require the millions it would take an investment portfolio to do the same thing.

[garfield]

And when the people who run the company are not themselves profiting, there goes some of the incentive at the top. If, to deal with this problem, you place drum corps people as the company's managers (who would presumably be focused on the profit for the sake of the corps) will they necessarily be good at whatever the company is supposed to be good at?

This is exactly the wrong tact to take, and an almost sure path to failure. After all, if a drum corps guy was any good at running a business he'd likely not be running a drum corps anyway. The director should, in no way, be involved with the running of the business. Rather, the business is structured as a division of the drum corps with people in charge of those divisions. The director should be only the CEO of the parent, not the President of a division just the same as the director should not be involved with the programmatic portion of the drum corps. He should hire people to write the drill, teach the guard, and run the business.

Edited November 5, 2012 by garfield

[garfield]

As to applying the successful financial management principles to less solvent corps, I think it's not a bad idea, but you two (Stu and Garfield) are arguing about one of the details; where to find those principles.

Regardless of whether the top performing corps should be the financial authorities, the plan wouldn't work because the other corps would never accept it. It's a non-starter.

One approach might be to poll all the drum corps directors on who they think the best financially managed corps are. Still iffy, but interesting.

Another approach would be to audit every corps using a 'drum corps aware' accountant (or team of accountants) and let them rank the corps. The top corps from this audit are chosen to create the business plan. You would only need to do this once every ten years or so, since the basic financial constraints in the activity don't change that radically. (and you can do a special one if the conditions do change suddenly due to economic crisis, etc.)

My experience with two small corps from the 80s tells me that the director is probably not the person who actually manages the budget. He/she may approve things on a regular basis, but I suspected that much of the day to day financial management was done by the director's wife in both cases (certainly in one). So the actual 'financial manager' may be listed as fundraiser, or not listed at all. One of the many behind-the-scenes people who keep these corps running. So, a key part of the audit is to identify these key helpers, and allow them to be a big part of the business plan. How many of our Commanders-In-Chief from history would you trust by themselves to create a military strategy?

As far as implementation of the plan goes, I'd call it a Drum Corps Financial Management Best Practices Guide and just require all directors to pass a quiz based on it each April, say. I think that's the most you could get the DCI members to agree to, but it would probably help prevent some of these crises we keep seeing. Some, not all.

The only "poll" or "audit" one needs is the 990's for each corps. All the financial data needed for analysis is there; you may want a CPA or the like on the panel, but you surely don't need a "drum corps aware" CPA (in fact, I can see where that guy could do more damage than good in advising the corps). Numbers don't lie and all of the columns in the 990 have to line up and reconcile.

If the (let's say) six most-consistantly financially successful corps laid out a business plan path that mimics how they got that way, taking into account the various stages of growth along that plan, why do you think the other directors wouldn't follow it? What objection could they raise that wouldn't be answered with "Well then, you're not willing to do what's necessary to assure financial stability of your corps"?

If I ran a financially successful corps, and I offered the secrets to my financial success for free to corps who were struggling, and the others dismissed it out of hand in favor of continuing the practices that have led to financial failure... well, after banging my head against that wall for a while I'd, too, start thinking about G7, TOC, and Music in Motion, I think.

Edited November 5, 2012 by garfield

[cixelsyd]

My point is we're best off not sending good money after bad. That means continuing a funding regime that rewards the "top" corps, the ones who generally are the biggest draw.

Good money after bad? Which was the "bad" money? Money that goes to anyone other than the top corps is "bad" money?

It also means perhaps some tough love. Every year we hear about corps X that's on its last dollar, that desparately needs our donations to get one more mile down the road. I'm coming to think our good intentions aren't having good results. Better to send that check to a corps we expect to be around a little longer.

Frankly, every corps sounds like corps X when soliciting donations. Should we cut them all off? Or should we (DCI) take a closer look at the balance sheets of every corps, including those of the top corps, and then judge accordingly?

[cixelsyd]

I've been reading but haven't had a chance to reply, so forgive me.

Forgiven. I have been a far worse offender over the past few days.

The basic contention of the G7 is that the "lesser" corps don't do what's necessary to run professional, successful organizations like they do. Hence, they are not entitled to a cut - any cut - from DCI's revenues. You're suggesting that, even if the G7 put their business plan's best ideas down on paper for everyone to follow, no other corps can be as successful as the G7. Interesting position. I disagree.

So do I. Any corps can be just as successful as the G7. But because the G7 formula for success hinges on so many rewards that are given for competitive placement, following that formula would require placing in the top 7. So I was saying that a different business plan needs to be developed that can work for ALL corps. If one step of that business plan for success is "place in the top 7", that plan does not work for all corps.

And regarding the G7 contention as you state it, there are a number of "lesser" corps that run in a professional and financially successful manner. The only area where G7 criticism sticks is regarding their competitive results.

But let's assume you're correct. If so, is there EVER any chance for the non-G7 corps to reach the level of "excellence" demanded to warrant a place at the DCI teet? Based on your viewpoint, and the fact that the G7 wrote the rules that all corps now operate under, it doesn't seem that non-G7 could ever "catch up" to the excellence of the G7.

Ordinarily, it would be possible. Historically, it has been. Right now, competitive inertia is so thick that it is would be very difficult.

I disagree. Business practices are scalable, both up and down. Well, good business plans are. There's nothing that prevents a corps from following the successful business practices of the leaders, if even on a small scale.

But it is not success by G7 terms if it is on a smaller scale.

It's certainly true that the 17th placing corps gets less than top-12 from DCI, but that doesn't mean their fundraising, merchandise sales, and non-corps programs can't follow the successful models of the top corps. If you study the individual corps' 990's you see that some very successful programs are fielded for 75% or 80% of what the winners spend. A million-dollar budget that wins translates very well to a $700m show.

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? Sure. Have you seen Surf's designes this year? I'd bet they out-sell almost every single corps in 2013.

Yes. Individual corps can develop their own formulas for "success", using plans proven by others or their own original ideas. But will we deem them a "success" if they still linger outside the top 7? And will the G7 deem them a "success"? (OK, that last one was a rhetorical question.)

[garfield]

Ooh, a thoughtful discussion. I'm enjoying it.

I acknowledge that the top seven enjoy a significantly outsized portion of the "benefit" of high placement.

Forgiven. I have been a far worse offender over the past few days.

So do I. Any corps can be just as successful as the G7. But because the G7 formula for success hinges on so many rewards that are given for competitive placement, following that formula would require placing in the top 7. So I was saying that a different business plan needs to be developed that can work for ALL corps. If one step of that business plan for success is "place in the top 7", that plan does not work for all corps.

I'm not being clear. I don't expect Pio to send 15 people to Japan - on it's own nickel - to match what BD does. But I would expect Pio to find ways to underwrite the cost of such a trip if it can be shown that such a trip adds to the outreach of the corps, in all the financial and recruiting benefit that that may gain. My understanding is that BD's trip was paid for by a rich benfactor - I don't know the complete details. Milwaukee is a big town; you mean to say that Pio couldn't mount a trip to Florida to recruit and spread its name? (They might already; that's not the point. Doing what the winning corps do - that's the point.) Does Glassmen have any business - any product that it can sell - that duplicates BD's efforts in System Blue? Is BD the only corps that can swing a deal? Surely, the deal that Glassmen could swing are likely smaller than the support BD could get, but a smaller sponsoriship that BD might not work for could be a significant percentage of a smaller balance sheet like Glassmen's. Scalable.

And regarding the G7 contention as you state it, there are a number of "lesser" corps that run in a professional and financially successful manner. The only area where G7 criticism sticks is regarding their competitive results.

Agree. And you'd be surprised how "close to the line" many of the top corps run their income/expense statements.

Ordinarily, it would be possible. Historically, it has been. Right now, competitive inertia is so thick that it is would be very difficult.

Meh, if you believe in such things.

But it is not success by G7 terms if it is on a smaller scale.

Oh, I think you'd be surprised. My sense is that the primary contention are the perennial-placers who barely squeak by to make the same placement they made the year before. People complain about lack of diversity among the winners, but have you seen the lack of diversity among the other brackets? It's identifiable, too. If corps showed movement up to contention, even slowly and with setbacks, I think the aggrevation of the G7 would be substantially less. Why that's the case is much bigger than just the balance sheet or income statement.

Yes. Individual corps can develop their own formulas for "success", using plans proven by others or their own original ideas. But will we deem them a "success" if they still linger outside the top 7? And will the G7 deem them a "success"? (OK, that last one was a rhetorical question.)

Linger? I think that's the point. Linger for a couple of years to regroup and re-tune for the higher bracket placement then, yes, "linger" is probably OK I'd bet. To hang out in 17th place for a decade? Not so much. That 17th place should be changing all the time, as should 11th and 1st.

Edited November 5, 2012 by garfield

[cixelsyd]

I'm not being clear. I don't expect Pio to send 15 people to Japan - on it's own nickel - to match what BD does. But I would expect Pio to find ways to underwrite the cost of such a trip if it can be shown that such a trip adds to the outreach of the corps, in all the financial and recruiting benefit that that may gain. My understanding is that BD's trip was paid for by a rich benfactor - I don't know the complete details. Milwaukee is a big town; you mean to say that Pio couldn't mount a trip to Florida to recruit and spread its name? (They might already; that's not the point. Doing what the winning corps do - that's the point.)

If foreign outreach is going to be in this discussion, it is worth pointing out that Pioneer does have a connection to South Africa that has brought as many as a dozen marchers per season to their corps from the other side of the globe. But is overseas outreach really an essential part of the success blueprint? Do all, or even a majority, of successful corps have similar programs?

Does Glassmen have any business - any product that it can sell - that duplicates BD's efforts in System Blue? Is BD the only corps that can swing a deal? Surely, the deal that Glassmen could swing are likely smaller than the support BD could get, but a smaller sponsoriship that BD might not work for could be a significant percentage of a smaller balance sheet like Glassmen's. Scalable.

Two issues there.

First, as you admit, the world of sponsorships, endorsements and product sales is "scalable" (more accurately, "scaled") based on where that corps currently resides in the competitive standings. A System Teal product simply will not sell like a System Blue product until those two corps cross paths competitively. Maybe corps should still implement these ideas, but generally speaking, they will not yield G7-level success for non-G7 corps.

Second, part of System Blue is the monetization of summer clinic programs. Up until very recently, the whole summer clinic concept was a collective effort coordinated by DCI, where different corps would take turns staging clinics at DCI major events with the help of clinicians provided by either the corps or DCI. Then one day, Blue Devils decided that they would rather run clinics for their own exclusive benefit, not the collective benefit of the DCI movement.

Is this sort of idea part of the G7 business model for success? If so, then other corps need to become similarly selfish and seize every opportunity to generate revenue streams, even with efforts that are in conflict of interest with DCI. My guess is that the reason we do not see all world class corps running their own clinics-for-cash is because some corps still support the collective DCI clinic concept.

Meh, if you believe in such things.

Matters not what I believe. Placements hardly move at all. Regardless of the reason, if the prescription for success is to achieve dramatic placement advances, how much success do you think we will see?

Oh, I think you'd be surprised. My sense is that the primary contention are the perennial-placers who barely squeak by to make the same placement they made the year before. People complain about lack of diversity among the winners, but have you seen the lack of diversity among the other brackets? It's identifiable, too. If corps showed movement up to contention, even slowly and with setbacks, I think the aggrevation of the G7 would be substantially less. Why that's the case is much bigger than just the balance sheet or income statement.

Not sure what you are referring to. At this point, it seems like everyone is perennially placing in nearly their same spot. As an example, Academy is getting a lot of positive feedback in these topics. But what does their world class competitive history of 13-18-14-14-15-15 say about them?

Linger? I think that's the point. Linger for a couple of years to regroup and re-tune for the higher bracket placement then, yes, "linger" is probably OK I'd bet. To hang out in 17th place for a decade? Not so much. That 17th place should be changing all the time, as should 11th and 1st.

Well, if 17th is not a successful place to linger in, then we cannot ever have 17 successful corps. That is my point - if the business model for success is defined by a competitive ranking, it cannot work for all corps.

[Stu]

... Academy is getting a lot of positive feedback in these topics. But what does their world class competitive history of 13-18-14-14-15-15 say about them?

A few years ago The Academy was in line to bump into the WC top 12; they took time off during summer tour which allowed them to stay in the black instead of possibly going into debt to push themselves into Finals. To me 'that' says quite a lot about them; and 'that' is why I have extreme high respect for Mark Richardson and the rest of the The Academy administrative staff.

Well, if 17th is not a successful place to linger in, then we cannot ever have 17 successful corps. That is my point - if the business model for success is defined by a competitive ranking, it cannot work for all corps.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!

[garfield]

If foreign outreach is going to be in this discussion, it is worth pointing out that Pioneer does have a connection to South Africa that has brought as many as a dozen marchers per season to their corps from the other side of the globe. But is overseas outreach really an essential part of the success blueprint? Do all, or even a majority, of successful corps have similar programs?

I'm glad to know that their SA program still exists. No, an overseas program is not essential for success. The point is to follow the lead of successful corps and duplicate the infrastructure that allows for the creation, development, and maintainance of such a program if you feel it benefits your corps. Odds are good that a organization that can mount a foreign program can duplicate many, if not most, of the business structures that BD does. So...

Two issues there.

First, as you admit, the world of sponsorships, endorsements and product sales is "scalable" (more accurately, "scaled") based on where that corps currently resides in the competitive standings. A System Teal product simply will not sell like a System Blue product until those two corps cross paths competitively. Maybe corps should still implement these ideas, but generally speaking, they will not yield G7-level success for non-G7 corps.

I don't admit that sponsorships or endorsements are scalable; I maintain that the organizational structure that can compete for endorsements and equipment deals is scalable. The deal that Glassmen get will, likely, be a smaller dollar amount than what Cadets can secure, but likely the impact on the Glassmen's smaller budget will nearly as large. Sponsorships and equipment deals are accretive to the supplier based on the distribution of their name and message. Yamaha doesn't have an exclusive deal with one corps; they put their endorsement on the corps that give them the widest distribution of their name and product.

And I trongly disagree that a "System Academy" clinic would not sell as well as a System Blue, a System Red, or a System Green. I can as easily sell a "Red" clinic to the local high schools as I can a "Blue" because, in nearly all cases, the System Red snare line is, by a large margin, a much "better" line than our local high school lines. I've done as much, and drew several hundred to non-TOC clinics. And, you know what? The entity that paid the clinic expenses was the manufacturer of the drumline. It didn't matter that Academy's drum line is not "as good" as BD's. It's that they are better than the local school lines, that drew the kids, and that got the manufacturer's attention. And the ticket prices to the students was the same for both clinics, and we drew the same attendance at each one. I could go on and on about this topic but, suffice it to say, EVERY corps should have a clinic program and they should have it ready to go at every show they do on tour.

Second, part of System Blue is the monetization of summer clinic programs. Up until very recently, the whole summer clinic concept was a collective effort coordinated by DCI, where different corps would take turns staging clinics at DCI major events with the help of clinicians provided by either the corps or DCI. Then one day, Blue Devils decided that they would rather run clinics for their own exclusive benefit, not the collective benefit of the DCI movement.

Yes, DCI had a formal clinic program, and I don't know the timing...did corps stop doing clinics when DCI de-emphasized them? Did BD put the pressure on DCI to only use BD for clinics at "major" events? I don't know this detail. Is there a rule that no corps can have clinics at shows? If there is, then there have been a bunch of corps that have broken that rule at our show alone. (/sarcasm) Again, I can talk more on this subject but, the point is, that a corps business structure that allows for a corps to do clinics, if it benefits them or their suppliers (or, I would suggest, if it benefits the local TEP), is another way that a corps can do what the big-boys's do. If a corps is going to duplicate a business model, wouldn't it be better to duplicate a successful model instead of one that looks like its own?

Is this sort of idea part of the G7 business model for success? If so, then other corps need to become similarly selfish and seize every opportunity to generate revenue streams, even with efforts that are in conflict of interest with DCI. My guess is that the reason we do not see all world class corps running their own clinics-for-cash is because some corps still support the collective DCI clinic concept.

So, your presumption is that the clinic thing is the result of BD being selfish and pressuring DCI to use it exclusively for clinics? This may be true, but I doubt it because, again, several corps have active clinic programs besides BD.

How can a corps doing a clinic be in conflict with the interest of DCI?

Wait, "some corps still support the collective DCI clinic concept". I thought the DCI "concept" is past tense. What, exactly, are they supporting? That they'll do clinics only if they're organized by DCI? That they won't do the effort themselves even though clinics are beneficial to every corps? Please, tell me that you see the conflict in this logic and why it could be the basis of what pisses off the G7. Let's see, the successful corps continued their clinic programs after DCI's ended, while the others chose not to do clinics any more because DCI wasn't organizing the structure for clinics. Can anyone blame Dave Gibbs for stepping into that breech and providing that service to a demanding public? There's nothing that prevents other corps from duplicating BD's clinic success, but they don't.

Matters not what I believe. Placements hardly move at all. Regardless of the reason, if the prescription for success is to achieve dramatic placement advances, how much success do you think we will see?

Not sure what you are referring to. At this point, it seems like everyone is perennially placing in nearly their same spot. As an example, Academy is getting a lot of positive feedback in these topics. But what does their world class competitive history of 13-18-14-14-15-15 say about them?

Well, if 17th is not a successful place to linger in, then we cannot ever have 17 successful corps. That is my point - if the business model for success is defined by a competitive ranking, it cannot work for all corps.

I don't know how many times or different ways I have to say this: I DON'T believe that competitive placement is the basis for success. I believe that financial success determines competitive placement. But a corps with solid financial success should not be held to a competitive placement requirement or standard. A corps could be very "successful" in presenting the experience to their kids, or expanding their outreach of the activity, or numerous other ways not related (directly) to placement. Unfornately for our existing group of corps, a close look at their placement will reveal a stagnant, ineffective, out-dated, or completely-missing business model.

Is Academy an example? I don't know. Looking at their placement history and seeming lack of advancement, I'd peek under the tent. But I might find that they are financially strong, expanding their outreach, building a warchest, saving for a big push or program, who knows? Just because they seem stagnant doesn't clearly indicate that they're business plan is wrong.

But it might, too.

[cixelsyd]

No, an overseas program is not essential for success. The point is to follow the lead of successful corps and duplicate the infrastructure that allows for the creation, development, and maintainance of such a program if you feel it benefits your corps. Odds are good that a organization that can mount a foreign program can duplicate many, if not most, of the business structures that BD does.

Okay, but -

I don't admit that sponsorships or endorsements are scalable; I maintain that the organizational structure that can compete for endorsements and equipment deals is scalable. The deal that Glassmen get will, likely, be a smaller dollar amount than what Cadets can secure, but likely the impact on the Glassmen's smaller budget will nearly as large.

Nearly as large? So even you admit that a corps of the stature of Glassmen cannot mimic the G7 on this tactic and expect similar success. I think we agree on this - it is still wise for corps at that level to pursue endorsements, but they will not amount to the same proportion of budget.

And I trongly disagree that a "System Academy" clinic would not sell as well as a System Blue, a System Red, or a System Green.

I hope you prove correct in the future. For now, the numbers say otherwise.

I could go on and on about this topic but, suffice it to say, EVERY corps should have a clinic program and they should have it ready to go at every show they do on tour.

Absolutely. That may not be practical for corps with limited tours (open class), though.

Now, to your confusion on what I said about summer clinics:

Yes, DCI had a formal clinic program, and I don't know the timing...did corps stop doing clinics when DCI de-emphasized them? Did BD put the pressure on DCI to only use BD for clinics at "major" events? I don't know this detail. Is there a rule that no corps can have clinics at shows? If there is, then there have been a bunch of corps that have broken that rule at our show alone. (/sarcasm) Again, I can talk more on this subject but, the point is, that a corps business structure that allows for a corps to do clinics, if it benefits them or their suppliers (or, I would suggest, if it benefits the local TEP), is another way that a corps can do what the big-boys's do. If a corps is going to duplicate a business model, wouldn't it be better to duplicate a successful model instead of one that looks like its own?

So, your presumption is that the clinic thing is the result of BD being selfish and pressuring DCI to use it exclusively for clinics? This may be true, but I doubt it because, again, several corps have active clinic programs besides BD.

How can a corps doing a clinic be in conflict with the interest of DCI?

Wait, "some corps still support the collective DCI clinic concept". I thought the DCI "concept" is past tense. What, exactly, are they supporting? That they'll do clinics only if they're organized by DCI? That they won't do the effort themselves even though clinics are beneficial to every corps? Please, tell me that you see the conflict in this logic and why it could be the basis of what pisses off the G7. Let's see, the successful corps continued their clinic programs after DCI's ended, while the others chose not to do clinics any more because DCI wasn't organizing the structure for clinics. Can anyone blame Dave Gibbs for stepping into that breech and providing that service to a demanding public? There's nothing that prevents other corps from duplicating BD's clinic success, but they don't.

Starting over, here is what I know. Back before the millenium, DCI began staging clinics in conjunction with major events and some ordinary sanctioned shows. Band directors were contacted directly with offers of group ticket sales and clinic access for their students. Some bought in to the extent that they required busses for the number of participating students. Once there, the kids (maybe 1,500 of them) were brought onto the field for the clinic during a long intermission. A clinician or corps staffer would run a corps through its paces, breaking down techniques so that the band kids could see up close, or participate themselves. These clinics were hugely successful, not just in filling seats at the shows, but also in getting kids hooked on drum corps, demonstrating how it is done, and convincing kids they could do it too.

For many years, different clinicians and corps would take turns providing this service at different shows. It has been one of the greatest DCI cooperative efforts. But when the G7 came along, some of their corps have made it their business (pun intended) to pursue their own revenue streams in areas that were the domain of a DCI cooperative effort. System Blue set that precedent in the area of summer clinics, when BD stopped participating in the DCI event clinics, instead staging their own clinics at a housing site on tour and claiming revenue by charging admission.

It is hard to see where to draw the line on this issue. Many corps run their own clinics in the off season. In fact, some bill their winter camps as educational/fundraising events. Until BD, though, no one was staging separate clinics-for-cash along the tour path, vying for the same audience as DCI. I see that as a conflict of interest. The G7 are not all on the same page with this yet (Carolina Crown has served as DCI clinic corps in Muncie the past two years), so we cannot say whether the DCI concept of cooperative clinics is past or present tense. However, the Fran Kick clinics this summer (clinics without a corps) may indicate that not enough corps are participating in the DCI clinic effort anymore.

I don't know how many times or different ways I have to say this: I DON'T believe that competitive placement is the basis for success. I believe that financial success determines competitive placement.

You hit the nail on the head there. Maybe more than you realize.

But a corps with solid financial success should not be held to a competitive placement requirement or standard. A corps could be very "successful" in presenting the experience to their kids, or expanding their outreach of the activity, or numerous other ways not related (directly) to placement.

A look at most of our lower placing WC corps will reveal many examples of exactly that.

Unfornately for our existing group of corps, a close look at their placement will reveal a stagnant, ineffective, out-dated, or completely-missing business model.

Or maybe a perfectly valid, up to date business model that is simply a couple 100K smaller than that of the Cadevaliers.

Is Academy an example? I don't know. Looking at their placement history and seeming lack of advancement, I'd peek under the tent. But I might find that they are financially strong, expanding their outreach, building a warchest, saving for a big push or program, who knows? Just because they seem stagnant doesn't clearly indicate that they're business plan is wrong.

But it might, too.

They are not stagnant financially. They have grown a lot in that department over their six years of WC participation.