Side discussion re: Corps in Trouble

[cixelsyd]

Your comments are perplexing.

Just to clarify, I wouldn’t say I go ONLY to see the tops corps. I do, however, go PRIMARILY to see drum corps at its best. That can be different things at different times. What that never should be for me is any form of lowest-common-denominator drum corps.

I doubt I’ll ever buy a ticket to a show just to see brass, drums and quasi-military uniforms. What I want to buy is the right to see and feel a certain level of artistry using that brass, those drums and even those (increasingly silly) uniforms delivered via music in motion. This sort of “excellence” requires achievement. This combination of music, motion, artistry and achievement is why I could admire BD alongside Crossmen, Colts or Surf last summer. It’s also why I couldn’t admire certain other corps who need not be named.

Maybe you need to name examples. You may find it convenient to take this dismissive attitude in such vague fashion, but I am left with no idea what you are talking about.

High school bands are an adequate substitute

HS bands in general? Or just the top ones?

for corps who bring neither artistry nor performance to the field – and sadly there are too many who don’t.

Now you will have to name some examples, because I saw no one in DCI competition that brought neither artistry nor performance to the field. From what I witnessed this season, I suspect that every current American junior corps except Colt Cadets consists largely of marchers with prior experience from HS band, if not other corps. As a result, these corps (now including Colt Cadets, IMO) are all able to take their performance to the next level, even within the constraints of an open class schedule.

Now, if you do not like their design tastes, or still do not find them sufficiently strong performers to entertain you, then you are not required to pay admission to see them. If only the top corps put your butt in the seats, so be it - it is your butt, and your seat with which to do as you wish. Would you mind, though, not telling the rest of us that the other corps have no artistry and no performance?

Putting a larger share of the activity’s revenue in their hands would be a disaster in my view. Rather than discourage poor choices, it would empower them to the detriment of the activity as a whole.

What?

You are saying that if lower corps had more money, that would be a detriment to the whole activity. What if that next Blue Saints fundraiser is a success? What if the Raiders develop a profitable bingo operation? Or people buy tons of shamrock shirts from Pioneer? You had better get to work, because if you do not thwart all the funding plans of corps you dislike, they may become empowered. Oh no!

I could understand a complaint that having DCI pay lower corps a fairer share takes away from what top corps currently get. But to object to lower corps having more money, regardless of how they get it?

[cixelsyd]

I don't think it's false. DCI's importance depends in no small part on its ability to represent itself as "marching music's major league."

I do not accept that premise, but that is another thread in itself.

If more corps are more similar to more marching bands, that's a formula for irrelevance. Why sweat out a summer at mediocre Corps X if you could be a champion at your high school in the ABC Circuit and maybe have a summer job and a summer girlfriend?

Because so many kids cannot be champion at their HS. Maybe their HS band is not very good. Maybe their HS band is very small. Maybe their HS is small (the school, not just the band). Maybe their HS has no marching band, or one that does not compete. Maybe they are not in HS (many college kids march drum corps).

[glory]

...Now you will have to name some examples, because I saw no one in DCI competition that brought neither artistry nor performance to the field. From what I witnessed this season, I suspect that every current American junior corps except Colt Cadets consists largely of marchers with prior experience from HS band, if not other corps. As a result, these corps (now including Colt Cadets, IMO) are all able to take their performance to the next level, even within the constraints of an open class schedule.

...You are saying that if lower corps had more money, that would be a detriment to the whole activity. What if that next Blue Saints fundraiser is a success? What if the Raiders develop a profitable bingo operation? Or people buy tons of shamrock shirts from Pioneer? You had better get to work, because if you do not thwart all the funding plans of corps you dislike, they may become empowered....

All due respect, but this would be a more productive conversation if you didn't reduce my well-intended comments to the lowest common denominator. There's no point in naming names. It won't further the discussion. You'll just tell me why I'm wrong (which I'm not!).

Saying every program brought artistry and performance to the field is okay – as far as it goes. Surely you would agree nonetheless that within that “every” last suumer were shades of artistry and performance. Surely some were great in their artistry and performance while some were … well … not great.

It’s the “not great” ones we’re talking about here. The “next level” you mention isn’t the same level as Cadets or BD. It might not even be the same level as Crossmen or Colts. Even in August the corps were talking about struggle at times to look and sound good. In June and much of July, they often appear just to struggle.

You can explain and rationalize. Many do. But there’s no denying the truth. Any objective view would show that not all drum corps are the same. Not every drum corps attempts or achieves at the same level. There are tiers. One is more excellent. Another is more mediocre.

As for fund-raising, the truth is obvious. Some corps can sustain themselves despite the lack of competitive success. God bless them. I’m not advocating euthanizing lower tier corps. Nor would I advocate any formula that attempts to redistribute funds to corps that can’t demonstrate success more tangibly. The stakes are higher today. If we couldn’t afford to lose a 27th or a Guardsmen 30 years ago, we surely can’t afford now to compromise our best to preserve our worst.

HH

[cixelsyd]

It’s the “not great” ones we’re talking about here. The “next level” you mention isn’t the same level as Cadets or BD. It might not even be the same level as Crossmen or Colts. Even in August the corps were talking about struggle at times to look and sound good. In June and much of July, they often appear just to struggle.

You can explain and rationalize. Many do. But there’s no denying the truth. Any objective view would show that not all drum corps are the same. Not every drum corps attempts or achieves at the same level. There are tiers. One is more excellent. Another is more mediocre.

Yes - but I would not imply that the mediocre half provide no added value beyond that which already exists in marching band.

As for fund-raising, the truth is obvious. Some corps can sustain themselves despite the lack of competitive success. God bless them. I’m not advocating euthanizing lower tier corps. Nor would I advocate any formula that attempts to redistribute funds to corps that can’t demonstrate success more tangibly.

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

[glory]

Yes - but I would not imply that the mediocre half provide no added value beyond that which already exists in marching band.

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

I wouldn't go so far as to say "half." Nor would I say they don't add any value. I'm unaware of any such "tax."

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. 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. It sucks, I know.

HH

[garfield]

Impossible. The success plan of the top DCI corps is an elitist model. It cannot be expanded so that the rest of the corps follow it.

For starters, a big part of the business plan for top corps is a larger budget, sustained by the larger revenue sharing payments and merchandise sales that only top corps have. How can other corps mimic that? Equipment endorsement deals and clinics-for-cash are other areas where a winning corps finds that their name is worth more money than that of other corps. More money ensures that the top corps can retain the best instructors, acquire the latest equipment immediately, and maintain their competitive position.

Digging deeper, DCI has always operated on an elitist business model. From their start in 1972, DCI has always leveraged non-member corps for the benefit of member corps. The founding corps could not stitch their first tour together without other corps helping fill the lineups. DCI Championships would never have been the draw it has been if it was limited to a private club of 13 corps. Having dozens of additional participating units improved the DCI draw all across the tour - and at a discount, since non-member corps have never been paid as well as member corps.

For your idea to work, we first need a different DCI business plan that is designed from the start to work for ALL corps, not just the top ones.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

In short, lots of good business practices can be shared. A path forward can be developed by the G7 and graciously shared out of the kindness of their hearts and willingness to see corps survive and grow.

If "the draw" wants to grow the activity and survive in the long term they should do no less. If they're interested in only their own survivial they get...well...May, 2010.

[garfield]

As for fund-raising, the truth is obvious. Some corps can sustain themselves despite the lack of competitive success. God bless them. I'm not advocating euthanizing lower tier corps. Nor would I advocate any formula that attempts to redistribute funds to corps that can't demonstrate success more tangibly. The stakes are higher today. If we couldn't afford to lose a 27th or a Guardsmen 30 years ago, we surely can't afford now to compromise our best to preserve our worst.

HH

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

Short of that, the only demonstration you have is competitive success. And, if that's the case, where do you draw the line between those making that minimum and those that are not? 15? 17?

See, the problem with your argument is that it's too much like defining the "one percent". It's nebulous. It changes, even among the top corps, year-to-year (Blue Stars are a glaring example). What you're trying to do is represent financial numbers and business practices by competitive success on the field, and the two are oil and water. Again, look at Blue Stars. First they were in the TOC and now their out, and out big-time, a year later. Are they no longer "excellent"? Well, on the field, maybe not. But as measured by business practices? I think not.

The entire flaw in the argument is that DCI and it's BOD (and maybe you, too) are constantly arguing about production quality and amps and souvie truck placement and what DCI payout is "fair", while nobody is focusing on the BUSINESS of growing drum corps.

If your measuring stick is limited to the "Top" corps placement in competition then the other corps, by definition, will never measure up (again, Blue Stars).

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

And I agree, he was a little sniping in his comments.

[garfield]

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

Well, yes, in a way. I propose that some portion of DCI's revenues be segregated out for the express purpose of growing corps and the activity.

Problem is, the "Top" corps don't like that idea any more than they like the lower corps siponing off "their" revenue from DCI.

[garfield]

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. 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. It sucks, I know.

HH

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?

[Stu]

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?

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.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Stu