Side discussion re: Corps in Trouble

[Stu]

As I see the pdf, it was written by two people, George and Dave. I consider the entire presentation to be disrespecting and degrading to all corps not in their self-defined group.

Ok; you agree that it (G7 proposal) was a collaboration between Gibbs and Hopkins in which both agreed with all that was within the proposal. Then what makes you think that Gibbs has had a complete change of heart and would be 'the' person to create a plan for all corps within DCI?

I don't suggest any performance is crappy, I was speaking for those who think all but the top corps don't present "excellence" by their definition of performance placement. Maybe "crappy" should be replaced with "not excellent".

Let me ask this another way: You maintain that to be involved with DCI a corps must present both a solid balance sheet 'and' and solid on-field performance. So, please name two specific corps: 1) What current corps, in your opinion, has a solid balance sheet but does not produce solid performances; and 2) What current corps, in your opinion, has solid performances but a shaky balance sheet?

[garfield]

Ok; you agree that it (G7 proposal) was a collaboration between Gibbs and Hopkins in which both agreed with all that was within the proposal. Then what makes you think that Gibbs has had a complete change of heart and would be 'the' person to create a plan for all corps within DCI?

Let me ask this another way: You maintain that to be involved with DCI a corps must present both a solid balance sheet 'and' and solid on-field performance. So, please name two specific corps: 1) What current corps, in your opinion, has a solid balance sheet but does not produce solid performances; and 2) What current corps, in your opinion, has solid performances but a shaky balance sheet?

Stu, I never said anything like the bolded above, because I don't necessarily think that it's true. Please refrain from adding your thoughts to my words and calling it a quote. I think its possible that the two agreed in principal but did not compare notes prior to the publishing the pdf, such that not all intentions were on the table in advance. But I don't know anything because I wasn't there. It's obvious that the two were involved but to what extent is unknown.

And to your second point, again, you're slipping in meaning that I never suggested. My point is that BUSINESS success is not, necessarily, defined by competitive placement or "draw" as was presented in the G7 pdf and several on here suggest. While it's surely true that competitive success could lead to more income from souvie sales and equipment deals, competitive success does not mean a corps is profitable, any more than it means a BUSINESS-succesful corps puts on a show that the G7 would consider a success. Surf is but only one example. The whole issue of a "solid" performance is purely subjective so it's useless for me to name corps as you want me to.

I'll only direct you to the most recent 990's to discover which corps that would be considered "excellent" among the G7 actually lost money on their season. And which corps among the non-G7 actually made money on the season despite having a less-than-excellent show as defined by the G7. Surely, there are "excellent" corps that made money as well as non-"excellent" corps that lost money.

[exgmdm]

Garfield, Stu:

Thanks much for the participation! Clearly, you guys have given this thing a great deal of thought.

Having said that, I would ask you both to re-address this issue with what you've learned about BD and Cadets...

I heave never met either of the directors of the corps, but I have the impression that they are both great leaders who've engaged great associates to pursue the goals of the organizations, and I gather their personal styles are greatly different.

Decisions have been made over the course of years that led them to where they are today...

I guess I'd like to know what has worked well, and what has not, and also maybe what used to work that doesn't anymore.

In the case of our beloved Glassmen, Bingo worked great... and then it didn't. So... where do we go from here?

[IllianaLancerContra]

Ok; you agree that it (G7 proposal) was a collaboration between Gibbs and Hopkins in which both agreed with all that was within the proposal. Then what makes you think that Gibbs has had a complete change of heart and would be 'the' person to create a plan for all corps within DCI?

Let me ask this another way: You maintain that to be involved with DCI a corps must present both a solid balance sheet 'and' and solid on-field performance. So, please name two specific corps: 1) What current corps, in your opinion, has a solid balance sheet but does not produce solid performances; and 2) What current corps, in your opinion, has solid performances but a shaky balance sheet?

Well, for the first I would say Pioneer seems to be living well, within their means, financially; perhaps less so competitively.

[Stu]

I think its possible that the two agreed in principal but did not compare notes prior to the publishing the pdf,

It is not just the PDF but the formal public relation promotion of the plan by Fiedler and the signing-on to this idea by all of the G7 directors on their own websites. By you stating that it is possible Gibbs and Hopkins did not compare notes you are by definition implying that they, and the other directors of the G7, did the 'formal website announcements' in an extremely haphazard manner. If that contention is true, then it is yet another reason Gibbs and the others should not be involved in developing any future plans for DCI.

[Stu]

Garfield, Stu:

Thanks much for the participation! Clearly, you guys have given this thing a great deal of thought.

Having said that, I would ask you both to re-address this issue with what you've learned about BD and Cadets...

I heave never met either of the directors of the corps, but I have the impression that they are both great leaders who've engaged great associates to pursue the goals of the organizations, and I gather their personal styles are greatly different.

Decisions have been made over the course of years that led them to where they are today...

I guess I'd like to know what has worked well, and what has not, and also maybe what used to work that doesn't anymore.

In the case of our beloved Glassmen, Bingo worked great... and then it didn't. So... where do we go from here?

The discussions between Garfield and I are relevant because if Gibbs and Hopkins had their way the Glassmen would not have been helped by DCI but just thrown to the wolves to allow for more revenue to go to the G7. That is why I contend Hopkins and Gibbs, as well as Fiedler et al of the G7, should have no part in developing business plans for all of the corps within DCI.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Stu

[garfield]

It is not just the PDF but the formal public relation promotion of the plan by Fiedler and the signing-on to this idea by all of the G7 directors on their own websites. By you stating that it is possible Gibbs and Hopkins did not compare notes you are by definition implying that they, and the other directors of the G7, did the 'formal website announcements' in an extremely haphazard manner. If that contention is true, then it is yet another reason Gibbs and the others should not be involved in developing any future plans for DCI.

I absolutely agree that your scenario could be true in that the corps announcements were handled poorly. But, considering the circumstances, it's not hard to imagine.

Consider for a second that many meetings took place between these corps, during which they established the premise and solution to their problem. It might have been nothing more than "back of the napkin" ideas that coalesced into a plan of attach that they felt they had to take. The only undecided aspect was who was going to present their grievences and solution to the rest of the activity and executives of DCI. I suspect that's where George came in. Every single director knew that George was the perfect front man, having watched his presentations and drivie of the activity for over a decade, seeming to be teflon when confrontation inevitively found him. It was easy for the others to elect George the spokesman; who would want such a target on their back?

I can also imagine that Dave Gibbs needed to be a front face, too. There is no doubt to his corps' success in performance, business, and influence. His participation adds gravitas that George, probably, does not command. I find the stark contrast of the presentation's halves to be quite interesting. Gibbs' contribution seemed thoughtful and well laid-out compared to George's. It's entirely probable that the two halves were composed separately, each on their respectve coasts, then combined for the final presentation. Hence, it's possible that each did not review the other's work, and that George personally combined the two for presentation.

When it all fell apart what were the other directors to do? They signed on for the ride, they had to show support lest they leave George and Dave - arguably the two most prominent of directors - hanging out alone. Could be they made their announcements enthusiastically. Could be they were convinced to post something to show solidarity. Regardless, they made their positions known.

As to who should be a part of drafting the way forward, I wonder... Would it be useful to ignore the input from the most successful corps in all cases? Exclude them from the solution set? I doubt so. Should they be bridled in their contribution? Maybe, but by whom? A group which believe they, alone, draw enough fans to support the whole activity most certainly believe they can support themselves alone. Their determination has powerful precident in the "72 Founder's actions. Is promoting such disunity really the best path forward? I doubt so. Wouldn't it be better to have the whole activity, with all its collective wisdom, together in one room with the express intent to craft a way forward that all can live with?

I've always believed that negotiation requires giving your apponent a ladder with which he can climb down off his high horse. It seems to me that excluding the G7 doesn't do that.

What's best for the WHOLE activity is all that's important, and is the cornerstone of your disagreement with the G7 in the first place.

Edited November 4, 2012 by garfield

[garfield]

Garfield, Stu:

Thanks much for the participation! Clearly, you guys have given this thing a great deal of thought.

Having said that, I would ask you both to re-address this issue with what you've learned about BD and Cadets...

I heave never met either of the directors of the corps, but I have the impression that they are both great leaders who've engaged great associates to pursue the goals of the organizations, and I gather their personal styles are greatly different.

Decisions have been made over the course of years that led them to where they are today...

I guess I'd like to know what has worked well, and what has not, and also maybe what used to work that doesn't anymore.

In the case of our beloved Glassmen, Bingo worked great... and then it didn't. So... where do we go from here?

Don't let what either of us say sway you into thinking that either of us has all the answers but, yes, Stu and I have had several spriited discussions about this topic (when I can keep him on point ).

I don't think either George or Dave would recognize me in a crowd, so I have no insight into their inner thoughts.

The bold above is a major part of the base problem; both of these men were leaders of the activity as well as leaders of great corps. What has worked for their corps is not the same as what has worked for the activity - they are separate things.

Looking at their organizations there are several commonalities. Both have been atop the standings for many years and, as such, have enjoyed higher DCI payouts than most other corps. Each has a business structure that includes revenues exclusive of their corps. BD has several organizations driving revenue; Cadets have USBands. Both orgs have deep support structures. Both have robust Boards of Directors. There are many commonalities in their personalities, as well, as viewed from the outside. Both are hard driving and focused on their kids, first and foremost. Both are clearly focused on their competitive placement. Both have many, many years of experience and success that attracts attention to their ideas.

For the activity, I'm not convinced any of the major changes implemented have been successful, although I'm sure some will disagree. The major ones, Bb, amps, expanded membership, etc were all supposed to be a step on the path to success. Yet, by the G7's own admission, we're no better off now as an activity than 20 years ago. And many would say worse off.

Glassmen's goal is the same as always: find a non-corps activity with which to support the corps just as BD, Cadets and many others have done. Bingo was low-hanging fruit so they'll obviously have a tough time replacing it. But not all corps run bingo and are still financially solid; it can be done. I would think one of their greatest assets is their local presense, ala Cavaliers.

The surest path forward is to run a business not connected to drum corps. I'm sure that to do so requires a deepand broad base of support, and for the director to wear different hats than were worn before. Could be a new director is necessary to fill this role..

Edited November 3, 2012 by garfield

[Pete Freedman]

The surest path forward is to run a business not connected to drum corps. I'm sure that to do so requires a deepand broad base of support, and for the director to wear different hats than were worn before. Could be a new director is necessary to fill this role..

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.

[Pete Freedman]

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.