cixelsyd Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I guess I wasn't clear enough. "Fans", in my context, was limited to the people who pay to see SCV perform in either a parade or a contest. If they lose their current "spectators" it would have little impact on their revenue. If they lose their MM and their current fan base, they'd still have more revenue coming in than most other corps, and 2x or 3x times more than many of those corps. In contrast, if they lost their bingo fans it'd be a disaster. You were clear enough. My facetiousness is what lacked clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Okay, so for us finance-light folks, are there apples-to-apples comparisons that we can make? Is it pretty consistent that Program Service Revenue is the money the corps itself makes in the course of a year (excluding bingo et al?). Seems that way; I just wonder if I'm missing something... Mike No, Mike, I think you've got it right. I think of "Program Service Revenue" as what the corps "earns" through performances, and "Other Income" is any "external" funding like bingo, etc. While it's not always the case, depending upon what the auditors put into the various categories and line items, "Program Service Revenue" would end if the corps folded or stopped performing. "Other" income would, supposedly, continue despite the corps. It's debatable whether "Gifts, Grants, etc" would continue if the corps stopped performing. I think we'll begin to see some dramatically different pictures emerge as we go down through the corps. One of the other pictures that's interesting to me is the comparison of how much each corps spends to put its production on the field (Program Service Expenses, or the Statement of Program Service Accomplishments). For instance, did BD's show reflect the nearly $1.7-million they spent on it in 2011? We know what the judges thought in 2011; Cadets spent half-a-million LESS on their show, so did Cadets get a better return on that investment? Edited December 4, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 No, Mike, I think you've got it right. I think of "Program Service Revenue" as what the corps "earns" through performances, and "Other Income" is any "external" funding like bingo, etc. While it's not always the case, depending upon what the auditors put into the various categories and line items, "Program Service Revenue" would end if the corps folded or stopped performing. "Other" income would, supposedly, continue despite the corps. It's debatable whether "Gifts, Grants, etc" would continue if the corps stopped performing. I think we'll begin to see some dramatically different pictures emerge as we go down through the corps. One of the other pictures that's interesting to me is the comparison of how much each corps spends to put its production on the field (Program Service Expenses, or the Statement of Program Service Accomplishments). For instance, did BD's show reflect the nearly $1.7-million they spent on it in 2011? We know what the judges thought in 2011; Cadets spent half-a-million LESS on their show, so did Cadets get a better return on that investment? well that house did look pricey :tongue:/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 well that house did look pricey :tongue:/>/> Yea, imagine what they'd have spent had it come with walls and a roof! :tongue:/> Seriously, if you were Dave Gibbs, was the expense "worth it"? From a business perspective? From a programming perspective? Or, a different way: Did BD's kids get $3,333 "better" experience than Cadets' kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Yea, imagine what they'd have spent had it come with walls and a roof! :tongue:/>/> Seriously, if you were Dave Gibbs, was the expense "worth it"? From a business perspective? From a programming perspective? Or, a different way: Did BD's kids get $3,333 "better" experience than Cadets' kids? well........ they probably got more downtime. as acreator I do see their side as well as the financial side. I mean, you have this vision, it costs a bunch, then you roll it out and it doesn't win....was it worth it financially? But BD was in the hunt all year, even beating Cadets the week before finals, so you have no idea. it's like with MLB...some teams will pay whatever for a free agent if they think it'll work and they will win. Sometimes you're the Yankees. Sometimes you're the Marlins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Bluecoats Revenue Contributions, Gifts, Grants 2008: $147,412 2009: $44,460 2010: $70,484 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Bluecoats Revenue Program Service Revenue Membership Dues 2008: $236,722 2009: $311,936 (plus $75,214 [31.7%] from 2008) 2010: $328,159 (plus $16,223 [5.2%] from 2009, plus $91,437 [38.6%] from 2008) Competitions and Programs 2008: $203,734 2009: $211,053 (plus $7,319 [3.6%] from 2008) 2010: $263,711 (plus $52,068 [25%] from 2009, plus $59,977 [29.4%] from 2008) Camp Fees 2008: $105,994 2009: $101,401 2010: $101,100 (basically flat across all three years) Total Program Service Revenues 2008: $546,450 2009: $624,390 (plus $77,940 [14,3%] from 2008) 2010: $692,970 (plus 68,580 [11%] from 2009, plus $146,520 [26.8%] from 2008) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Bluecoats Revenue Other Revenue Net Revenue from sales of assets other than inventory 2008: $25,911 2009: ($2,744) a loss 2010: $52,252 Net Revenue from gaming operations 2008: $154,983 2009: $80,942 (minus $74,041 [47.8%] from 2008 2010: $77,245 (flat from 2009, minus $77,783 [50%] from 2008) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 ... If they [sCV] lose their current "spectators" it would have little impact on their revenue. If they lose their MM and their current fan base, they'd still have more revenue coming in than most other corps, and 2x or 3x times more than many of those corps. In contrast, if they lost their bingo fans it'd be a disaster. Bill Cook stated way back in the 1980's that Bingo was the "cash cow". And for corps today in States where bingo is still a viable option that still seems the case; so much so that according to a reading of the SCV 990 an overwhelming majority of their revenue still comes from Bingo and not spectator/fans. However, this begs a question: If the revenue stream from Bingo today is so massive, massive enough that the loss (or gain) of 'spectator' revenue would have little impact, then why would the G7 directors be so concerned about other corps partaking in DCI show revenue? One could argue that many States are causing Bingo establishments to fold due to increasing regulations and they are afraid that will happen in CA; but if SCV (or BD) lost bingo, all of the DCI show revenue would not make up for that bingo loss. So, again, if spectator revenue is such a small, very small, part then why try to relegate, or eliminate, the other corps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Thanks LincolnV. I've been a little perplexed by the lack of comments in relation to the number of page-views, but I understand that this is probably the driest subject matter in the history of DCP. As long as page views continue, so will I. Will someone give G a hug please! 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.