garfield Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 "DCI has limited income. There is no more to locate as they do business now. They cannot sustain the entity DCI and the corps.It's a fact!!! look at the financials." This is interesting in light of the 990's I've been posting in the other thread. But it really is two statements: "There is no more to locate as they do business now." - This says they can't squeeze any more revenue out for the 7. This doesn't say there isn't growth potential in the model - there surely may be IF there were leadership to expand the activity. That's what's missing - leadership. "They cannot sustain the entitiy DCI..." DCI's 2011 financials do not bear this out. "...and the corps." But this suggests 'they' cannot sustain the corps' budgets - which is true. But one only looks at the inflation in costs that the corps experience each year to see that this is a corps spending problem, not a revenue problem. Attendance is up. DCI's net is up (as of 2011). So what IS the problem? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 As far as the CYO Nationals that Boston hosted each year is concerned, that ended when it stopped being profitable. I believe the Catholic Youth Organization ran the CYO Nationals and any profits went into the other activites they provided the youth of Boston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 "DCI has limited income. There is no more to locate as they do business now. They cannot sustain the entity DCI and the corps.It's a fact!!! look at the financials." This is interesting in light of the 990's I've been posting in the other thread. But it really is two statements: ... Attendance is up. DCI's net is up (as of 2011). So what IS the problem? It looks to me like DCI itself is ok, and most corps are hanging on, but some corps do fail each year. If that were their point I would agree, but how can that be their point when their solution is taking all the money? In fact, I could respect a rebellion in the ranks at DCI, but not like this! Forcing change to increase promotion of the art outside of the existing fan base would be fine by me, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 "DCI has limited income. There is no more to locate as they do business now. They cannot sustain the entity DCI and the corps.It's a fact!!! look at the financials." This is interesting in light of the 990's I've been posting in the other thread. But it really is two statements: "There is no more to locate as they do business now." - This says they can't squeeze any more revenue out for the 7. This doesn't say there isn't growth potential in the model - there surely may be IF there were leadership to expand the activity. That's what's missing - leadership. "They cannot sustain the entitiy DCI..." DCI's 2011 financials do not bear this out. "...and the corps." But this suggests 'they' cannot sustain the corps' budgets - which is true. But one only looks at the inflation in costs that the corps experience each year to see that this is a corps spending problem, not a revenue problem. Attendance is up. DCI's net is up (as of 2011). So what IS the problem? You state it yourself: corps spending is increasing, between growing travel expenses, housing expenses PLUS design expenses and what not. Perhaps corps are increasing spending at a rate that the activity currently can't sustain. Now, the obvious question: Are the corps looking to completely break from DCI, or create their own separate venture IN ADDITION TO their existence in DCI? If it's the latter, is that a bad thing? If the corps feel as though they can make more revenue opportunities, as well as performance opportunities, deliver new products to fans, all while continuing to compete within DCI? I'm OK with that: more power to 'em. They will certainly be creating a plethora of extra work for themselves creating and maintaining this venture (i.e. they're not exactly coasting on DCI's coattails). If these corps can play nice with DCI AND do their own thing, that just gives us all more drum corps: NOT a bad thing! If their intention is to break away from DCI, however, I think everyone loses 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
va9590jm Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but maybe Dan Acheson should step down from his position in favor of someone who will be better suited to handle the situation and actually lead through it. To me, Dan's "leadership" has been weak, at best, over the past few years, trying to turn a blind eye to whats going on. I could be wrong, because I don't know all of what is going on behind the scenes, but from what I do know, it doesn't seem like he's really trying to do much. Also, Hopkins has needed to step down as the director of the Cadets, and possibly as CEO of YEA! for quite some time now, as well. Maybe its just me thinking this? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumno5 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Also, Hopkins has needed to step down as the director of the Cadets, and possibly as CEO of YEA! for quite some time now, as well. Why do you say that? Peace, Fred O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 But their place in the "real world" doesn't matter: their place in the drum corps/marching pageantry is what is of upmost importance. I think it's not overstating things to say that Blue Devils, Cadets, SCV, Cavaliers, Crown, Phantom are the most influential groups in the marching arts activity. While the line is blurred between drum corps and scholastic powerhouse influence (as far as "who's influencing who" at least), those corps mentioned create the trends that everyone else copies. Those corps are the ones people come to see. Those corps probably have a larger fan base than nearly every other DCI corps combined when it comes to revenue. You can't deny their influence and high standing in the marching arts, and while drum corps is a niche of a niche those corps are still at the top of that "pile." And again, at this point I don't think any of us on DCP can say definitively if the intentions of these directors is to take their corps completely out of DCI, or if they are looking to do a side venture that makes them extra money (and provides fans with extra content) while still competing with DCI. The real world comment certainly is relevant. Since this is such a small niche, i.e. cult as Muzz put it, there is a maximum ceiling on potential revenue source which has already been reached in the drum corps activity (acknowledged by the unconfirmed emails of Hopp/Gibbs/Fiedler). Also, the majority of spectator interest always has been, and always will be, age-outs, young wanna-bees, family, and friends. Moreover, this activity has been, and always will be, considered a geek activity by major corporate sponsors which back major sports. And there is not much room for increased spectator interest if they, the G7, wanted to go up against Blast, Stomp, and Blue Man within the world of entertainment. At some point, since there is a ceiling limit on spectator and sponsorship interest, they must conclude to increase expenses on their self imposed performance demands will only yield a business model which will run in the red. Ergo, the comment that they are overreaching their own importance in the 'outside' world is very relevant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 The real world comment certainly is relevant. Since this is such a small niche, i.e. cult as Muzz put it, there is a maximum ceiling on potential revenue source which has already been reached in the drum corps activity (acknowledged by the unconfirmed emails of Hopp/Gibbs/Fiedler). Also, the majority of spectator interest always has been, and always will be, age-outs, young wanna-bees, family, and friends. Moreover, this activity has been, and always will be, considered a geek activity by major corporate sponsors which back major sports. And there is not much room for increased spectator interest if they, the G7, wanted to go up against Blast, Stomp, and Blue Man within the world of entertainment. At some point, since there is a ceiling limit on spectator and sponsorship interest, they must conclude to increase expenses on their self imposed performance demands will only yield a business model which will run in the red. Ergo, the comment that they are overreaching their own importance in the 'outside' world is very relevant. This is the most important item that the G7 need to be reminded of. They'll just have to find other revenue outside of their competitive season. But if they just don't get it, maybe someone will slap the stupid out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but maybe Dan Acheson should step down from his position in favor of someone who will be better suited to handle the situation and actually lead through it. To me, Dan's "leadership" has been weak, at best, over the past few years, trying to turn a blind eye to whats going on. I could be wrong, because I don't know all of what is going on behind the scenes, but from what I do know, it doesn't seem like he's really trying to do much. Dan is doing a great job keeping the entire activity financially sustainable; he also knows that the demise of the activity would come if the performance, touring, artistic demands/expenditures overwhelmed the potential revenue sources. Moreover, he realizes there are people within the world of drum corps who overestimate their, and the activity's, importance within the real world of entertainment; and that an activity cannot grow past that interest level without inevitably collapsing in on itself. Therein is the cavern of contention within the activity because the G7 directors apparently think that they are, or can be, on the entertainment and revenue level of U2. So, Dan not only has my support as a fan, but he also appears to have the backing of all corps directors outside the G7. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerpella Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) One of the things I have stated over and over again in my periodic rants about DCI over the years was that for a long time now it has not been about the activity but about protecting the lucrative gigs of a handful of people in the activity. I think its safe to say that opinion is being confirmed by the current goings on. They created a model that only they prospered from, which worked to the detriment of the activity as a whole and now after essentially running DCI through a titular sanctioning board, they are trying to make the ludicrous assertion that it is not them who have been running things at all and brought the activity to this pass. Frankly I believe DCI should expel Blue Devils, Cadets, SCV, Crown, Bluecoats and Phantom and go about the business of rebuilding the activity into something the fans can enjoy again. The previously named corps would be free to go pursue financial rewards for their managers under the guise of a youth activity, but at the same time its clear their 501-3© status should be revoked. DCI has to be reformed into an organization that rules out suiciding itself in pursuit of goals that are not the interests of the most amount of participants and fans. Get out the professional pageantry folks now. Edited November 19, 2012 by Scerpella 3 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.