Fran Haring Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Apparently, they concluded that BAC couldn't be assimilated into the collective. Or, maybe they just didn't like Conquest. Those darned Crusaders... Heh... just thinking about the "old days" here. If this were, say, 1969 or so, and BAC was cut out of a tour series, the BAC members would challenge the other seven corps to a fight, seven-on-one... and win. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Attendance is up. DCI's net is up (as of 2011). So what IS the problem? DCI doesn't hold the burden of touring expenses, the individual organizations do. This is the crux of the issue. DCI's operations or revenues themselves are not what is at issue, but the distribution of revenue earned through DCI activities. Take emotion out of the equation for a moment and assess from a purely business perspective. There are some organizations that consistently perform on a higher performance level and have developed a stronger brand equity that make them stand outs among the entirety of participants. These organizations that have higher performance level and stronger brand equity are, on average, a larger contributor towards revenue for DCI than others. If these organizations were to leave or no longer be able to sustain operations and other organizations were unable to perform at the same level, this would challenge the fate of the activity as a whole. Maintaining the consistency of these high-level performers and well developed brands should be priority, as it would ensure greatest amount of consistency. What is happening now is not actually an urgent crisis that is caused by recent market or economic changes, stable businesses should be prepared for this. The reality of what is happening he is that we are feeling the onset of a failure to adapt years ago. Remaining rigid and aggressive protectionists of traditional revenue streams is what has caused this crisis. The DCI organization (and individual organizations) should have begun to diversify revenue streams and invest in their future potential years ago. The only genuine resolution here is one that is going to cause a bit of pain... Firstly, fresh horses are needed on the business side. New perspectives, new approaches, best practices, managed risk... but please... some risk (the situation now is caused by not enough managed risk in previous years... too much emphasis on status quo). Releasing management does not mean that they did a poor job (Dan has worked some miracles here), but fresh perspectives and new approaches are required now. DCI needs a turn around. Emphasis should be placed on skills training and sharing of best practices and network on the business and management side of the activity. Lift all boats. If every management team and board member of an organization had the same level of knowledge, skill and network as all others, the overall sustainability of the activity would be improved significantly. Finally, egos and politics have to go. It's just kid's marching band. The only way this can be effectively resolved, it seems, is if there was an EXTERNAL consulting or working group, one not connected with any organization or DCI, that would develop a plan based on rational, practical and actionable steps... with balanced priorities. There is no question that everyone involved is absolutely passionate and genuinely concerned about the activity as a whole. The reality is that, due to inability to adapt (business practices, nothing related to performance), we are now faced with something of a Sophie's Choice and must determine where to place emphasis in a way that will have greatest opportunity for future sustainability. The status quo is not sustainable nor is equal distribution. Cost to maintain higher levels of performance and tours are too high. You cannot divide priority between supporting a high level of performance and increased access/greater number of corps and also expect sustainability. This has been DCI for the past decades... so, clearly not sustainable. The only option is to pick one. If the choice is to focus on increased access and a greater number of local corps... top corps/brands will leave... losing the most significant recruiting tool for many corps at other stages. Likely outcome would be an overall decline in participation over time. If the choice is to focus on higher performing organizations and established brands, their sustainability will dramatically improve, but there will be a loss among other organizations. This is unavoidable, really. If managed well, however, there could be regrowth of this segment within a short time, after a period of greater stabilization and revenue diversity. Revenue diversity, operational efficiency, redundancy elimination, focus on higher performing segments in order to later seed growth segments.... these are key words. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 Boston weren't in the original G7 proposal either. Whatever the reason for that was, may also be the reason they are out now. Given the unsurprising level of animosity toward the G7, I can see BAC deciding it's just not worth the harm done to the activity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yeah, but Ho...I mean Vader still destroyed Alderan with it.... then watched it get blown up,....after it all, it was just like bullseyeing womp rats in my ti16 back in beggars canyon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 This came up in another thread, the one about the podcast with Dan Acheson. In that podcast, Mr. Acheson says that he is frequently asked by parents to intervene in various corps management problems, and that his standard reply is that he cannot intervene, because DCI is not a league, it is an association. And he is not a Commissioner, he is an Executive Director. The interviewers did not follow up on this. I'm not a huge sports fan, so I had to look up what sports leagues are; they are sports, run by an association of the teams. Commissioner is simply the title they give to the head honcho of the league. The Commish may come from outside or inside the sport. The title seems to have nothing to do with the amount of power he has. Some are tough, some are weak. Baseball Commissioners have been very tough at times to deal with major problems, but there's no reason they have to be, and there's no reason to believe the DCI rules do not 'allow' Mr. Acheson to be tough. Leaders have to make their own power. For example, if the judges report to him, then he can probably stop any corps from competing from any show. And that would mean he has pretty much absolute power until 51% of the board wants him off (not sure about the %, but you get the idea). And as long as they perceive him to be acting in the best interests of the activity, he would stay. So, I think Mr. Acheson's party line has perhaps simply been an evolution of what works when mollifying angry parents, but in fact Dan Acheson does appear to be the Commissioner of Major League Drum Corps as far as I see. To really answer your question, we would need to see the by-laws or whatever gives the Executive Director his/her power, and compare it to the same for baseball, for example. I can't find DCI's on the DCI website. Anyone have it? therein lies the problem. his power is what they let him have...and I'm sure the bylaws keep him from going Bud Selig or Roger Goodell if he feels he needs to. I'd advise Dan to get a lawyer to really read those rules, and see what special powers he can invoke "in the best interests of the game" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So Boston Crusaders, who finished ahead of Cavaliers, are not part of this "special series". well no. They were not part of the original G7. when the TOC was born out of compromise, they added 8th place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) well no. They were not part of the original G7. when the TOC was born out of compromise, they added 8th place. Jeff is correct. Boston was never part of the "self-proclaimed seven" but became part of the TOC only by earning 8th place in 2011. Hmm...interesting that BAC placed in the top 8 three of the last four years (7th in 2009/8th in 2011/7th in 2012) but is not part of this group... Edited November 20, 2012 by craiga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Sam, is your sentiment directed at DCP'ers or at the directors of the G corps? :devil:/>/> I'm not even sure anymore. I agree that the lower-tier corps are a financial drain on the top-tier corps. I understand that having more corps is good for the activity. I understand the need for organizational self-preservation (austerity, almost?) in a time when the activity is becoming more and more pigeonholed into a tiny, tiny niche. I also understand the passion of the paying fans. But, if you step back and look at what we're discussing -- it's marching band. It's whether some bands will get to be in shows with other bands or whether they will be on their own. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 DCI doesn't hold the burden of touring expenses, the individual organizations do. This is the crux of the issue. DCI's operations or revenues themselves are not what is at issue, but the distribution of revenue earned through DCI activities. Take emotion out of the equation for a moment and assess from a purely business perspective. There are some organizations that consistently perform on a higher performance level and have developed a stronger brand equity that make them stand outs among the entirety of participants. These organizations that have higher performance level and stronger brand equity are, on average, a larger contributor towards revenue for DCI than others. If these organizations were to leave or no longer be able to sustain operations and other organizations were unable to perform at the same level, this would challenge the fate of the activity as a whole. Maintaining the consistency of these high-level performers and well developed brands should be priority, as it would ensure greatest amount of consistency. What is happening now is not actually an urgent crisis that is caused by recent market or economic changes, stable businesses should be prepared for this. The reality of what is happening he is that we are feeling the onset of a failure to adapt years ago. Remaining rigid and aggressive protectionists of traditional revenue streams is what has caused this crisis. The DCI organization (and individual organizations) should have begun to diversify revenue streams and invest in their future potential years ago. The only genuine resolution here is one that is going to cause a bit of pain... Firstly, fresh horses are needed on the business side. New perspectives, new approaches, best practices, managed risk... but please... some risk (the situation now is caused by not enough managed risk in previous years... too much emphasis on status quo). Releasing management does not mean that they did a poor job (Dan has worked some miracles here), but fresh perspectives and new approaches are required now. DCI needs a turn around. Emphasis should be placed on skills training and sharing of best practices and network on the business and management side of the activity. Lift all boats. If every management team and board member of an organization had the same level of knowledge, skill and network as all others, the overall sustainability of the activity would be improved significantly. Finally, egos and politics have to go. It's just kid's marching band. The only way this can be effectively resolved, it seems, is if there was an EXTERNAL consulting or working group, one not connected with any organization or DCI, that would develop a plan based on rational, practical and actionable steps... with balanced priorities. There is no question that everyone involved is absolutely passionate and genuinely concerned about the activity as a whole. The reality is that, due to inability to adapt (business practices, nothing related to performance), we are now faced with something of a Sophie's Choice and must determine where to place emphasis in a way that will have greatest opportunity for future sustainability. The status quo is not sustainable nor is equal distribution. Cost to maintain higher levels of performance and tours are too high. You cannot divide priority between supporting a high level of performance and increased access/greater number of corps and also expect sustainability. This has been DCI for the past decades... so, clearly not sustainable. The only option is to pick one. If the choice is to focus on increased access and a greater number of local corps... top corps/brands will leave... losing the most significant recruiting tool for many corps at other stages. Likely outcome would be an overall decline in participation over time. If the choice is to focus on higher performing organizations and established brands, their sustainability will dramatically improve, but there will be a loss among other organizations. This is unavoidable, really. If managed well, however, there could be regrowth of this segment within a short time, after a period of greater stabilization and revenue diversity. Revenue diversity, operational efficiency, redundancy elimination, focus on higher performing segments in order to later seed growth segments.... these are key words. There are some organizations that may perform better on the field, but do horrible business wise. You continue to ignore that fact. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm not even sure anymore. I agree that the lower-tier corps are a financial drain on the top-tier corps. I understand that having more corps is good for the activity. I understand the need for organizational self-preservation (austerity, almost?) in a time when the activity is becoming more and more pigeonholed into a tiny, tiny niche. I also understand the passion of the paying fans. But, if you step back and look at what we're discussing -- it's marching band. It's whether some bands will get to be in shows with other bands or whether they will be on their own. actually, top tier grpoups can be a financial drain. Not only that, the amazing thing continuously overlooked is these guys, in most cases, are the ones that created DCI as it currently exists! These are the guys that pushed for all of the changes they now say are no good. Where's the accountability? there is none. They just want to change again, and again, continuing to fail at learning from their mistakes, by going and creating new mistakes. Who wanted the current tour set up? These clowns. Hoppy and Gibbs have been on the board and involved how long? Jeff too. They created the mess they feel DCI is in I have NO sympathy for people who just continue to change for the sake of change, and never once looking back and saying "hey...that was stupid. let's go back". Because many of their changes have hurt DCI...and in turn themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves. 8 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.