What happens next?

[JimF-LowBari]

So, this is your opinion. It's not enshrined in writing anywhere, it's just what you believe.

And that's fine, of course...

But you don't run a drum corps, do you?

I'd like to know why BD, Cadets, or any other member of the G7 should abide by your beliefs.

Please, help me understand.

(And, BTW, I agree with your sentiment. But I don't run a top-7 drum corps, either.)

IMO, do what's best for your corps but in ye olde doctors jargon "Do No Harm" to the rest of the activity. If something helps your bottom line that can be fine for your corps. But (to go to extremes) if you're the only one left standing.......

[danielray]

A fiscal experiment subsidized by DCI.

How is this subsidized by DCI? Not following. Who actually holds the liabilities here? (hint: not DCI).

Wait - those were new circuits created with DCI member corps as founding members. Your Freudian slip is showing.

Don't follow you.

Here is why this is not a valid analogy. The regional circuits had an actual mission that did not create a conflict of interest with DCI. They served a great number of other corps competing in these regions, not just subsets of DCI corps. Membership was open to all the corps in the region, not just a pre-selected few. And back then, DCI and their corps did not want the entire season administered by DCI. Regional circuits filled that gap.

This seven headed animal currently under development for the 2013 season is just a subset of DCI corps forming a private club, looking for a way to defy the DCI pay scale by running their own DCI subsidized pseudo circuit. That is a conflict of interest with the other DCI corps.

The mission of DCI is to return as much money as possible to the member corps. Nothing more.

People also somehow see this group of shows as something designed to split off of or replace DCI. It was simply incorporated separated as some single legal entity needs to hold agreements, liability and receive revenues from these shows. It is not some vast conspiracy.

Also, guys... how do you forget that the amount of money we're talking about here is ####-all? The whole crux of this argument is about corps receiving $3,000 a show vs. $2,000. um... yep, this is a big money conspiracy.

Be real people... there is NO money in drum corps shows. Not even enough to pay for basic operations of these organizations, let alone touring. No one is getting rich off drum corps.

Also, if you say that these corps that are doing independent shows are taking money away from other corps who are performing at other DCI shows on the same nights.... (which do you think will make more money Charlotte or Huntsville?), then you are admitting that these corps have considerably more of a draw than others. If you don't believe this... then what is the argument?

Again, Charlotte will have 7 corps and Huntsville almost twice as many. If you think the corps performing in Charlotte are taking money away from other corps, you are suggesting that they don't have the same draw.

The real question... which show will make more money... Charlotte or Huntsville? Or is it the same?

[garfield]

Dan and I agree on the ultimate solutions to DCI's fiscal issues like uncorellated business funding of the activity, but this post's logic is misleading on several levels.

The fact is that there IS money in drum corps, as each current corps' survival, even to varying degrees, is a testament. And the fact is that Program Service revenues must average (I've not done the math, yet) something like $500,000 each year. Times 30 or so corps in existance, that's something like $15million in annual revenue supporting these shows (and that doesn't count any surplus earned by some corps).

I think the point of Dan's arguments is that, on a global scale, this is a pittance and hardly a rounding error in most circles. What's really at issue is potential revenue if only the activity were run differently. We've all discussed these various ideas on how drum corps can even reach up to match the funding and draw of "Punkin Chunkin" or that show where southern boys kill aligators. Or even pee-wee football.

But to equate that to the current G7 discussion is misguided because the G7 are not talking about killin' gators. They are talking about using southern belles in bikinis to kill gators in the same swamp that the good ole' boys hunt. There's only so many gators, and the G7 think that their bikini model will attract more fans than the stained-T-shirt wearin', slurred-talking guys who can't stop scratching themselves. They might be right.

But we're not talking about only $1000 in revenue increases for 7 corps; that math is NOT correct because there's a distribution model that DCI uses to return season profits to ALL member corps. Even if it's only 3% or 5% of the annual take, Pioneer gets a payout at the end of the season (actually, payments are made during the season, but the point's the same). By splitting out of DCI these 7 corps are taking revenue away from that model and keeping it all for themselves.

Under the current model, if a show nets a profit of $50,000, some portion of that profit is split off by DCI to be shared with whatever non-G7 corps also perform in that show. It's not hard to imagine that the "leakage" being paid to the non-G7 corps could be 25% or 30%, or as much as $15,000. Divided by 3 G7 corps that a $5000 pay increase for each G7 corps, in this example. Looked at another way, in this example, each G7 corps in the show would normally be paid $11,666 each but, without the "leakage" to the non-G7, their payday is $16,666. That an over-40% increase.

Now, apply this kind of math to the 50 or so local shows each year where the sponsor pays a fee-per-corps to DCI and keeps the "gate". If the G7 can produce the show instead of the local band boosters, the G7 keeps the gate. But the local sponsor AND the non-G7 corps get nada, zip.

There are only so many gators in the swamp. And DCI's obligation is to return as much as possible to ALL member corps. By agreeing to carve out the G7 revenues I wonder if DCI is living up to that stated mandate.

The real discussion should not be about bikinis or bib-overalls or who is better looking, it should be about building a dam, flooding the neighboring areas, and increasing the size of the swamp by attracting more gators. (Maybe throwing the G7 into the water as bait... But I digress). That discussion is how DCI can fulfill it's mandate to return as much as possible to the corps, and we haven't seen anything like a plan to do that since 2010.

I get it. The G7 are impatient and frustrated. But their solution to commandeer the existing swamp for themselves is not a long-term solution even for themselves because, the real problem is, they're not growing enough little baby gators to replace the ones they're killing.

An entire Victoria's Secret catalog of models on airboats doesn't solve that problem even if it is pretty to look at.

How is this subsidized by DCI? Not following. Who actually holds the liabilities here? (hint: not DCI).

Don't follow you.

The mission of DCI is to return as much money as possible to the member corps. Nothing more.

People also somehow see this group of shows as something designed to split off of or replace DCI. It was simply incorporated separated as some single legal entity needs to hold agreements, liability and receive revenues from these shows. It is not some vast conspiracy.

Also, guys... how do you forget that the amount of money we're talking about here is ####-all? The whole crux of this argument is about corps receiving $3,000 a show vs. $2,000. um... yep, this is a big money conspiracy.

Be real people... there is NO money in drum corps shows. Not even enough to pay for basic operations of these organizations, let alone touring. No one is getting rich off drum corps.

Also, if you say that these corps that are doing independent shows are taking money away from other corps who are performing at other DCI shows on the same nights.... (which do you think will make more money Charlotte or Huntsville?), then you are admitting that these corps have considerably more of a draw than others. If you don't believe this... then what is the argument?

Again, Charlotte will have 7 corps and Huntsville almost twice as many. If you think the corps performing in Charlotte are taking money away from other corps, you are suggesting that they don't have the same draw.

The real question... which show will make more money... Charlotte or Huntsville? Or is it the same?

Edited November 30, 2012 by garfield

[3rd Glasgow BB]

I really don't see a great deal of difference between ToC & MiM. They're both a very limited series of shows where most if not all the cash generated goes to the competing corps i.e. the G7.

However, forget 2013 & MiM........

2014 is when it's all going to do down. Next Autumn (fall) will be D-Day for DCI & the G7.

Just remember.... 24 G7 shows = New DCI rules = G7 not allowed to compete at finals

[Jeff Ream]

maybe those TEPs are using Crown Ticketing because ... umm.. it's a quality product at a good value? imagine that -- they made a 'selfish' decision to maximize their earnings ! what's wrong with them -- so greedy

in fact every corps and show on the tour is trying to minimize their expenses and maximize their earnings. it's so...capitalistic

true... but....now, why should they use a ticketing service that benefits a group they may never see?

[Jeff Ream]

No. You missed the point.

DCW, DCE, DCM used to all run their own shows that were separate from DCI shows. They set their own lineups, they collected the money and they distributed it how they saw fit.

All these new shows are is a return to that model.

It completely baffles me that the guys doing these shows didn't simply make that argument in presenting them to the more rabid segments of fans. A little proper communicate here could probably go a long way.

Anyway, these shows are nothing radical and nothing new... just a clear return to the past in some ways.

so wait...the guys that cried about having to do the DCW/DCE/DCM model are now returning to a model like that?

But that defies all of their publicized 'logic" for doing away with it.

yet again, proof that the guys who made DCI the mess they feel it is have no ####### clue and are not being held accountable.

[Jeff Ream]

for now

[Jeff Ream]

Dan and I agree on the ultimate solutions to DCI's fiscal issues like uncorellated business funding of the activity, but this post's logic is misleading on several levels.

The fact is that there IS money in drum corps, as each current corps' survival, even to varying degrees, is a testament. And the fact is that Program Service revenues must average (I've not done the math, yet) something like $500,000 each year. Times 30 or so corps in existance, that's something like $15million in annual revenue supporting these shows (and that doesn't count any surplus earned by some corps).

I think the point of Dan's arguments is that, on a global scale, this is a pittance and hardly a rounding error in most circles. What's really at issue is potential revenue if only the activity were run differently. We've all discussed these various ideas on how drum corps can even reach up to match the funding and draw of "Punkin Chunkin" or that show where southern boys kill aligators. Or even pee-wee football.

But to equate that to the current G7 discussion is misguided because the G7 are not talking about killin' gators. They are talking about using southern belles in bikinis to kill gators in the same swamp that the good ole' boys hunt. There's only so many gators, and the G7 think that their bikini model will attract more fans than the stained-T-shirt wearin', slurred-talking guys who can't stop scratching themselves. They might be right.

But we're not talking about only $1000 in revenue increases for 7 corps; that math is NOT correct because there's a distribution model that DCI uses to return season profits to ALL member corps. Even if it's only 3% or 5% of the annual take, Pioneer gets a payout at the end of the season (actually, payments are made during the season, but the point's the same). By splitting out of DCI these 7 corps are taking revenue away from that model and keeping it all for themselves.

Under the current model, if a show nets a profit of $50,000, some portion of that profit is split off by DCI to be shared with whatever non-G7 corps also perform in that show. It's not hard to imagine that the "leakage" being paid to the non-G7 corps could be 25% or 30%, or as much as $15,000. Divided by 3 G7 corps that a $5000 pay increase for each G7 corps, in this example. Looked at another way, in this example, each G7 corps in the show would normally be paid $11,666 each but, without the "leakage" to the non-G7, their payday is $16,666. That an over-40% increase.

Now, apply this kind of math to the 50 or so local shows each year where the sponsor pays a fee-per-corps to DCI and keeps the "gate". If the G7 can produce the show instead of the local band boosters, the G7 keeps the gate. But the local sponsor AND the non-G7 corps get nada, zip.

There are only so many gators in the swamp. And DCI's obligation is to return as much as possible to ALL member corps. By agreeing to carve out the G7 revenues I wonder if DCI is living up to that stated mandate.

The real discussion should not be about bikinis or bib-overalls or who is better looking, it should be about building a dam, flooding the neighboring areas, and increasing the size of the swamp by attracting more gators. (Maybe throwing the G7 into the water as bait... But I digress). That discussion is how DCI can fulfill it's mandate to return as much as possible to the corps, and we haven't seen anything like a plan to do that since 2010.

I get it. The G7 are impatient and frustrated. But their solution to commandeer the existing swamp for themselves is not a long-term solution even for themselves because, the real problem is, they're not growing enough little baby gators to replace the ones they're killing.

An entire Victoria's Secret catalog of models on airboats doesn't solve that problem even if it is pretty to look at.

:worthy:/>

[corpsband]

true... but....now, why should they use a ticketing service that benefits a group they may never see?

first - exaggerate much?

second - because it's makes good sense to choose a product that's works pretty well and is affordable.

[Jeff Ream]

first - exaggerate much?

second - because it's makes good sense to choose a product that's works pretty well and is affordable.

unless DCI is cheaper...and let's face it....emotion comes into it. If I'm a sponsor, and I see your corps going off to do some super show that eliminates any chance of seeing you again, I'll take my business elsewhere.