baja Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Not only is it impractical, it also supposes that those "instructional" people don't deserve a return on what they've invested in education. How do you expect "administrators" to feed their families, assuming it is a full time job? If today's corps could hire all volunteer truck drivers don't you think they would already do it? Nobody has ever said staff people "don't deserve to be paid". This is a non issue and a tired argument. They can choose to volunteer their services. Realistically this choice is limited to those who can afford it. Noone has said that volunteering is a life long commitment. If you have ever done volunteer work for a drum corps, you would know that people sometimes volunteer for a few hours to a few days, weeks, months and in rare occasions years. We had bingo operators who volunteered for thirty years. There are volunteers in every drum corps in many differenct capacities from directors to the pot washers for various lengths of time. I volunteered to run a fund raiser which took about 20-30 hours a week for a year and a half. I am not rich wealthy or even good looking, I just budgeted my time and lived more conservatively. Do you folks even comprehend the concept of volunteerism? There is little doubt that many of the smaller organizations rely heavily on this contribution. And yes many of the most skilled, talented and accomplished people volunteer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 And ALL of this goes to show that this IS NOT JUST A GLASSMEN problem. When you need 1 to 2 million dollars to fund a drum corps to go on tour and exist for ONE year then Houston we have a problem. The national tour model, the expense of housing and rehearsal sites, the high paid staff and instructors req'd now are slowly killing drum corps period. And don't tell me about how corps has changed over the years and we can no longer be local based and such etc. I know the modern reality but would challenge the assumption that it has to keep going down that path. With localization you go back to getting a better chance of local support of businesses that would have a dog in the race (they would know the corps and the kids), volunteers that don't have to take a summer off, staff that would not have to FLY in every month (OR kids),and so on and so on. With ALL the corps staying local or regional until the World Championships the cost would drop dramatically. There WAS a reason there were thousands of corps back in the day. And for the most part the instuctional staff & mgmt did not make a "living" off of corps. And don't come at me saying well then you'll be left in the dust by the G7...Seems like Cavies,Sac,Boston and all of the top 12 BITD had at least 25 to 30 corps at any given time knocking on the door. And for the most part the top people were either local in IN the region. I know I'm an old dino...but this old dino has been marching corps since 68 up to and including this year. I've seen a tremendous amount of change and not all for the best. We all know the good stuff that has happened because of DCI, but seem to want and ignore the bad...and that 800lb gorilla in the room is going to kill corps. Nuff said. I agree here with most of your sentiments on this.. But at the end of the day, you are asking to put the Genie back in the bottle, but the reality is..... it can't be done anymore. We can have all volunteer Corps in neighborhoods, but once the new marchers get fairly good and trained, they'll inevitably want move up to another Corps, and you'll ultimately find it hard to sustain such a volunteer Corps in operation for very long. Thats how I see it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) How many corps have to close operations before the remaining corps propose a change?... How many corps have disappeared even though they were local, staffed significantly by volunteers and operating on tiny budgets? Plenty - many more than were sunk by salaries or six-figure spending. Corps were fading by the dozens every year through the 70s and 80s. What killed them wasn't common necessarily. Sure money mattered. They just didn't all drop the same distance. For every "big" Bridgemen or Lancers, there were many more headed for extinction whose budgets and prominence were equally small. Their tours were as tiny as their reputations. They didn't die because their staffs were highly paid - or paid at all. They just died. There's no reset button in drum corps. You can't just restore the default settings. That's partly because our drum corps has always reflected the society around it - for better and for worse. For worse today is that our communities don't value "local" the way they once did. For better and for worse, we eat at national chain restaurants, we shop online and we don't support local drum corps the way we once did. And we probably never will. HH Edited January 7, 2013 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) They can choose to volunteer their services. Realistically this choice is limited to those who can afford it. Lots of wisdom in these words,imo. and of course the biggest dilemna. There are not a whole of brass instuctors, percussion instructors,Guard instructors, show designers that are so independently wealthy that they can afford to offer up their services for nothing, particularly when there are other Corps willing to pay them something, even if just a little bit ( or a lot ). Given a choice of being payed for a service rendered, or nothing at all, most people will opt for the former... Especially if they have a spouse, a dependent, a mortgage, a house or rent bill, a college loan, credit card bill, etc. You are asking people that are good enough to be paid for a service to forego that pay and opt to receive nothing in renumeration for that serice rendered. While a noble thought and gesture, its fantasyland.. unless that talented person you are asking to work for nothing is so rich they have no financial obligations, responsibilities and obligations to other family members that would naturally take priority over their personal philanthropic need to provide their services for nothing. Edited January 7, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
En929 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Nobody has ever said staff people "don't deserve to be paid". This is a non issue and a tired argument. They can choose to volunteer their services. Realistically this choice is limited to those who can afford it. Noone has said that volunteering is a life long commitment. If you have ever done volunteer work for a drum corps, you would know that people sometimes volunteer for a few hours to a few days, weeks, months and in rare occasions years. We had bingo operators who volunteered for thirty years. There are volunteers in every drum corps in many differenct capacities from directors to the pot washers for various lengths of time. I volunteered to run a fund raiser which took about 20-30 hours a week for a year and a half. I am not rich wealthy or even good looking, I just budgeted my time and lived more conservatively. Do you folks even comprehend the concept of volunteerism? There is little doubt that many of the smaller organizations rely heavily on this contribution. And yes many of the most skilled, talented and accomplished people volunteer. Baja, I read your original post and it didn't say anything about you saying staff don't deserve to get paid. You made some valid points that made a lot of sense for an organization (the Glassmen) who is having financial trouble at the moment and you were putting forth an idea worth considering (and things that were done before in drum corps). Nevertheless, a struggling organization has to consider everything. But, I just came to say that you'll find that here on Drum Corps Planet some people will twist your words, inject things that you didn't say, say immature and unreasonable things, and not really give true consideration to what you said (and I'm convinced that some didn't even really read what your original post said). So that's why when I make posts here on drum corps planet, I either just make my statements and keep going or just skip over the ones that don't sound like they're trying to be within reason of what was originally said or those who don't seem like they want to have a mature discussion. I quit responding to those. No offense to anyone, but that's just something to remember when trying to have a constructive discussion here. Edited January 7, 2013 by En929 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 If Glassmen ever want to be a competitive world class corps again and get into finals they would not implement baja's proposal. Isn't the problem with Glassmen not how much money they spent but how much money they took in? Where in this reinvention is the main problem of revenue addressed? Because I'm sure Nestlé corps won't donate free food and Exxon Mobile wont donate free gas. Here we're talking about spending less money when i think the real problem is not enough coming in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 If Glassmen ever want to be a competitive world class corps again and get into finals they would not implement baja's proposal. Isn't the problem with Glassmen not how much money they spent but how much money they took in? Where in this reinvention is the main problem of revenue addressed? Because I'm sure Nestlé corps won't donate free food and Exxon Mobile wont donate free gas. Here we're talking about spending less money when i think the real problem is not enough coming in... I agree with you, but feel the need to state that it's the flip side of the same coin. Yes, they need to bring in more money, but spending less is also important. How much less is a function of what they want to do as an organization. If they want to be a World Class DCI corps, it takes a great deal of money and it may not be possible to do that in their present area. Perhaps they should look at doing something like Boston has done and be in two locations? Maybe they can take it a step further and do it financially as well? I know this idea of being co-located has been tried with both Kiwanis Kavaliers and Yamato to some extent for membership reasons, but I do not know if they setup organizations in those areas fiscally.... Sometimes, we have to look at other ways to reach our goals and maybe the Glassmen could obtain their goal by trying something different like this? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 If Glassmen ever want to be a competitive world class corps again and get into finals they would not implement baja's proposal. Isn't the problem with Glassmen not how much money they spent but how much money they took in? Where in this reinvention is the main problem of revenue addressed? Because I'm sure Nestlé corps won't donate free food and Exxon Mobile wont donate free gas. Here we're talking about spending less money when i think the real problem is not enough coming in... "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." - John Boehner, 2013 (and 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Isn't the problem with Glassmen not how much money they spent but how much money they took in? This from the 990's thread pretty clearly shows that Glassmen didn't have a revenue problem, they had a spending problem. The Glassmen Revenue Program Service Revenue Member Fees - Tour (DC) (Note: Glassmen's accountant references "DC" and other monikers throughout their 990s. I suspect they reference programs like "Drum Corps" but I'm not positive. I'll show the abbreviations as they occur so, maybe, someone can guess or confirm their meanings.) 2009: $285,385 2010: $314,903 2011: $334,529 Appearance - DCI (DC) 2009: $114,989 2010: $120,643 2011: $121,149 Member Fees - Registration (DC) 2009: $28,040 2010: $34,480 2011: $36,195 Member Fees - Camp 2009: $41,801 2010: $33,238 2011: $34,480 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." - John Boehner, 2013 (and 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012). But as your analysis of the G'men showed...their revenues declined sharply as their Bingo operation went bust. That is not the entire picture, of course, but it is an important piece of it. 1 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.