G7 Update

[garfield]

Let's do a little presumptive math here to, maybe, illustrate what the WE7 are facing, revenue-demand-wise.

Here's a post from the 990s thread regarding DCI's "show expenses":

First is"DCI Show Expense":

2009: $4,108,635

2010: $4,424,678 (plus $316,043 [7.7%] over 2009)

2011: $4,878,735 (plus $454,057 [10.3%] over 2010, plus $770,100 [18.7%] over2009)

I've already confirmed that these numbers include payouts to drum corps as well as the actual costs to produce the shows (stadium rental, etc.). So let's subtract from the 2011 number, say, $500,000 in actual production costs, leaving $4.3million that was paid out to corps. (Yes, it's a guess, but work with me here.)

Some time ago I did a regression analysis to try to pinpoint how much each corps might get from DCI's total payout. That analysis showed that the top corps would get something like $300,000, with the amount declining on down the placement positions, such that the lowest-placing corps got something like $40,000. (That analysis' accuracy was never confirmed. Still, stay with me...)

Also from the 990s thread, here's the entry that shows YEA!'s income from drum corps shows:

YEA!Revenue

Program Service Revenue

Drum Corps Shows:

2009: $238,613

2010: $245,001 (plus $6,358 [2.6%] from 2009)

2011: $404,812 (plus $159,811 [65.2%] from 2010, plus $166,199 [69.6%] from2009)

Let's also focus on 2011 and assume that YEA! earned $100,000 from the shows they produced. Many would say that's way high, but it does tend to support that YEA! got around $300,000 from DCI's payout as the top corps. Remember, however, that YEA! would have to replace DCI's payout plus their own show revenue. So $400,000 is what they need to replace.

Using just half my brain I can easily presume that the top-7 corps collected around $2million of DCI's 2011 payout. And here's my point...

How many tickets would the 7 have to sell, at what price, to earn that $2mm they got from DCI?

For example:

20 shows have to generate $100,000 in profit. Presuming profits are 40% of gate (maybe a stretch), then each show has to generate $250,000 in gross gate. At an average of 12,000 BITS per show, tickets would cost $21. If average attendance is 10,000, ticket prices would have to be $25 average per seat. If ticket costs are $30 average, and average attendance is 15,000, then the 7 earn substantially more than their payout from DCI.

Obviously, these numbers are guesses, and I'm sure that someone on the 7's team has already done the calculations.

But, considering that DCI finals attracts around 13,000 BITS, I wonder just how safe it is to assume that the 7 can make up in profit what they'll lose from DCI's payout structure.

[JimF-LowBari]

Anyway, I don't think anyone wants to "shut out the top tier corps". If anyone wants to shut out any corps, it seems the 7 are the ones with that desire.

I see it as the top corps already had the most say as they could do the voting on changes to the way DCI operates. What IMO is the top 7 want even MORE of a say in running DCI. And from what I'm catching up on here is they tried it once, got calling on it and threw a snit. Now they are "threatening" to leave or do their own thing if they don't get to call all the shots again.

Bottom line: how much control should the top 7 or so have compared to the rest of the corps in DCI.

Bottom line2: I don't see G7 as trying to save DCI or drum corps activity. I see it as them trying to save their own personal baliwick (IOW their own corps) and are willing to disband anyone else to do it. :thumbdown:/>

Edited January 12, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[MikeN]

Garfield. I'm going to be paying $55 for the MiM tickets I'm getting this summer. I think they have that in mind for their show model.

-Mike

[garfield]

Garfield. I'm going to be paying $55 for the MiM tickets I'm getting this summer. I think they have that in mind for their show model.

-Mike

So, here's some more math:

$55 per ticket

times 6 shows

times 10,000 BITS

=$3,3million gross revenue

times 40% net

= $1.32million

divided by 7 corps

= $188,571 per corps

5000 BITS (average per show) = $94,285 per corps

5000 BITS and 30% net profit = $70,714 per corps

5000 BITS and 40% net x 20 shows = $314,285 per corps

5000 BITS and 30% net x 20 shows = $235,714 per corps

[elphaba01]

A man who runs a performing arts non-profit has no moral compass leading him... lulz

"Cure for Cancer"

After augering through all these pages after pages of G-7 and Hopkine dictatorial aspirations, Tony Schlecta doesn't seem like all that bad of a guy......

Elphaba

WWW

[garfield]

Here's another thought.

Again, from the 990s:

YEA! Revenue

Program Service Revenue

Drum Corps Shows:

2009: $238,613

2010: $245,001 (plus $6,358 [2.6%] from 2009)

2011: $404,812 (plus $159,811 [65.2%] from 2010, plus $166,199 [69.6%] from 2009)

Doesn't this show that DCI did exactly what the G7 wanted after the May, 2010 proposal, that is, paid more out to the corps? Even if we assume that Cadets earned a little more from their own shows (say, $25,000) this is still a, roughly, $130,000 payout increase.

Which begs the question, what's the problem?

Plus, Cadet' revenue was over $3million in 2011. Is this 4.3% increase a fail? Enough of a fail to justify splitting up DCI?

Another way:

Let's assume, using the numbers in my previous post, that MiM gets 7500 BITS, makes 40% profit, and does 20 shows. That nets about $470,000 to Cadets, or about $170,000 more than they got from DCI (using my assumptions). Again, same question: Is $170,000 more revenue, an 5.6% increase in revenue, enough to justify breaking up DCI?

Edited January 12, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

One more thought...

Again, from the 990s:

TOTAL REVENUE:

2009: $8,592,976

2010: $8,838,914

2011: $9,722, 125

TOTAL EXPENSES:

2009: $8,542,134

2010: $8,875,705

2011: $9,429,827

REVENUE LESS EXPENSES:

2009: $50,842

2010: ($36,791) a loss

2011: $292,298

So, in addition to the, roughly, $400,000 more that DCI paid out in "show expenses", they also added nearly $300,000 towards the G7's goal of building a $500,000 "reserve" (from the '10 G7 presentation). So, is DCI really broken? Is it on the edge of insolvency? Is it inept in its management of the activity's goal of paying out the maximum to the corps?

Something changed in the past couple of years. Maybe it was DCI getting off their butts and doing better. Maybe it was the economy. Maybe it was the fear induced by the G7. Who knows?

But if we assume that they are beginning to right the ship and the benefits are starting to accrue, I wonder if the G7 has considered that, if they leave, they won't be a part of whatever it is that DCI is doing to attain that success.

If I were DCI, I'd not share their future plans with the 7 until that group capitulates and agrees to get off the bus and help push.

To share those details with the 7 will only give them the chance to use that info against DCI and to their own benefit.

The 7 don't need a seat at the voting table to be a part of whatever it is that brought DCI success in the past couple of years. The fact is that they weren't at the table, and DCI turned a nice profit. What does that say?

Edited January 12, 2013 by garfield

[soccerguy315]

Good for G7 for making difficult decisions and doing what they feel is best for the resilience if the activity.

You can't say nothing needs to be done when you don't have a Glassmen or Teal sound on the field in 2013... they are atleast doing something about it.

Carry on!

or, you could argue that these G7 corps are the reason DCI is in this position in the first place.

[BRASSO]

or, you could argue that these G7 corps are the reason DCI is in this position in the first place.

... or alternatively, one could argue that DCI is better off financially now since it replaced the G7 Directors on the DCI BOD with the non G7 Corps Directors. Who really knows.

Edited January 12, 2013 by BRASSO

[danielray]

How? These are the guys that put DCI in the position they claim is broken. These are the guys in their own manifesto claim they don't even know the answers to fix it, they just want the power or else.

People keep chiming in with this bit that these same corps directors were the ones that caused DCI to be in the current position. The answer here is both yes and no, but first... we must acknowledge that if it wasn't for them, the activity would not exist at all anymore... done.... finished... over.

Now, just because someone is on a board of an activity, it does not mean they are in charge of the decision-making process. In fact, many of the decisions during this period went in exactly the opposite way that these individuals wanted, simply because of the way DCI is set up.

The real issue here is that at DCI everything is a design by committee. If you want to have a horrible result, get more people involved.

A perfect example... our company is in the middle of a major rebrand for a very large organization. The initial concepts when working with the brand manager were brilliant.

In order to get final sign-off, the brand manager had to take it to various groups within the organization to get their sign-off. Each group wanted to change or add some small details that they felt addressed their individual priorities.

This morning I got the concepts incorporating each group's requirements. They are horrible in comparison to the original. But, no one is really unhappy... while no one is really happy.

This is design by committee... dulling brilliance, making no one happy, but no one really unhappy.

Less people need to be involved with the decision-making process at DCI. More bold steps and clear actions should be taken. If they #### up, they should be replaced by others who will similarly have consolidated control and will take bold actions. Adding more people to the decision-making process is 100% the wrong thing to do.

So, back to addressing your point... yes, they were there. Yes, they were on the board. But... the way the organization was structured, it was design by committee, so not exactly what you are describing.

Edited January 12, 2013 by danielray