G7 Update

[flammaster]

I love modern drum corps! I dislike certain shows but that is always going to happen and always has.

I really like WGI too!

[Jeff Ream]

So, if DCP is being watched, by both sides (and I agree with you), what positive has come out of this thread?

If nothing we say is impactful, why are they watching?

Isn't there a chance, even a small one, that a positive discourse from this most-passionate fandom might introduce an idea, a thought, a potential solution viewpoint that might be taken as seriously as our bit***ng about curtains in the Oil Can?

Don't we have that desire? That responsibility?

To be relevent?

Not discounted?

Constructive?

Positive?

watched for entertainment. watched to see if any info leaked can be traced to the source....which is funny because my best source never gets blamed, and someone i rarely talk to always does.

Really, given the manifesto that started this thread, the battle lines are pretty well drawn.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Jeff Ream

[Jeff Ream]

The email feels like an ultimatum.

But, could it have been...

an olive branch?

well, most olive branches don;'t ask for a controlling interest in things

[Jeff Ream]

[/size]

The email makes sense coming from guys who've spent their lives competing in what is -- at heart - a creative art form. No business would ever put their 'creatives' in a spot where they can actually control the purse strings. But (for historical reasons) it's where DCI finds itself. It's a bunch of artistic folks having a big argument over the organization that governs their art ! Why that's shocking to anyone I can't imagine. The fundamental question is how should DCI envision itself. IMO the G7 is right about one thing: DCI need to stop doing things because of organizational inertial. They want things to change. That's not a bad thing. Unfortunately the personalities involved have made getting there pretty difficult. Getting people to act rationally in a situation where they're heavily invested emotionally is not going to be easy.

It's certainly not easy here on DCP. Take the formation of the Music in Motion corporation. Everyone ($1 to she who must not be named) here sees it as a smoking gun -- proof that the G7 plan to secede. Well... there's a pretty good reason for creating that organization. If the MiM shows are going to execute facility contracts, sell tickets, collect revenue, disperse funds, etc... it's probably NOT a good idea to just run it out of a shoebox and an excel spreadsheet. So -- there's a *rational* reason for creating the corp.

As I said in my recent post, why has DCI allowed the TOC and MiM shows to go forward? Could the answer be to see if the claims the G7 were making can be validated?

Have we seen stats on just the G7 shows in terms of attendance, profit etc?

[Jeff Ream]

Don't misunderstand my apparent change of heart of this issue. There is none. I disdain Hop being the spokesman of the 7. HE'S NOT QUALIFIED to be a spokesman simply because he enjoys being the center of attention as the lightening rod way too much. But I have equal disdain for Gibbs and Fiedler for standing in the shadows and letting HOP be the target, too.

I respect Surf, and Pacific Crest, and Mandarins. I think they each have demonstrated qualities of improvement - financially, show production-wise, fan-friendly, quietly growing their asset strength if even in the shadows. I respect Cascades for their determination to save an old, respected brand. I respect Oregon Crusaders for their willingness, in the face of a marginal balance sheet, to leap into WC.

But let's stand in the G7's shoes. Pio has done a good job of surviving, but what have they done to advance the activity? What about Blue Knights? Colts? All the others? Are they advancing the activity or are they better characterized as "marking time"?

There was a post here (that I remember attacking) that lauded the brutal honesty of the G7's contentions. So let's be brutally honest and stand in G7 shoes. Who is advancing the activity and who is marking time? Is the director of Blue Knights any more appropriate a leader/spokesman than Hop is?

(This line of blathering feels very uncomfortable to me, personally. But maybe it's time we all stepped out of our comfort zones and addressed the issues of all of the directors, not just our favorites.)

let me turn the question back at you for a second:

what have the Cadets or BD done to advance the activity? They have been very polarizing at times, and have created much fan angst...I'm not talking leadership, I'm talking on the field.

is there a corps more disliked over the last 5 years than BD? Or Cadets 05-08? Sure, both corps have some rings in there, but they turned a lot of people off too

[Jeff Ream]

I'm absolutely all for positive...

What DCI and several corps are currently experiencing are simply the effects of hanging on to a business model and structure much longer than feasible. They simply have not adapted and diversified at points in the past and are now suddenly feeling the hurt (sort of like the guy who doesn't stay on top of his health... adjusting his behavior as his body changes with age... and finally goes to the doctor once he's had a heart attack).

These are the facts. Indisputable. This is the real root of the problem.

It is said that definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result. As such, to not try something different here, to not explore other possibilities would be insane.

So, what could be the solution here? Something MUST change... but, what? How? When?

As I have expressed in other posts here and there, one of the main flaws in the current structure of DCI is that it is monolithic, a solid slab where everything is connected, all is interdependent. This is as dangerous as it is ineffective.

The first real place to start here is how to thoughtfully separate various components of DCI operations to where they are interrelated, but not interdependent.

In short, DCI, as both a corporation and a concept, must become more flexible. To do this, it must be structured in a way that is much more adaptive, more distributed and become more agile in decision making and planning processes..

Starting with the very premise of operations. DCI, as corporation, seems to be operating in a structure and with processes that do not take full advantage of technologies and approaches (everything that can effectively be outsourced should be... it is rarely cheaper to do a diverse range of activities in house) that could allow it to be much more lean.

DCI should be primarily a virtual and distributed company. DCI should not hold or process any physical inventory of ANYTHING. This makes no sense, and is much more expensive than on demand production/fulfillment centers.

Again, thinking should be shifted from the cost of a production of inventory to the actual cost of sitting on inventory. While holding inventory from production runs improves margins, it ties up cash unnecessarily or causes need for a burden of credit. This cash freed up or eased burden of credit could allow more flexibility to invest in new revenue streams, increasing diversity, decreasing vulnerability.

The first step here, DCI needs to immediately, as in now, cease producing merchandise and stop producing DVD's. Distribution of content must become 100% digital.

Back in the late 90's, I put together a project "Crazy Dan's DCI Basement Blowout". The point was to move all of the inventory that DCI had been sitting on for years. We were clearing this stuff out, loads of this stuff.... for cents on the dollar of the original cost. Yet, DCI, had the production costs, warehousing costs, and depreciation in value of the stuff they had been sitting on for years. Not only was this cash tied up, it was cash that decreased in value. This is an important point, as the amount of money that was lost due to this, combined with opportunity cost of tying up cash (what other revenue streams could have been created with this money?) truly was crazy.

It makes ZERO sense for a non-profit organization to hold inventory, as held/unsold inventory just decreases in value. A for-profit entity has various options to buffer or mitigate these decreases in value through various write downs. What I am getting at is that the actual vehicles that take in cash, other than donations, should be for profit entities to be able to have greater flexibility, particularly in the case of loss.

What should be considered is a split of activities, with a non-profit parent holding for-profit subsidiaries. Depending on the type of activity, an LLC held by the non-profit parent would also be tax exempt as LLC's are pass-through entities.

Hybrid Organizations: Not-For-Profit Organizations and Limited Liability Companies

My solution...

DCI parent organization remains the same (non-profit, same management team, etc.)

DCI establishes for-profit, subsidiaries... LLC for various activities (events, media, etc.), which are governed separate management and board of directors.

This breaking up of parts could also potentially solve the current crisis of governance in a more reasonable way.

Finally, DCI and individual corps need to stop pretending there is actually enough money in the drum corps activity to support really much of anything at all. Rather than fighting over this, there should be an aggressive and cooperative effort to create MANY NEW revenue streams that are entirely unconnected to the marching music activity or audience.

a lot of this makes sense, but, well, not everyone is all for digital media, especially older generations, of which there are still a lot of them. granted, with all of the licensing issues, even downloads are useless

[charlie1223]

All of these things help or hurt at the margins. The money and time and personnel devoted to electronics did not help Glassmen survive. Neither did their show designs (IMO) nor their relative competitive decline. Management decisions surely contributed, as did the touring schedule. The answer is not any one thing, no more than any one change has contributed to the sharp decline in corps count in the past twenty years. But the plans pushed in the past by Hopkins and the rest of the G7--larger membership, amps, electronics in that mix--each added a few straws to that camel's back. The new G7 ideas would be even more punishing to the non-G7 corps--no Friday or Sunday shows outside the G7, a smaller share of revenue outside the G7, less control by non-G7 members--along with related ideas from Hopkins et al--woodwinds would not net out to save anyone money.

Someone who wants to help struggling corps should be proposing ideas for helping those corps that are at the biggest risk of folding, not for padding the balance sheets of the corps who already have the biggest budgets and the biggest fanbases.

Who's speaking for the non-7? Where us their proposal for change in DCI? Does Teal want DCI structured better so they are being helped? Glassmen? Maybe these corps don't want DCI to change?

[danielray]

a lot of this makes sense, but, well, not everyone is all for digital media, especially older generations, of which there are still a lot of them. granted, with all of the licensing issues, even downloads are useless

I feel like content should be given away for free as a promotional tool to generate more interest. This is the model of the music industry now... free the music, increase the fan base, make up the revenues in other areas.

[JimF-LowBari]

Who's speaking for the non-7? Where us their proposal for change in DCI? Does Teal want DCI structured better so they are being helped? Glassmen? Maybe these corps don't want DCI to change?

Until the minutes of the BoD meeting are released we have no idea either way.

Irony is I could take a page from your book and call this post a conspiracy theory that non-G7 don't want to change.

[danielray]

Does Teal want DCI structured better so they are being helped? Glassmen? Maybe these corps don't want DCI to change?

DCI is an event and media production company serving a consortia of drum corps, not an organization at all responsible for the management of these groups.

Issues with Teal and Glassmen had absolutely nothing to do with how DCI is structured or how revenues were divided.

More money would not have improved the situation with Teal or Glassmen, as the issue was in managing the money they already had.

Again, not an issue of cash, but entirely an issue of managing cashflow and structuring commitments.

In both cases, had they either lived within their means or focused on closing cashflow gaps, they'd both be still competing this year.

One more time... DCI is an event and media production company serving a consortia of drum corps. Part of this issue of governance is related to the fact that DCI has moved too far beyond this. Refocusing on this purpose and core competency could go a long way to resolving this, as the real issue here is a difference of opinion over what DCI actually is, should be and can become.