cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 A discussion with a friend today made me step back and reflect on this thread and the week that has passed since the email came out. As I look back over my own very passionate posts, the positions I've taken, the jabs I've freely thrown, I have to wonder... What have we accomplished here? What positive contributions have we made that would prompt anyone to pay attention? Worse, what negative commentary have we presented that, again, reinforces the perception that DCP is a snakepit? Have we really contributed in a positivie, constructive way to the discourse surrounding this issue? As we stand around with our pitchforks, looking at each other, I have to ask... What have we accomplished here that counts towards a positive solution that keeps the activity together, united, and strong? We have about a week before what will be, likely, the most important Janual meeting in DCI's history, second only to the original one. Now that we all have our anger, disgust, resentment, resignation, and reactions aired like so much dirty laundry isn't it time we put our collective heads together to advance some positive solutions to keeping the activity from splintering? I'm guilty, I admit it. But I'll help advance the positive side of our collective passion. Will you? I would love to - and I will below. Are you surprised, though, that there is less constructive feedback when it becomes more clear with each missive from the "The 7" that they, in their esteemed sevenness, are unlikely to listen to our ideas? Besides just that, some of the negativity on this thread is fully warranted, just to illustrate to others how egregious some of the aspects of their proposals are. But okay, let us see how a positive suggestion goes over here. Raise appearance fees for all corps. For a long time now, appearance fees have been held nearly constant, shifting more of revenue toward post season revenue sharing, where top corps get more of the pie. As a result, appearance fees have not kept pace with tour expenses. We may have reached a tipping point in 2012. It is very rare for a corps to fail while the season is underway, since no one wants to forsake the work already invested in that season - but more practically, because so many of the income sources of a drum corps are provided in the course of tour (appearance fees, merchandise sales, and even that "fuel fund" can at the booster stand). After five stunning years of solidarity, many of which took place in a horrible economy, not only did we lose some corps in 2012 - nearly all the losses took place during the season. I would raise appearance fees significantly, say by an increment of $1200, for all corps. Revenue sharing payments would be reduced as required to balance the DCI budget. The adjustments to revenue sharing would be proportional, not straight dollar amounts. That means that more money would be distributed to corps evenly (well, more evenly) via appearance fees, and less money would be distributed to corps by the top heavy revenue sharing formula. Reactions are welcome. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I would raise appearance fees significantly, say by an increment of $1200, for all corps. Revenue sharing payments would be reduced as required to balance the DCI budget. The adjustments to revenue sharing would be proportional, not straight dollar amounts. That means that more money would be distributed to corps evenly (well, more evenly) via appearance fees, and less money would be distributed to corps by the top heavy revenue sharing formula. Anyone have an idea of the profit margin of shows that would have to raise the appearance fee? Asking because having to raise prize money (pre-appearance fee idea) was what killed a lot of local shows in PA. The show sponsors did not have enough profit to give out bigger checks and still make a profit. And raising ticket prices made things even worse as less people would come because of the higher price to go to the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 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? The non-7, as you call them, have voted in favor of numerous changes over the years, so it would not be accurate to characterize them that way. As for their plan, they were on board with the DCI business plan that was ratified in 2009 by the DCI membership, which would have been pursued had the G7 not immediately developed their own competing agenda. Nevertheless, since then, they have approved several of the G7 ideas for implementation via the TOC shows and whatever this 2013 special show series becomes. They have also been part of the great judging sheet rewrite completed in 2012. Clearly, these corps are open to change. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Raise appearance fees? That puts the squeeze on show sponsors and spectators. Probably lessen the amount of both. In the end, making it more expensive for "newbies" to discover this wonderful activity, in this not so wonderful economy, is a significant risk. However, all ideas are worth consideration and I'm glad you put this on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 [/size] The email makes sense coming from guys who've spent their lives competing in what is -- at heart - a creative art form. I am sorry, but I do not see how that email "makes sense" on any level. Do you think it makes sense to ask for sweeping change to DCI bylaws and the composition of the BOD via email one Wednesday morning, and expect serious consideration and a response by the following Monday? 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. Wait - what was the rational reason for having a separate entity perform these tasks in the first place? DCI is perfectly capable of executing facility contracts, selling tickets, and collecting/distributing revenue. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 A discussion with a friend today made me step back and reflect on this thread and the week that has passed since the email came out. As I look back over my own very passionate posts, the positions I've taken, the jabs I've freely thrown, I have to wonder... What have we accomplished here? What positive contributions have we made that would prompt anyone to pay attention? Worse, what negative commentary have we presented that, again, reinforces the perception that DCP is a snakepit? Have we really contributed in a positivie, constructive way to the discourse surrounding this issue? As we stand around with our pitchforks, looking at each other, I have to ask... What have we accomplished here that counts towards a positive solution that keeps the activity together, united, and strong? We have about a week before what will be, likely, the most important Janual meeting in DCI's history, second only to the original one. Now that we all have our anger, disgust, resentment, resignation, and reactions aired like so much dirty laundry isn't it time we put our collective heads together to advance some positive solutions to keeping the activity from splintering? I'm guilty, I admit it. But I'll help advance the positive side of our collective passion. Will you? While the DCP Forum has a function, for example it was on DCP that both of the G7 proposals were revealed and discussed, you are giving this Forum way too much credit. This Forum is nothing more than a modern day Barber Shop where some of the community folk gather on Saturday to banter and fuss about the Friday Night High School football game allowing the HS Coach to give it a token nod so as to at least pretend it has some sort of an impact on his coaching. Those who post here do not even come close to having the numbers to impact a MiM show by staying away from those productions. DCP Forums are a way for a few, and a very few when compared to all involved in the entire activity, to transfer some information while engaging in a form of online social interaction; nothing more. (Oh, it is time for my haircut; Hey Barber. trim a little more off the top this time and please use the non-scented powder on my neck) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 *IS* there a way to make shows more profitable for corps? When a corps attends a TEP show , isn't DCI running a fundraiser for some local organization? Is that / should that be part of DCI's mission (to be a fundraiser for other organizations)? Would the corps be better off if they took home a bigger part of the net from each show? Sure. But there are reasons why this is not done (yet). When DCI was formed, 13 corps wanted a tour full of shows to bring them together from points scattered all over the continent. That tour required far more shows than they could even dream of operating themselves. It required shows to be staged in locations where none of the DCI members corps resided. Local volunteers and business contacts to make those shows possible were far more easily developed by other entities. And for quite some time, the risk of hosting a series of shows was too great for either a member corps or DCI to take on. For those reasons, DCI quickly developed the concept of a sanctioned show, where what we now call "tour event partners" sign a contract to host a show. The TEP pays a fee to DCI that covers the costs (plus profit margin) of providing judges and paying the corps, and the TEP then has the opportunity to make profit of their own (and the risk that they may not profit). A corps can be a TEP. Many are. Over time, a few have even developed pockets of volunteer support that make it possible to host shows in more than one location. Maybe one day in the future, the volunteer armies of DCI corps will be large enough to enable them to run all 100 DCI sanctioned shows - and their financial health will be sufficient to weather the risk of doing so. Until then, they need the TEPs to create a logical cross country tour. And until then, they enjoy the benefits of having dozens of other volunteer armies working on their behalf to promote the drum corps activity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joelw19 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I can understand the G7 wanting more voting power in DCI or splitting off on their own. I'm sure what they feel is a reasonable economic model for them is far from what it is for the 20th ranked World Class corps and definitely what it is for Open Class. There's also no doubt that that these are the corps that the vast majority of drum corps fans travel many miles at great expense to see. What I'd like to hear is what changes the G7 want done to the activity that they feel cannot currently be passed in DCI. Also, do they feel they can be economically sound with just their 7 touring corps and a 7 corps championship if it comes to that? Would there even be a championship (or even judging!) or would there be just exhibitions? I think we need answers to these questions before we can realistically evaluate the proposal by Hopkins. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Raise appearance fees? That puts the squeeze on show sponsors and spectators. Not necessarily. The funds for the appearance fee raise can be obtained from reducing post season revenue sharing. The DCI budget can remain balanced without raising the cost of the show contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troopers1 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Not necessarily. The funds for the appearance fee raise can be obtained from reducing post season revenue sharing. The DCI budget can remain balanced without raising the cost of the show contract. If you look at the 990's thread, it shows exactly that has already happened. 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.