Slingerland Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Here is your position in a nutshell: DCI is registered with the IRS as a 501c3 Youth Activity, it claims in it's own Mission Statement that it is a Fraternal Collective (along with all the other items within the statement concerning serving others) 'but' again 'but' it is not being ran in that manner. So, yeah, there is a real big 'but monkey' in the room. Baby, you can say you sell the best jelly donuts in the world, if you want to, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. DCI's self-description and its actual operations focus are at odds with each other. You can choose to believe what they say they do, or you can believe what they actually do, but for most people, it's what you do, not what you say that carries the day. A fraternal collective? Ok, but what business is that, exactly? Are they in the business of providing fraternal love among the members? They sell tickets to events on behalf of the member corps. They don't provide any direct services to kids. The corps do that themselves. It could be why most of the major corps blow DCI out of the water when it comes to how much direct charitable support they receive; a donation to Phantom Regiment or Troopers is going to provide food, transportation, and instruction for those kids; a donation to DCI is going to provide.....what? Those stylin' golf shirts the judges wear? They're a classic example of the old school producers' cooperative, which is cool. So is the NFL, comes down to it. The owners of businesses pool resources to market their products, and get the greatest return on their effort they can by leveraging their shared efforts and resources. But in order for coops to work, there has to be an understanding that either everyone is bringing about the same effort to the table, or that there's a mechanism in place to make sure that those who are the most productive or whose products bring in the most money are protected from feeling that there are others in the group that are benefitting at a much greater level than their own participation would deem reasonable. Again, it's hard because people are so passionate about everything related to this activity, but if we looked at it purely from a business standpoint, it would make sense to consider changes that would either boost the productivity of those whose efforts are returning the least value to the group, or look for ways to perhaps modify the structure altogether so that everyone who's at the table feels confident that there's a shared amount of risk and reward. Thinking aloud, maybe it's time for a total re-boot of DCI, with a buy-in similar to the letter of credit that the original founders had to put together in order to get the first championship underway. If DCI said they were looking for 18 members to come in at $150k each, that would give the re-booted venture $2.7 million in new capital to go out and hire some additional marketing and sponsorship folks, find a way to put the product back on tv, and do a serious re-branding of the whole enterprise. Edited February 24, 2013 by Slingerland 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 You bring a lot of good stuff, Slingerland. Sure don't sound like just another crazy drummer! This is an enjoyable discussion. Thanks to all contributors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) The 'best' corps of the time; really? Out of the thousands and thousands of corps in existence at that time, some in the VFW, some in the Catholic Youth League, and thousands of other corps which never engaged in competition against them, they were the 'best' corps? Who knows? The way things were adjudicated back then were a bit strange... stuff like inspection, penalties, tics and so on. Edited February 24, 2013 by danielray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Baby, you can say you sell the best jelly donuts in the world, if you want to, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. DCI's self-description and its actual operations focus are at odds with each other. You can choose to believe what they say they do, or you can believe what they actually do, but for most people, it's what you do, not what you say that carries the day. A fraternal collective? Ok, but what business is that, exactly? Are they in the business of providing fraternal love among the members? They sell tickets to events on behalf of the member corps. They don't provide any direct services to kids. The corps do that themselves. It could be why most of the major corps blow DCI out of the water when it comes to how much direct charitable support they receive; a donation to Phantom Regiment or Troopers is going to provide food, transportation, and instruction for those kids; a donation to DCI is going to provide.....what? Those stylin' golf shirts the judges wear? Well, watching , for example, those golf shirts were quite an innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Thinking aloud, maybe it's time for a total re-boot of DCI, with a buy-in similar to the letter of credit that the original founders had to put together in order to get the first championship underway. If DCI said they were looking for 18 members to come in at $150k each, that would give the re-booted venture $2.7 million in new capital to go out and hire some additional marketing and sponsorship folks, find a way to put the product back on tv, and do a serious re-branding of the whole enterprise. I wonder if the corps who could afford that buy-in are the ones who claim to bring more to the activity than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Well, watching , for example, those golf shirts were quite an innovation. I was a fan of the early-70s look, especially on Rich Maas. White short sleeve shirts, clip-on black tie, epaulets, plasticized mesh baseball cap. Pure catnip to the ladies. Edited February 24, 2013 by Slingerland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 I was a fan of the early-70s look, especially on Rich Maas. White short sleeve shirts, clip-on black tie, epaulets, plasticized mesh baseball cap. Pure catnip to the ladies. Sounds like you just described Captain Crunch :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) I wonder if the corps who could afford that buy-in are the ones who claim to bring more to the activity than others. Not necessarily. Looking at the 990s thread last night, there were a few corps down in the rankings who would likely have the financial capability to work with their Boards and their communities to come up with some money for a fresh capitalization. I think what people forget is that the original members of DCI all made personal guarantees in order to get the thing off the ground; that sense of shared risk was helpful in letting them work together and seek consensus in hiring their first executive team (Pesceone and Whitely(?) and in making decisions designed to improve their visibility and financial capacity. They'd all taken a risk, they were all going to share in the reward. A fresh capitalization would serve as a put-up or shut-up gut check for some of those who are currently talking big about DCI's future. If the guys behind Crown and Vanguard and BD et al really think they're ready to kick it up a notch at the DCI level, then here's a chance to provide the seed money for their own expansion without having to go out on their own to do it. Anyway, as I said, it was just thinking aloud. Edited February 24, 2013 by Slingerland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 If the guys behind Crown and Vanguard and BD et al really think they're ready to kick it up a notch at the DCI level, then here's a chance to provide the seed money (for their own expansion) (without having to go out on their own to do it) . The the combination of the two bold parenthesized items is where you two lose my support; if that matters. If the G7 corps want to kick up 'DCI' for the benefit of all the corps within DCI great (that squares with the Mission Statement and the IRS designation); however, if they want to do something 'for their own expansion' then they should do that on their own through MiM apart from DCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Not necessarily. Looking at the 990s thread last night, there were a few corps down in the rankings who would likely have the financial capability to work with their Boards and their communities to come up with some money for a fresh capitalization. I think what people forget is that the original members of DCI all made personal guarantees in order to get the thing off the ground; that sense of shared risk was helpful in letting them work together and seek consensus in hiring their first executive team (Pesceone and Whitely(?) and in making decisions designed to improve their visibility and financial capacity. They'd all taken a risk, they were all going to share in the reward. A fresh capitalization would serve as a put-up or shut-up gut check for some of those who are currently talking big about DCI's future. If the guys behind Crown and Vanguard and BD et al really think they're ready to kick it up a notch at the DCI level, then here's a chance to provide the seed money for their own expansion without having to go out on their own to do it. Anyway, as I said, it was just thinking aloud. There is definitely something there.... but I would suggest they seed a new entity that is simply responsible for the tour. Makes zero sense to capitalize the existing non-profit entity. This could definitely give the activity a bit of a boost.... which would allow more time and greater visibility for an opportunity to go after new partner or investor opportunities to grow it even more. I'd probably also structure it where they are not investing directly into the new tour management entity, but something like a DCI Holdings, which would in turn hold these properties. This would make it much cleaner for future investors or partners as it is a very tough sell to get someone to come into something that already has 18 distinct shareholders vs. one additional shareholder. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts