garfield Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Jeff, that is not the real issue here. The real issue is people pretending that the current model is sustainable. It has reached the breaking point. Drum corps is a pretty cool activity, but is something that can only continue to exist in any form remotely resemlibg the currebt if it is subsidized by revenues entirely unrelated to drum corps/bands, etc. The only way to keep things going in a way that is even close to the current product on the field is if very bold steps are taken and aggressive changes are made. If there is not a radical new plan put together over the next year that everyone buys into... the DCI is done. The brand could potentially limp along for a few more years, but unless there is a radical management and strategy change, it will not survive. But, you see, there is another way it can continue to exist and thrive under the current model, and that is to grow the activity organically by getting kids interested in performing and marching. DLB and SS are the first solid ideas to do so in many years. Grow attendance organically, grow participation organically. The only solution is not from the top down, trying to force a product into regional buckets that intend to draw fewer fans at a higher price in glitzy stadiums that are accessible to a small portion of the consuming public. Is DCI in the "kid" business or in the "return as much money as possible to the corps" business? The world of drum corps is not a closed system where only so much money is available and the argument is how it's to be divided. Corps can be returned more money if the focus is placed on getting kids involved instead of how to split up the existing pie. If something "radical" needs done, I'd suggest the least invasive procedure would be best first. Put the emphasis on getting kids to join Pio, Mandarins, Surf, Open Class, where they CAN make the cut, and the activity can grow organically, grow the size of the pie to split, and re-emphasize the importance of and satisfaction of marching a corps that doesn't necessarily come with a ring. Edited February 21, 2013 by garfield 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 But, you see, there is another way it can continue to exist and thrive under the current model, and that is to grow the activity organically by getting kids interested in performing and marching. DLB and SS are the first solid ideas to do so in many years. Grow attendance organically, grow participation organically. The only solution is not from the top down, trying to force a product into regional buckets that intend to draw fewer fans at a higher price in glitzy stadiums that are accessible to a small portion of the consuming public. Is DCI in the "kid" business or in the "return as much money as possible to the corps" business? The world of drum corps is not a closed system where only so much money is available and the argument is how it's to be divided. Corps can be returned more money if the focus is placed on getting kids involved instead of how to split up the existing pie. If something "radical" needs done, I'd suggest the least invasive procedure would be best first. Put the emphasis on getting kids to join Pio, Mandarins, Surf, Open Class, where they CAN make the cut, and the activity can grow organically, grow the size of the pie to split, and re-emphasize the importance of and satisfaction of marching a corps that doesn't necessarily come with a ring. "Is DCI in the "kid" business or the "return as much money as possible to the corps" business." Well, technically it can't be in the kid business if its not IN business. And it seems like you've narrowed down the solution (or part of the solution) to simple marketing. And while I feel that's part I do think the top corps are the best marketing tools. I'm just going off personal experience. I was more willing to march a corps that better suited my ability because the top corps inspired me to what was possible. That was just me. And I feel G7 believe their TOC shows are one of the greatest marketing tools DCI has... and I think objectively they are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 "Is DCI in the "kid" business or the "return as much money as possible to the corps" business." Well, technically it can't be in the kid business if its not IN business. And it seems like you've narrowed down the solution (or part of the solution) to simple marketing. And while I feel that's part I do think the top corps are the best marketing tools. I'm just going off personal experience. I was more willing to march a corps that better suited my ability because the top corps inspired me to what was possible. That was just me. And I feel G7 believe their TOC shows are one of the greatest marketing tools DCI has... and I think objectively they are right. If DCI, and all the corps within DCI, were For-Profit then gross revenue should be used to profit the investors, career minded adults, paid performers, and only some of the gross profit should go toward altruistic ventures. However, since DCI is a 501c3, and so are all the corps in DCI, gross revenue should be maximized to profit the mission of DCI and the Corps (ie services for the youth) and overhead expenses such as wages and salaries, while needed, should be minimized. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 If DCI, and all the corps within DCI, were For-Profit then gross revenue should be used to profit the investors, career minded adults, paid performers, and only some of the gross profit should go toward altruistic ventures. However, since DCI is a 501c3, and so are all the corps in DCI, gross revenue should be maximized to profit the mission of DCI and the Corps (ie services for the youth) and overhead expenses such as wages and salaries, while needed, should be minimized. Actually, no. According to this article on 501c3 website... it doesn't say that wages and salaries should be minimized. It says that they should be reasonable and says that compensations over 250,000 for executives are not uncommon. But the article also speaks about regulations on executive pay (Due Diligence and Arms-length) but it does not say that compensation should be minimized. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Actually, no. According to this article on 501c3 website... it doesn't say that wages and salaries should be minimized. It says that they should be reasonable and says that compensations over 250,000 for executives are not uncommon. But the article also speaks about regulations on executive pay (Due Diligence and Arms-length) but it does not say that compensation should be minimized. I did not say that a CEO of a non-profit should not receive fair compensation; the person does need compensation for time and expertise. What I did say is that the 'purpose' of the generated revenue is vastly different between a For-Profit and a Non-Profit. In a For-Profit, after capital investment into the corporation for it to become more profitable, the more revenue going into the pockets of the owner, the investors, the stock holders, the better; the primary goal in a For-Profit is to make personal gains. And that is great!!!! However, it is beholden to the Board of a Non-Profit to maximize the use of their revenue for the Program Mission and minimize overhead costs. In the world of non-profit, especially in the aspect of securing development/funding raising, the following is true: Major Donors, Major Contributors, and Major Investors want to see as high of a percentage as possible of their contributions going to the 'Mission Programs' and the lowest percentage possible going to 'operational overhead'. So, the mindset of a CEO in a for-profit is (personal gain and personal profit is the goal), whereas the mindset of a CEO in a non-profit is, or should be, (while I need compensation for my time and expertise, I want the overwhelming bulk of revenue to go to the mission of the non-profit programs). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) I did not say that a CEO of a non-profit should not receive fair compensation; the person does need compensation for time and expertise. What I did say is that the 'purpose' of the generated revenue is vastly different between a For-Profit and a Non-Profit. In a For-Profit, after capital investment into the corporation for it to become more profitable, the more revenue going into the pockets of the owner, the investors, the stock holders, the better; the primary goal in a For-Profit is to make personal gains. And that is great!!!! However, it is beholden to the Board of a Non-Profit to maximize the use of their revenue for the Program Mission and minimize overhead costs. In the world of non-profit, especially in the aspect of securing development/funding raising, the following is true: Major Donors, Major Contributors, and Major Investors want to see as high of a percentage as possible of their contributions going to the 'Mission Programs' and the lowest percentage possible going to 'operational overhead'. So, the mindset of a CEO in a for-profit is (personal gain and personal profit is the goal), whereas the mindset of a CEO in a non-profit is, or should be, (while I need compensation for my time and expertise, I want the overwhelming bulk of revenue to go to the mission of the non-profit programs). You're basically saying that Non-Profits needs to maintain their Non-Profit status... ofcourse! "501©(3) organizations are highly regulated entities. Strict rules apply to both the activities and the governance of these organizations. No part of the activities or the net earnings can unfairly benefit any director, officer, or any private individual..." This is taken, again, directly from the same website. I believe that all corps want to maintain that status and so it doesn't need some subjective "moral" meeter to decide how much to pay it's executives/wages... It's ALREADY regulated by the government in order for the organization to maintain the 501©(3) status. An organization can have any level of "overhead" aslong as it's within the limits of the LAW. So what exactly are you worried about? Edited February 22, 2013 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Lingerie football? Lingerie drum corps? OKAY! And then I get involved in lingerie SoundSport and the universe divides by zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 The real issue is people pretending that the current model is sustainable. It has reached the breaking point. Please - we hear enough baseless fearmongering from the political class these days. Drum corps is a pretty cool activity, but is something that can only continue to exist in any form remotely resemlibg the currebt if it is subsidized by revenues entirely unrelated to drum corps/bands, etc. It already is subsidized by outside revenues. It always has been, and it always will be. Did you just come to this realization this week? No wonder you are in a panic! The only way to keep things going in a way that is even close to the current product on the field is if very bold steps are taken and aggressive changes are made.If there is not a radical new plan put together over the next year that everyone buys into... the DCI is done. The brand could potentially limp along for a few more years, but unless there is a radical management and strategy change, it will not survive. The same was said a few years ago. But look - DCI is still here! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 ... The same was said a few years ago. But look - DCI is still here! Turns around, sees DCI staring at me, yells in panic because I didn't realize it was there all this time, watching me Google the latest cat videos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 ... what exactly are you worried about? 501c3 organizations such as DCI, subsequent drum corps, and other youth non-profits were never intended to be 'personal gain Careers' for executives or staff. Yet that is the way they are appearing to go especially in the light of where the G7 want to take the activity. If the G7 want to go pro, eliminate the so-called poor performing corps while those corps are fiscally viable, make the drum corps activity about major league extremely high performance and monetary personal gain, instead of about providing services for the youth as the 501c3 mission is all about, then the G7 should create a for-profit corporation and more power to them. Otherwise DCI and the other corps should be first about the services for the youth ahead of any adult personal financial gain. That is what I am concerned about in the future for DCI. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts