"Tour of Champions" 2013

[garfield]

You often hear advice from successful people that you should "Follow your passion." That sounds about right. Passion will presumably give you high energy, high resistance to rejection and high determination. Passionate people are more persuasive, too. Those are all good things, right?

Here's the counterargument: When I was a commercial loan officer for a large bank in San Francisco, my boss taught us that you should never make a loan to someone who is following his passion. For example, you don't want to give money to a sports enthusiast who is starting a sports store to pursue his passion for all things sporty. That guy is a bad bet, passion and all. He's in business for the wrong reason.

My boss at the time, who had been a commercial lender for over thirty years, said the best loan customer is one who has no passion whatsoever, just a desire to work hard at something that looks good on a spreadsheet. Maybe the loan customer wants to start a dry cleaning store, or invest in a fast food franchise - boring stuff. That's the person you bet on. You want the grinder, not the guy who loves his job.

So who's right? Is passion a useful tool for success, or is it just something that makes you irrational?

My hypothesis is that passionate people are more likely to take big risks in the pursuit of unlikely goals, and so you would expect to see more failures and more huge successes among the passionate. Passionate people who fail don't get a chance to offer their advice to the rest of us. But successful passionate people are writing books and answering interview questions about their secrets for success every day. Naturally those successful people want you to believe that success is a product of their awesomeness, but they also want to retain some humility. One can't be humble and say, "I succeeded because I am far smarter than the average person." But you can say your passion was a key to your success, because everyone can be passionate about something or other, right? Passion sounds more accessible. If you're dumb, there's not much you can do about it, but passion is something we think anyone can generate in the right circumstances. Passion feels very democratic. It is the people's talent, available to all.

It's also mostly ########.

Consider two entrepreneurs. Everything else being equal, one is passionate and possesses average talent, while the other is exceedingly brilliant, full of energy, and highly determined to succeed. Which one do you bet on?

It's easy to be passionate about things that are working out, and that distorts our impression of the importance of passion. I've been involved in several dozen business ventures over the course of my life and each one made me excited at the start. You might even call it passion. The ones that didn't work out - and that would be most of them - slowly drained my passion as they failed. The few that worked became more exciting as they succeeded. As a result, it looks as if the projects I was most passionate about were also the ones that worked. But objectively, the passion evolved at the same rate as the success. Success caused passion more than passion caused success.

Passion can also be a simple marker for talent. We humans tend to enjoy doing things we are good at while not enjoying things we suck at. We're also fairly good at predicting what we might be good at before we try. I was passionate about tennis the first day I picked up a racket, and I've played all my life, but I also knew it was the type of thing I could be good at, unlike basketball or football. So sometimes passion is simply a byproduct of knowing you will be good at something.

I hate selling, but I know it's because I'm bad at it. If I were a sensational sales person, or had potential to be one, I'd probably feel passionate about sales. And people who observed my success would assume my passion was causing my success as opposed to being a mere indicator of talent.

If you ask a billionaire the secret of his success, he might say it is passion, because that sounds like a sexy answer that is suitably humble. But after a few drinks I think he'd say his success was a combination of desire, luck, hard work, determination, brains, and appetite for risk.

This might fit in somewhere here in the discussion (a little late to see all this, but it's been an interesting discussion to follow).

http://dilbert.com/b...w_your_passion/

It would seem to me, as a business person, that one of drum corps' weaknesses has always been that it's run by people who really love drum corps, but don't necessarily have the type of calculating minds necessary to make drum corps more viable, as both an entertainment form, and as an activity for young performers. So isn't it possible that the thing that would likely make drum corps bigger isn't to try and fix underperforming units at the bottom half of the spectrum, but to focus more energy on showcasing the best product out there, in the efforts to increase visibility for the idea of drum corps as something worth putting money into producing, and something worth doing?

If you increase the overall market for a product, you increase the likelihood that there will be more money available to those who wish to create similar products. If DCI focused more on their international-brand corps, and another two million people around the world found themselves interested in watching what they were doing, that's two million more new potential donors and customers for the sport, which makes it more likely that you'll be able to attract some of them enough to want to do it themselves, or become involved as financial backers. But right now, DCI's visibility to those who don't already know about it is pretty tiny.

The traditionalists seem to be driven by passion, not ambition for success, and while that's admirable (and some passion for your work is necessary), passion can also act like a blindfold to those for whom "tradition" is the most important thing. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there.

It surely was an interesting discussion, and the end-point that drum corps should be run more by people with solid business and risk-taking capabilities is something with which I strongly agree. But two things stick out, both of which reflect the discussion and your response to it (or recommendation for a solution).

BTW, welcome to DCP.

Both the discussion and your solution revolve around the two issues being completely separate. Black and white. Either, or. A person is either passionate or successful, doesn't use both qualities together. Or can't. It's easy to say that Bill Cook, certainly successful, was dispassionate about drum corps or his goal for it. He did have a son who marched. He did see what it does for kids. He was certainly passionate about the non-profit causes he supported even as he made billions in his business. People are a mix; they aren't black and white. I can give many examples, but I'm not a bad example. I can tell you surely that I'm more passionate about something I believe in and I'm better at making my business successful when I have that passion for an idea. I also know when to cut and run, and can measure in numbers whether a gamble is worth the risk. There are many, many people who have such qualities and use them in similar ways each day. There are those on the extremes who blindly follow their passion without a sound basis and those who can barely rationalize getting out of bed in the morning because the risks are too great.

I agree that we should have more sound business-minded folks running drum corps, and not just those who have confused their success in one area with an indicator that they are good at something else. But I'm not convinced that having a leader who is completely dispassionate about drum corps is the right answer. A strong business risk-taker being cut-throat with his competitors is not the same circumstance that is drum corps. A risk measurement on a spreadsheet is colored differently when one is dealing with kids. Even gambling with a symphony or other arts organization is different than drum corps if those activities involve only adults. Drum corps is a kid business. It is a business, to be sure, and it should be run by better-qualified individuals, to be sure. But to treat it the same as any other business venture that involves adults could lead to tragic results for the kids that drum corps professes to represent.

The correct leader, IMO, is one who knows he has two constituents to report to and represent. One is a balance sheet and BOD, the other is just kids doing summer marching music.

Sensitivity to both is required, I believe.

[cixelsyd]

It would seem to me, as a business person, that one of drum corps' weaknesses has always been that it's run by people who really love drum corps, but don't necessarily have the type of calculating minds necessary to make drum corps more viable, as both an entertainment form, and as an activity for young performers. So isn't it possible that the thing that would likely make drum corps bigger isn't to try and fix underperforming units at the bottom half of the spectrum, but to focus more energy on showcasing the best product out there, in the efforts to increase visibility for the idea of drum corps as something worth putting money into producing, and something worth doing?

Couched in the terms I underlined - no.

I understand the whole "showcase the top corps" thing. Now, I do not know your background, as this was your very first post here (welcome!). So maybe you have not noticed the many ways in which top corps are already showcased. Finals vs. prelims. Performance order. Marketing of video and audio media. Preferential ad placement. Headlines in show coverage. Extended tours. And lately, a growing number of separate, exclusive shows.

We do that already. We have been doing that all along. It is part of the DCI mission statement, so we will continue to showcase the top corps. We should not throw all the other corps under the bus in the process, though.

If you increase the overall market for a product, you increase the likelihood that there will be more money available to those who wish to create similar products.

But that is not necessarily true. If we, as you say, "focus more energy" (and money) on showcasing the top corps by doing what they have proposed (having DCI route more revenue to them, less to the other corps), then we guarantee that even if there is more revenue in the future, it will not be available to other corps.

The traditionalists seem to be driven by passion, not ambition for success, and while that's admirable (and some passion for your work is necessary), passion can also act like a blindfold to those for whom "tradition" is the most important thing. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there.

Well, it is a little early to start painting people with such a broad brush. I think that any situation where a subset of the participating organizations suddenly start hatching their own plots to make massive and largely undefined changes that they admittedly are not fully decided on themselves, but want exclusive voting power so they can impose them on everyone the instant they do decide - you will see many react with instinctive caution. They would all look like traditionalists at that point.

[garfield]

Do you know if DCI has increased payout to corps? If so by how much? You must know this since that's what you are arguing.

Yes, I do know that DCI has increased the payout to corps. By how much? That's more nebulous because the payout formula is a closely-guarded secret.

That said, here are some numbers from the 990's thread (which you could have gone to look up yourself instead of just being simply challenging):

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%] over 2009)

It is verified that this category of DCI's expenses includes payouts to corps (and recognize the dates are historic). I think it's rational that, above ordinary inflation, these numbers contain a significant increase in the payout to corps.

And, BTW, my post was referencing a comment by DanielRay that DCI needs to hang on to cash. I agreed with that thought, and suggested that task would be easier if the base contention of the G7 was not to pay out more to themselves. Can you argue with that logic, too?

(Oh, sorry, of course you can! />)

You should go peruse the 990s when you have financial curiosity or need data to back up a claim. That's the reason I spent 4 months posting it.

Edited February 23, 2013 by garfield

[BRASSO]

It would seem to me, as a business person, that one of drum corps' weaknesses has always been that it's run by people who really love drum corps, but don't necessarily have the type of calculating minds necessary to make drum corps more viable, as both an entertainment form, and as an activity for young performers.

" Always " run by these people that you've described ?

Bill Cook spent several years in DCI sharing his thoughts on the business end, marketing end, etc to his colleagues in other Corps and on the Board. Bill Cook was the Director of the Star of Indiana Drum Corps and was himself a self made entrepreneurial billionaire. He started and ran a very successful international Corporation. For many years he was the 2nd richest man in the entire state of Indiana before retiring. He was with DCI for several years. So I 'm not quite sure if you understand the DCI has not " always " had the people you describe running DCI. Jim Jones, one of the founders of DCI, certainly does fit this description in my view as well, as he certainly had business skills that served him well in his successful business career. They've been others as well. DCI does not suffer because of a lack of business acumen, though to be sure, they can do things more efficiently in some areas, imo, they lack popular appeal more than anything else in my opinion. Its a niche activity that has passionate devotees, but it lacks connectivity to the broader audience. Until it figures out how to appeal to a broader audience, its product itself, as much as we all love it here, will suffer among the general populace in its quest to grow within that mainstream of people. Thats how I see it anyway.

Edited February 23, 2013 by BRASSO

[Slingerland]

But that is not necessarily true. If we, as you say, "focus more energy" (and money) on showcasing the top corps by doing what they have proposed (having DCI route more revenue to them, less to the other corps), then we guarantee that even if there is more revenue in the future, it will not be available to other corps.

if something is not always "necessarily" true, but is "usually" true, then it's probably still a good indicator of how things work.

For example, the market for tablets overall was increased by Apple's success with the iPad. Even if Apple dominates the segment, it's also true that the increased overall awareness of tablets as being a viable concept has opened doors for others to get in the game, since they won't have to spend as much time trying to convince people that the idea is good, the focus will be on trying to convince people that their product is as good or better than the iPad.

Looking back on this thread and a few others, it seems that everyone believes that DCI's financial pie is set more or less in stone, and that this is a struggle about dividing up a stone pie into pieces, whereas I seem them as having lots of headroom left. But shouldn't the focus be on growing the overall revenues, so that everyone, at every level, can see greater return for their investment?

If you agree that is true, than any discussion that is not directly focused on growing DCI's overall revenues is wasted energy.

And if people only want to focus on growing DCI's revenues, they have to start with some basic, but hard choices. What are the most marketable aspects of the activity? What does DCI offer potential customers that can't be found anywhere else? What can they put together that is so compelling that potential sponsors and funders won't be able to resist pulling out their checkbooks to get on board?

Everyone's mileage may vary on that, but if you're trying to cut through the noise in a crowded marketplace, you lead with your best, most unique products. Once you've established a foothold there, you can expand the lines to include related items, but you've got to get people's attention first.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Slingerland

[cixelsyd]

This is the world that DCI can play in (and should... it has every bit the potential... how many millions of band kids are out there that can be influenced by DCI?).

Less than one, by my estimation. It would be quite a stretch to contend more.

[BRASSO]

So isn't it possible that the thing that would likely make drum corps bigger isn't to try and fix underperforming units at the bottom half of the spectrum, but to focus more energy on showcasing the best product out there,

Welcome to DCP, by the way, and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

DCI has always had a bit of a confliction as to whom is their primary " customer ". Is it " the audience ", or is it " the students ". Most successful companies readily identify who their primary customers are that they are trying to market their product to and fill a demand that they believe is there for their product. The " student " customer of DCI oftentimes has a different want and need than that of the general population " audience customer " and that has fundamentally been at the heart of the dilemna of the quest to build audience growth to DCI, imo.

When we say " we need to showcase more the best performing units ", the assumption in that statement appears to me to be that the " performing units " ( highest placing) are the units with the most national popular appeal potential if they were somehow just " marketed better". If that is the underlying thinking, then I might tend to disagree with this assumption. I know a few Corps shows that have more popular appeal... and by far... than the current DCI standard bearer DCI Champion as a matter of fact. While I recognize the top Corps' performing talent, and even their deserving title, (and other " students " do as well) we are missing the big picture here if we believe that this type of show can be promoted nationally among a general audience to the extent that it will generate much bigger crowds and much bigger revenue dollars. Thus, we make a mistake if we conclude that the highest placing performing units, are likewise the units with the biggest potential for future audience growth if simply marketed better with better business principles applied. I don't quite see it that way. DCI will always have this dilemna so long as it has 2 different " customers " that it is trying to accommodate, when both do not have similar interests, wants, needs. The " customer " paying for the instruction is typically a music student. The general public " customer " however is not made up of student budding musicians. Thats the crux of the dilemna that DCI faces when it talks about" reaching a wider audience".

Edited February 23, 2013 by BRASSO

[cixelsyd]

Looking back on this thread and a few others, it seems that everyone believes that DCI's financial pie is set more or less in stone, and that this is a struggle about dividing up a stone pie into pieces, whereas I seem them as having lots of headroom left.

To continue with the pie analogy - yes, the next pie need not be the same size as the last one.

But shouldn't the focus be on growing the overall revenues, so that everyone, at every level, can see greater return for their investment?

I would greatly prefer DCI focus on making the pie bigger, rather than bicker on how to slice it. For a brief moment in late 2009, the leaders of DCI were in near unanimous agreement to do that, and they developed a five-year business plan focused on growing the pie. The ensuing G7/the7 saga has disrupted that focus.

If you agree that is true, than any discussion that is not directly focused on growing DCI's overall revenues is wasted energy.

That is somewhat true. But we cannot seem to make the G7/the7 stop wasting their energy in this manner.

And if people only want to focus on growing DCI's revenues, they have to start with some basic, but hard choices. What are the most marketable aspects of the activity? What does DCI offer potential customers that can't be found anywhere else? What can they put together that is so compelling that potential sponsors and funders won't be able to resist pulling out their checkbooks to get on board?

Everyone's mileage may vary on that, but if you're trying to cut through the noise in a crowded marketplace, you lead with your best, most unique products. Once you've established a foothold there, you can expand the lines to include related items, but you've got to get people's attention first.

Like you said, the answers to those questions will vary quite a bit. For instance, I think the marketable aspects of the activity boil down to two simple things:

a. the brass-percussion-drill-guard thing (the art)

b. the competitive event format (the sport)

[cixelsyd]

It actually costs more for kids to participate in Pioneer than Vanguard. Think about that for a second... a kid has to spend more to participate in Pioneer than one of the top corps out there.

This is no slight to Pioneer, they do great stuff, but the type of experience is not exactly comparable... and many kids would rather save their money and practice for the next season. To pretend that kids are willing to spend the same amount of money to participate in Pioneer vs. Vanguard is disconnected from reality.

But you just said they do. In fact, you said they pay more.

Anyway, DCI is not the one that should put emphasis on getting kids to join other corps... those corps should do this. If kids don't go there it is the fault of those individual organizations, not DCI. DCI should focus on producing events and media.... period.

But that is what DCI has been focusing on for the past few years, and as a result you say their leadership should be fired. Maybe you would not be making such demands if they had focused on getting kids to join more corps, and grown the activity instead.

[Stu]

... I think the marketable aspects of the activity boil down to two simple things:

a. the brass-percussion-drill-guard thing (the art)

b. the competitive event format (the sport)

Herein is the marketing problem for DCI (or even the G7) to overcome if it wants to expand without financial collapse:

a) The general public has seen, and will always see, the brass-percussion-drill-guard thing not as art but as a marching band geek thing.

b) The general public has seen, and will always see, the competitive event format as subjective judging of a marching band geek thing.

c) The general public has no interest in, and will always make light of, a marching band geek thing.