A Hunch; A Question

[Stu]

That is quite a possibility.

There needs to be some major policy change. And DCI needs to have more power over the corps. You can't run the show if there's no act.

Hmmmm... I thought I read statements from Hop/Gibbs/Fiedler that the G7 were and are 'the act'!

[danielray]

And DCI needs to have more power over the corps.

That is a disaster scenario.

Look, if there really is a massive demand out there for kids to participate in drum corps and for people to sit through a show with loads and loads of corps... new corps will spring up to replace those that fail. The situation will solve itself.

Right now, the fact that some corps out there struggle to fill their lines and stadiums aren't exactly filled to capacity, suggests that supply of drum corps is greater than demand for the product in current form.

Lower the barrier to entry for participation or change the ticket prices, the demand might change... but there is an oversupply of drum corps that cost $3,000 to participate in with tickets at more than 50 bucks a pop.

[Stu]

D-Ray: I am not following you in this sense... In the name of a) protecting the integrity of DCI, and especially b) in the name of protecting kids from getting stranded while out on a DCI approved tour schedule, what harm would there be in having DCI, the sanctioning body, tell some corps up-front that they do not have the financial resources to compete in their (DCI) arena?

[N.E. Brigand]

Stu, I'm all for your plan, but I will note that auditors aren't cheap.

[cixelsyd]

1. I think both the G7 corps and DCI have merits to their point of views. I don't think siding 100% with either is going to solve anything, especially in the long run. it's clear the status quo isn't working for the financial success of everyone involved.

Evidently, it is working far better than DCI gets credit for. If we were told five years ago what was in store with the economy, job market, and fuel/food prices, what would we have expected for DCI and their corps? Far worse than where we are now.

From the 990s thread, it appears that DCI is doing exceptionally well, and that despite the cries of impending doom from a few, most corps are balancing their budgets while maintaining their activity level throughout these challenging times.

I don't fall completely in either camp, at least as far as determining who is "right".

I am far more concerned with what is right, not who is right.

2. I know that I am not by any means a "typical fan". DCI doesn't market to me, nor should it. DCI should focus on marketing to the masses.

I think they should do both - and they do. We may not think of some efforts (like publishing the show schedule with lineups in November) as "marketing", but when we see how many of us atypical fans use that advance information to plan summer vacation time with DCI shows in mind, the value of that effort as a marketing tool becomes apparent.

I am also glad DCI includes tour event partners in their approach. It is so easy to criticize DCI for not marketing to the masses on the local level, where the one-local-show-per-year fans are. But DCI does not have a large marketing staff. With TEPs, we have another hundred marketers who bring another hundred sets of ideas to the campaign.

3. I know that what makes me decide whether to attend a show or not is probably much different from what makes other DCP members, let alone "the masses" choose to attend shows. I'm also ok with that. I do not believe, however, that other people similar to myself have figured that out yet, particularly when it comes to DCP posters.

I agree. In the course of discussion, we sometimes lose track of that detail.

4. My main concern with the G7 corps striking out on their own isn't whether they will have a successful venture (I believe they would), it's more of a question of what happens when they realize that one or more of their own members are dragging them down, much like they accuse the non-G7 folks of doing now. What happens ten years from now, when one of those corps becomes the perennial bottom feeder of the seven? Do they get cut loose? Does seven become five? Are they replaced, and if so by whom? I very much doubt anyone in the G7 is willing to talk about that much...

True. "Donner, party of seven six, your table is ready!"

I do think that looking at why DCI was created in the first place should very much be at the forefront of the discussion, even though the reasons weren't the same.

Yes. Two of those reasons were money and self-governance, and sure enough, they are still prominent in these proceedings.

I do not think linking 40 year old placements is germane to that discussion.

The reason I bring that up is to illustrate that there is a difference between "top 7" and "The 7". Some have made a case that the top corps deserve preferential treatment compared to other corps. But there is no case to be made for awarding permanent preferential treatment to 7 corps, just because they were the top 7 at one point in time.

[cixelsyd]

Which is one of the problems with DCI, as a concept. There's no financial incentive for some of the lower-ranking corps to improve their product

Yes there is. Higher placing corps get more money from DCI than lower placing corps, particularly in revenue sharing. And even if there was no financial incentive, there is always competitive incentive.

There are plenty of corps that are not necessarily tops, competitively, who would still benefit from this idea, and I'd think that TEP's themselves would also find it beneficial to have the chance to put together the bill that best serves their particular audience interests. But the current model of "central planning" from the DCI office is failing to give the corps themselves an ability to benefit from their excellence and the TEP's from maximizing their own ability to create first class events.

DCI was not created to help a few corps make it big. The purpose of DCI is to establish and maintain a workable, equitable model for a larger number of member corps.

By the way, DCI is not stopping corps from reaping the benefits of their individual excellence. Corps are free to explore that on their own by staging their own field performances, performing in other venues such as on stage, pursuing corporate entertainment jobs, performing at sporting events, partnering with professional brass quintets, or developing Broadway shows, just to name a few I know of.

[cixelsyd]

Fun! But the counter-argument you're going to get, that has been offered several times in the past few weeks, is that it just couldn't happen that way anymore, because the standings are much less fluid from year to year. Now whether that's a good thing or not is the question that spurred me to start the "stagnated" thread.

And that thread demonstrated two things:

a. Some people view the current competitive stagnation as a problem that should be (and can be) solved.

b. Other people point out that the competitive standings do still change over time. We will not hear that counterargument from them.

[cixelsyd]

What was at issue to me, and I contend it would also be an issue with the fans if they were made aware, is that until a few days a go the MiM (now ToC) shows had no financial or real benefit for DCI or the DCI competitive arena whatsoever yet they were being veiled within the DCI schedule as supposed DCI shows.

And what makes you think anything in that sentence has changed?

[cixelsyd]

The point he was making was simply that there is a recognition among some groups that the current model is not sustainable for so many groups.

Considering how so many corps have been touring as much as ever in the face of a horrible economy and rising costs, balancing their budgets the whole time, I would say the jury is still out.

There are two options...

1. Change the model

2. Reduce the number of groups

What proposal is there to "change the model", other than "reduce the number of groups"?

If the model is not changed, it is truly survival of the fittest.

So what? There has always been a Darwinistic component to drum corps, and there always will be. If you have an idea advocating survival of the weakest, it would be fun to hear how that would work.

It is those that pretend the model is sustainable and that dramatic changes are not needed that threaten the future of the activity.

There needs to be much more creativity in thinking about how drum corps can be run and generate revenue.

There also needs to be an acknowledgement that if things are not changed quickly, there will only be a handful of corps left a few years from now anyway, rendering null the whole argument of emphasis on a few corps. If things don't change, quickly, this will happen anyway by default.

Your hair is on fire.

Only a handful of corps left a few years from now? Get a grip. Besides, as you say, it is only kids marching band.

[mobrien]

Anyone who thinks DCI is doing "exceptionally well" at a time when they are only drawing 16,000 to Finals and returning to the drum corps a fraction of the corps' overall expenses in producing the product DCI sells is delusional.

DCI is keeping their head above water, barely. They have more mouths at their teats than they have resources to provide, and there's very little organizational focus on growing the audience past the existing moms and dads in the stands. There are no major corporate sponsors for the tour.

The judging system is designed to allow a relatively small coterie of judges and designers to form mutual admiration societies that make moving up the competitive ranks almost completely impossible (that's not to say that the top corps aren't also the most accomplished in terms of design and instruction, but that in the visual and guard captions, especially, if you're not in "the club", your work is less likely to be rewarded fairly).

And there's no one within the organization who seems to recognize that these issues are major problems, and is willing to stick a dagger in the heart of mediocrity and devise a plan for a radical reorganization of the competitive standards, the touring model, and the compensation system for the drum corps.

DCI's a bake sale in a Hollywood world. They're keeping the doors open, but they're not exactly the next big thing.

Edited February 20, 2013 by mobrien