Kamarag Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You usually are better at picking things up. As the OP what the shows are 'called', or even if they were based on a different format, was not the issue. 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. The MiM shows, until a few days ago, were actually being ran by the MiM Corporation Corps and solely for the exclusive benefit of the MiM Corporation Corps but riding on the marketing and scheduling shoulders of DCI 'without' the knowledge being transmitted to the fans. This deception of both the G7 and DCI was the issue of this thread. You're usually a bit quicker to pick up on business issues. DCI listed those shows because they include DCI corps. Much like the Las Vegas show that was held a few years ago (without DCI sheets, judges or payouts), the MiM/TOC/whatever shows were simply listed on the schedule because they are shows with DCI corps. If nothing else, DCI benefits by proxy anytime DCI corps go anywhere. There's no grassy knoll here, Stu. It's also not rocket science. You're looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Let's posit the following scenario: Show A: A TOC show, featuring the 7 TOC corps Show B: A DCI show, featuring 7 non-TOC corps The shows are within a reasonable driving distance on the same night, with similar ticket prices. I know which show I'll attend, and I suspect I know which will draw the bigger crowd. Well, we know that the original proposal banned the other corps from performing on the same days as the coveted TOC shows, so I guess they were trying to squash your scenario before it could even exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Well, we know that the original proposal banned the other corps from performing on the same days as the coveted TOC shows, so I guess they were trying to squash your scenario before it could even exist. Which is probably a good idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I still believe that the vast majority of the fan base doesn't care now, and won't care later. They just want to see their favorite corps. I fear this is true, but I'm not convinced. Consumers make buying decisions all the time that are based on principal and I think that if fans knew the details of the G7 and what they tried to do, and what they talk about doing, those fans, or some of them, would make a buying decision that considers the impact of the G7's apparent intentions. A natural resistance to change might cause some portion of the fandom to rally around DCI in an attempt to retain the activity that they appreciate. That dynamic could very well swing the attendance towards DCI on principal and fear of change. That is, if they knew about it, which is, I think, Stu's primary point - that it was withheld (and I think he contends it was held intentionally). To ignore the possibility that a fan revolt on principal and fear of change would not be a good business practice for the G7. I suspect that the non-G7 corps consider it heavily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baumer Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) DCI, per se, does not actually perform on the field. The corps members do. And regardless of the sponsor, people go to see shows with their high school students for several reasons: 1. To expose their students to a higher standard of performance 2. To show their students what is possible after school 3. To raise standards in their own performances 4. To share the joy of music/marching/colorguard 5. Because many directors have past experience as drum corps performers, and want to share that experience. 6. Because many directors inherit programs that have "nowhere to go but up" and want to excite the students. 7. Because they are asking their students to pay attention with a critical ear/eye to higher level performances. 8. Because they are teaching their students to be active in support of the arts. I'm sure there are more reasons to attend with high school students -- but you get the picture. The adults involved care about the politics. The non-"7" would do well to come out prepared, raise their standards, and understand that the idea of "amateur" performance is far less sustainable than it was when we were a neighborhood and community hobby/activity. The "7" would do well to extend a hand to allow the entire activity to move forward rather than small segments of the activity. This was a wake-up call for all sides... and while it was presented rather petulantly at times, there is a very real concern about the viability of our beloved drum corps pass time that needs addressing. But... back to the kids: Drum corps is a spectacle that comes to their town maybe once a summer, and is nothing more and nothing less than that to non-participants. We who tour, perform, attend more than one show a year, create, teach, judge, administrate and give a portion of our lives to drum corps should not be shocked that our audience is far more casual in their fandom. Bottom line: Great Performances are Great Performances -- whether it's STOMP, Broadway, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Mumford & Sons, Lady Gaga, or any of a thousand other opportunities to see/hear/witness great performances -- the sponsor does not matter. The performance level, the ability to completely engage their fands, and the unique and thrilling experience matter. Those who perform at the highest levels will draw fans. Those who perform at lesser levels will struggle. I support a unified drum corps activity -- but I'd be less-than-honest with myself if I didn't acknowledge that the "7" do have certain legitimate concerns, and that the "Non 7" have certain hurdles to overcome as they come to terms with the reality of the performance/competitive/financial climate of 2013. Back to writing -- thank you for your time. Chuck While I agree that the "7" definitely do many things well, I do not agree that the "non 7" are doing anything wrong (or anything that needs to change). I enjoyed the 2012 "non 7" more than any other year! My 3 favorite shows were Colts, Crossmen, and Spirit of Atlanta. To say that a group that is not in the top 7 is lacking something or needs to step up the game is simply ignorant. If there are going to be 20+ groups on the competition field, then somebody is going to finish in 8th-20ish place whether they are G7 or not. This does not indicate fault, this just means that 20+ groups are on the field and they all can't be 1st-7th (to state the obvious). That is what we call competition. That is what I love about drum corps. Edited February 20, 2013 by Baumer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I fear this is true, but I'm not convinced. Consumers make buying decisions all the time that are based on principal and I think that if fans knew the details of the G7 and what they tried to do, and what they talk about doing, those fans, or some of them, would make a buying decision that considers the impact of the G7's apparent intentions. A natural resistance to change might cause some portion of the fandom to rally around DCI in an attempt to retain the activity that they appreciate. That dynamic could very well swing the attendance towards DCI on principal and fear of change. That is, if they knew about it, which is, I think, Stu's primary point - that it was withheld (and I think he contends it was held intentionally). To ignore the possibility that a fan revolt on principal and fear of change would not be a good business practice for the G7. I suspect that the non-G7 corps consider it heavily. Not sure what the issue is here. Business is business. Most people don't care how the sausage is made, they just want to see cool marching bands doing exciting and difficult stuff. All this inside baseball stuff is not all that interesting to the casual fan. DCP posters are far from representative of the actual audience. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 While I agree that the "7" definitely do many things well, I do not agree that the "non 7" are doing anything wrong (or anything that needs to change). I enjoyed the 2012 "non 7" more than any other year! My 3 favorite shows were Colts, Crossmen, and Spirit of Atlanta. To say that a group that is not in the top 7 is lacking something or needs to step up the game is simply ignorant. If there are going to be 20+ groups on the competition field, then somebody is going to finish in 8th-20ish place whether they are G7 or not. This does not indicate fault, this just means that 20+ groups are on the field and they all can't be 1st-7th (to state the obvious). That is what we call competition. That is what I love about drum corps. 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. There are two options... 1. Change the model 2. Reduce the number of groups If the model is not changed, it is truly survival of the fittest. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) 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. There are two options... 1. Change the model 2. Reduce the number of groups If the model is not changed, it is truly survival of the fittest. 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. There is another way to fix issues of corps demise that is rather simple (and of course the devil would be in the details): Each year 'all' corps within DCI, no matter the previous year's designation, would be required to provide complete and legal financial documentation to a panel of Independent Auditors. Corps designated as not being financially stable (such as having unfunded liabilities or unfunded outlay projections) would not be allowed to tour; corps designated as financially stable but not capable of a full blown tour schedule would be placed in Open Class; and corps designated as financially solvent enough to support a full blown tour would be placed in World Class. And any corps staff which provided false, incomplete, or cooked books to the Independent Auditors would be held legally accountable. Edited February 20, 2013 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 There is another way to fix issues of corps demise that is rather simple (and of course the devil would be in the details): Each year 'all' corps within DCI, no matter the previous year's designation, would be required to provide complete and legal financial documentation to a panel of Independent Auditors. Corps designated as not being financially stable (such as having unfunded liabilities or unfunded outlay projections) would not be allowed to tour; corps designated as financially stable but not capable of a full blown tour schedule would be placed in Open Class; and corps designated as financially solvent enough to support a full blown tour would be placed in World Class. And any corps staff which provided false, incomplete, or cooked books to the Independent Auditors would be held legally accountable. This isn't a bad idea, and DCI does already have a system in place for review of potential World Class corps. I'd love to see every single World Class corps go through the rigorous evaluation system every three years or so, and any corps not meeting the same standards new corps are required to meet is sent to Open Class until they can meet the standards, or is suspended from competition as you suggest. Sadly, there are a number of world class corps that would freak out at the mere suggestion of opening their books to DCI, let alone an independent arbitrator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) I fear this is true, but I'm not convinced. Consumers make buying decisions all the time that are based on principal and I think that if fans knew the details of the G7 and what they tried to do, and what they talk about doing, those fans, or some of them, would make a buying decision that considers the impact of the G7's apparent intentions. A natural resistance to change might cause some portion of the fandom to rally around DCI in an attempt to retain the activity that they appreciate. That dynamic could very well swing the attendance towards DCI on principal and fear of change. That is, if they knew about it, which is, I think, Stu's primary point - that it was withheld (and I think he contends it was held intentionally). To ignore the possibility that a fan revolt on principal and fear of change would not be a good business practice for the G7. I suspect that the non-G7 corps consider it heavily. First of all what would DCI say to invite a fan revolt? And you think a fan revolt is in the best intentions of DCI? That by having the fans turn on 7 corps that that somehow helps the organization that those 7 corps are a part of? The LAST thing any corps wants is a fan revolt. Plus DCP isn't exactly a secret... people who want to know find out and to think that DCI can incite a protest is pretty outlandish... To protest shows that the fans want to see and pay for? G7 shows give "most" fans exactly what they want... Edited February 20, 2013 by charlie1223 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.