TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[cixelsyd]

Creating this thread as a place to continue the discussions in the previous "Tour of Champions 2013" thread that were deemed off-topic.

[cixelsyd]

A reply to Slingerland:

What possible financial benefit is brought to the overall goal of increasing DCI's overall revenues and profile when the message of product is so clouded?

See, here's where I'm coming from. DCI is a business. Pure and simple. Their job is to sell tickets and recordings, and then give the money to the corps who perform at the shows.

And here is where I am coming from - DCI also has a defined mission. But go on.

And right now, the amount of money they're able to deliver back to the corps is pathetically small, in many cases, less than 12 or 13% of those organizations' total expenses of production.

Is that because the several million dollars DCI returns to corps is "pathetically small", or is it because the expenses of the corps have grown to become ridiculously large?

I hope you do not expect competing drum corps to become profitable ventures. No matter how much money DCI pays out to corps, the corps are going to continue raising their own funds as part of their natural drive to compete with each other. By definition, then, DCI will never cover 100% of the operating expenses of the corps.

Are there some efficiencies that could be enacted to improve the amount of cash they pay out? Probably, but the bigger issue is finding a way to increase the overall revenues, by working with the corps to create more sellable products and personae, and finding a way to sell the concept of drum corps to the types of corporate sponsors who should be salivating at the prospect of having themselves attached to the demographic and cultural elements that DCI's product naturally brings to the table.

But making that kind of upward movement will likely require DCI to find their most sellable aspects, and promote them even more aggressively. Make no no mistake; the goal is to increase the overall revenues so that there's more money available for everyone concerned, but doing so will require them to do a better job of aligning the corps into meaningful divisions/leagues, and being clear in the messaging connected with each of those leagues.

In terms of teenage kids not appreciating wins at their own levels, then we should contact every high school in America who offers both Varsity and Junior Varsity competiton, and let them know that they are doing the kids in their Junior Varsity teams a disservice by giving them their own leagues. Those kids who win contests at the JV level obviously must feel completely disregarded by their communities, that they were even allowed to to contest for races and games that were there just for them.

Get the personal passion out of the picture and look at it as a marketing and communications question. 28 drum corps, of widely disparate abilities, aren't really a "league" in any meaningful sense. An easier to understand model, with a premier league and a second league is both more honest with the fans and the kids in the corps themselves and easier to sell as a concept to outside sponsors.

Since we already have such a model (WC and OC), all we are really debating is how to cut the deck.

Maybe part of the reason you make this an issue is due to this belief you stated in another post:

I don't see a viable path that includes a future in which every drum corps, regardless of their performance level, is pitched to the public as being equally skilled.

I have no idea where you get the impression that DCI pitches every drum corps as being equally skilled. That goes out the window the instant they begin announcing scores. Additionally, DCI defines differences between world class and open class right there on DCI.org.

[cixelsyd]

Regarding the Troopers in 2006:

My understanding is that the Troopers had their DCI membership revoked by unanimous vote of the other member corps. But since plenty of corps compete in DCI shows as non-members, that option was still available to the Troopers in 2006. Had the corps tried to enter 2006 competition, that might have triggered an evaluation, and there is no telling what level of touring or which class they would have been allowed into.

The corps decided instead to take a year off, bring in new management, and deal with the issues that caused the loss of member status. In doing that, they were able to pass evaluation and regain access to world-class status upon their return in 2007, and later earned their membership status back as well.

[cixelsyd]

Another reply to Slingerland:

It seems that G7-derangement syndrome has taken over here. If one suggests that DCI is in need of a revamp, they are automatically "the enemy," and pointing out simple facts (that Pioneer sometimes loses to Open Class corps, or that the Troopers were once removed as DCI members) is tantamount to 'beating up" on those organizations.

I do not consider the Troopers discussion "beating up" on them. I gave my opinion previously on how Pioneer has been treated in these discussions - more like neglect than abuse. We have seen far more abusive posts on them in other threads in the past.

[Slingerland]

I have no idea where you get the impression that DCI pitches every drum corps as being equally skilled. That goes out the window the instant they begin announcing scores.

DCI pitches a league called "World Class", but a few of those "World Class" corps get their butts handed to them regularly by other corps who are supposed to be DCI's minor leaguers.

The point made by me and several others is that a more realistic alignment that breaks the organizations into more realistic divisions/leagues would be a good move. Your comments don't change the reality that guides that otherwise common practice in other competitive leagues: if the "best" teams can be easily beaten by other teams that are not supposed to be that good, than those "best" teams are probably playing in the wrong league for them, and having them in the wrong division/league clouds your overall marketing message, making it less than accurate or honest.

DCI can "mission" all they want, but their function is to sell tickets and recordings and get the money back into the hands of the corps. Is there a percentage of overall revenues that they hold (or should hold) as the target for distribution? Would 50% of gross revenues be fair? After all, they really only have the one purpose, so if overhead of operations is such that they can't afford to get back to the corps at least $50 out of every $100 of the corps' products they sell, then maybe the problem really is that the efficiency issues are with the home office more than the drum corps.

Form. Follows. Function. DCI's "function" was and is to be a central clearing house for the business of selling drum corps, and to use that power of scale to be able to efficiently get the corps back as much money as they can.

I know some here want to believe the org has all these other great things they're supposed to be doing, but since a look at the numbers shows that they raise almost nothing in charitable support (certainly not compared to the corps themselves), and have no major national brands/corporations on board to help underwrite the costs of their marketing ("major" is $100k a year or more), all of those other great things are being paid for by money that the fans give to them to watch shows. That money, less the costs of production, was originally supposed to be delivered back to the corps whose work they're selling.

Classic case of mission creep without having the necessary framework in place to support the additional costs of the creep. You want to say that the corps are spending too much; a look at the 990s thread indicates that the costs of doing drum corps on a national touring basis are what they are, and are pretty consistent across the top 16 or 18 organizations. When something is that consistent - when the 18th place unit isn't really spending significantly more or less than the 4th place unit, it's a sign that there is a level that would indicate that the expenses are consistent enough across the board to indicate "right."

I have a couple friends who work in management with Groupon, and before the Board took action last week to remove Andrew Mason (the CEO), they were marveling at the fact that the guy still had people within the company who swore up and down that he was the right man for the job, despite all performance evidence to the contrary. Anyone who thinks that DCI is hitting it out of the park right now seems to me to be in a similar state of denial. DCI, as an organization, is surviving, but not necessarily growing. Treading water isn't the same thing as winning a gold medal in the 100 metre freestyle.

(Lest anyone misread that as a call for a change in staffing at DCI, it's not; it's simply a call for the DCI Board to have their own come to Jesus moment and figure out a plan that boosts overall revenues and clarifies their message. There MAY end up being some changes in staffing, but like Sullivan's dictate, the 'form' of those changes would follow function too.)

Edited March 4, 2013 by Slingerland

[Stu]

DCI pitches a league called "World Class", but a few of those "World Class" corps get their butts handed to them regularly by other corps who are supposed to be DCI's minor leaguers.

The point made by me and several others is that a more realistic alignment that breaks the organizations into more realistic divisions/leagues would be a good move. Your comments don't change the reality that guides that otherwise common practice in other competitive leagues: if the "best" teams can be easily beaten by other teams that are not supposed to be that good, than those "best" teams are probably playing in the wrong league for them, and having them in the wrong division/league clouds your overall marketing message, making it less than accurate or honest.

By this (getting their butts kicked does not a Major Leaguer make) you must also conclude that MLB needs to therefore throw the Seattle Mariners out of the MLB because they are the only team never to make it to the World Series.

DCI can "mission" all they want, but their function is to sell tickets and recordings and get the money back into the hands of the corps. Is there a percentage of overall revenues that they hold (or should hold) as the target for distribution? Would 50% of gross revenues be fair? After all, they really only have the one purpose, so if overhead of operations is such that they can't afford to get back to the corps at least $50 out of every $100 of the corps' products they sell, then maybe the problem really is that the efficiency issues are with the home office more than the drum corps.

Form. Follows. Function. DCI's "function" was and is to be a central clearing house for the business of selling drum corps, and to use that power of scale to be able to efficiently get the corps back as much money as they can.

Wrong! DCI's main business function is to 'provide venue service support for all youth corps within the ranks of DCI'; and to market those venues so as the show sponsor can sell tickets and the show sponsor can pay out winnings.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Stu

[Gary Matczak]

It seems to me that historical accounts would show that levels of quality are fluid in all drum corps,...............it also seems to me that the definition of a world class corps is not solely defined by how good the corps is, and must include the ability to take on the world class tour,..........after that, everyone can compete for top 25 at prelims, and anomolies will occur in any set of statistics,..........

[Slingerland]

Wrong! DCI's main business function is to 'provide venue service support for all youth corps within the ranks of DCI'; and to market those venues so as the show sponsor can sell tickets and the show sponsor can pay out winnings.

How much does DCI make from "providing venue service support", and who is that phrase when he's at home?

From a business standpoint, DCI was set up as a central clearing house for major drum corps events, to standardize rules, and provide a single voice for the major corps of the day (the founders really weren't thinking about anyone else when they got it off the ground; they figured everyone would figure things out as they needed).

If anything, the problem right now is that there is no clear voice, no central message, and, it appears, no set of basic business principles that guide their decision making. A business that can't succinctly boil their purpose and position down to a single, actionable sentence, is a business that's lost its way. I don't know how you actualize "providing venue service support", since I don't know where the price tag is for doing that, whatever it is.

But we could figure out to a fine degree how much it costs to rent a stadium, market an event, sell tickets, pay judges, and write checks to the partners who performed that night. One is a business action, the other is a gobbledegook.

[cixelsyd]

DCI pitches a league called "World Class", but a few of those "World Class" corps get their butts handed to them regularly by other corps who are supposed to be DCI's minor leaguers.

The point made by me and several others is that a more realistic alignment that breaks the organizations into more realistic divisions/leagues would be a good move. Your comments don't change the reality that guides that otherwise common practice in other competitive leagues: if the "best" teams can be easily beaten by other teams that are not supposed to be that good, than those "best" teams are probably playing in the wrong league for them, and having them in the wrong division/league clouds your overall marketing message, making it less than accurate or honest.

I honestly do not know how to help you, then.

Do you expect there to be no overlap between divisions? There is no mechanism to prevent that possibility. For example, if the Kansas City Royals are as bad as people say, maybe the most exceptional minor league teams can already beat them. We have no way of knowing, though, if they do not play each other. Is major league baseball dishonest in their marketing, then? And if so, what do we do? How do we prevent minor league teams from becoming good enough to beat the lowest major league team? (And should we?)

Maybe this is why you like that promotion/relegation model of European soccer leagues. Of course, that model is an admission that there is overlap, and that overlapping teams should therefore be moved up/down on a regular basis. Or maybe not - wait. What are you suggesting for applying this to drum corps?

- a multi-division prelim contest like 2011-2012, with the top 16-18 becoming the WC for next season? Or:

- separate divisions, where the top three lower-division corps advance every year to replace the bottom three top-division units?

DCI can "mission" all they want, but their function is to sell tickets and recordings and get the money back into the hands of the corps. Is there a percentage of overall revenues that they hold (or should hold) as the target for distribution? Would 50% of gross revenues be fair? After all, they really only have the one purpose, so if overhead of operations is such that they can't afford to get back to the corps at least $50 out of every $100 of the corps' products they sell, then maybe the problem really is that the efficiency issues are with the home office more than the drum corps.

Just a few days ago, you said 40% was the appropriate number. Why should it now be 50% instead?

I know some here want to believe the org has all these other great things they're supposed to be doing, but since a look at the numbers shows that they raise almost nothing in charitable support (certainly not compared to the corps themselves),

- that is hogwash. Friends of DCI, volunteers, grants - DCI has had plenty of charitable support. Of course, given the G7 demands for cost cutting and attempts to fire staff, I would expect pursuit of charitable income to be the first effort to fall by the wayside. It would be disingenuous to point to something DCI cut at the urging of the corps, and then say "look, the corps do more of this than DCI, therefore DCI sucks!".

and have no major national brands/corporations on board to help underwrite the costs of their marketing ("major" is $100k a year or more),

Not sure I understand you. DCI has a long list of corporate sponsors, and some are pretty big companies. Maybe if you gave an example of the kind of big sponsor a corps is hooking that DCI cannot attract, that would make it more clear.

all of those other great things are being paid for by money that the fans give to them to watch shows. That money, less the costs of production, was originally supposed to be delivered back to the corps whose work they're selling.

DCI can return services to the corps as well as money. Honestly, that is what DCI was created for - to do the grunt work of organizing events, organizing a judging system and pool of judges, recording audio and video, licensing, and so forth.

Classic case of mission creep without having the necessary framework in place to support the additional costs of the creep.

What specifically does DCI do that you consider "mission creep"?

You want to say that the corps are spending too much;

No. Honestly, corps can spend as much as they are willing and able to raise. When they start making a public outcry that their financial model is broken, though, it is reasonable to ask if the problem might be too much increased costs.

a look at the 990s thread indicates that the costs of doing drum corps on a national touring basis are what they are, and are pretty consistent across the top 16 or 18 organizations.

What? The 990 thread I read, IIRC, showed that several of our top corps are spending noticeably more.

I have a couple friends who work in management with Groupon, and before the Board took action last week to remove Andrew Mason (the CEO), they were marveling at the fact that the guy still had people within the company who swore up and down that he was the right man for the job, despite all performance evidence to the contrary. Anyone who thinks that DCI is hitting it out of the park right now seems to me to be in a similar state of denial. DCI, as an organization, is surviving, but not necessarily growing. Treading water isn't the same thing as winning a gold medal in the 100 metre freestyle.

(Lest anyone misread that as a call for a change in staffing at DCI, it's not; it's simply a call for the DCI Board to have their own come to Jesus moment and figure out a plan that boosts overall revenues and clarifies their message. There MAY end up being some changes in staffing, but like Sullivan's dictate, the 'form' of those changes would follow function too.)

Then why bring it up?

[BRASSO]

It seems to me that historical accounts would show that levels of quality are fluid in all drum corps,...............it also seems to me that the definition of a world class corps is not solely defined by how good the corps is, and must include the ability to take on the world class tour,..........after that, everyone can compete for top 25 at prelims, and anomolies will occur in any set of statistics,..........

Thats how I see it too.

The 2 people primarily driving the bus for the G7 have been involved in DCI for 4 decades now. They have been in positions on the DCI BOD to adopt business practices, models of operation, and new instrumentation, etc, and in many cases the DCI membership has gone along with them on many of their proposals, and thety have in fact been adopted. Have these policies led to growth of the activity ? I suppose thats certainly debateable.

Maybe its time for DCI to bring in new blood now to look to the next few decades for planning and where it sees itself in 10, 20, 30 years.