TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[cixelsyd]

I just hired you as a consultant to map the turnaround of an iconic American institution. I want you to fix Sears.

===

They were once the biggest retailer in the world, but now they're dead in the water. Same store sales are flat or falling, closing massive amounts of stores hasn't helped improve the bottom line, and their online business, while better than nothing, isn't taking the place of what they used to do in catalog sales.

Here's what they have that's working. Land's End. Inexplicably popular, but profitable, so a win is a win. But the Sears stores themselves? not so much.

So what's the problem? Market position? Product mix? Messaging? Locations? Store design? All of the above?

And then what are the one or two major steps that need to be taken to get people wanting to check out Sears again.

Tolstoy famously said that all happy families were alike, but unhappy families are unhappy in their own way. But I've always found that unhappy businesses are pretty much all alike. Something they're doing or saying, or NOT doing or saying, is failing to turn up prospects, and converting those prospects into customers.

So, in broad strokes, figure out what Sears has to do in order to make themselves vital again. Then see if that solution (or a similar solution) is the same thing that would put some coal in DCI's furnaces.

Well, for starters, only their 18 most successful stores should even be allowed to carry the name "Sears". And among them, the best 7 should get double the amount of support and voice in corporate decision making.

[cixelsyd]

(double post)

Edited March 8, 2013 by cixelsyd

[cixelsyd]

You'd be surprised how many people who make their livings in the real world by looking at problems and potentials would look at DCI and draw the same conclusions. In a world in which the competition for available consumer dollars is getting tighter, not looser, you need to go big or go home, and refine your message to the point where no one can mistake what it is you're trying to sell them. DCI's message is a muddle now, in part because it's trying to pretend like it's a glorified band booster program rather than a major league events promoter.

But that is the thing - in your language, DCI is essentially a major league of glorified bands.

I've pointed out several times that I thought the G7 powerpoint was misguided in both tone and concept.

I know you have criticized the tone, but you seem to echo most of the concepts it contains.

That doesn't mean that it was completely without merit as a tool for initiating a discussion.

It was a very good tool for initiating discussion. That is true.

Simply saying 'they're greedy" without taking the time to investigate their position with an open mind isn't a sign that one is somehow more pure.

What if one investigates their position with an open mind, explores every possible logical thread, and then concludes they are greedy?

Attempts at humor aside, I am here to discuss ideas and see that they are properly vetted. I spent what seemed like a month playing the part of advocate for an idea I was undecided on (transfer fees), just to promote discussion of the pros and cons. I approach ideas with an open mind. But once they have been explored in sufficient depth, I form opinions and try to move forward. For instance, after all the transfer fee discussion, I see it would be a lot of sound and fury, but very little payoff at best, so my search for worthwhile ideas will continue elsewhere.

There are aspects of the G7 proposal that I have formed opinions on. But if new logic is presented that trumps all I have heard previously, my eyes, ears and mind are open.

DCI is stuck in the past

How so? I just noted in an earlier post some of the recent changes DCI has made. Despite being financially handcuffed by the G7 fusses, DCI has made several significant changes that did not require costly upfront investments (TOC, combined prelims, new judging system, SoundSport/Drumline Battle). They have also made significant changes to their BOD, twice. You may want to see other transformative changes, but it is not accurate to characterize DCI as steadfast and unchanging.

But the world has moved on from mom and pop drum corps, with kids getting peanut butter sandwiches three times a day, and jamming them aboard a school bus that wouldn't be able to pass a state inspection without a $10 bill handed over with the form to the inspector. The amount of money DCI can distribute is not keeping up with the expenses of doing the activity.

As I have pointed out before, the amount of money DCI pays out has never, and will never, "keep up" with the expenses of corps participating in the activity. This did not register with you, I guess, so maybe I can define this with greater lucidity.

DCI is an amateur league.

Maybe this is why some sports comparisons work, and others do not. In reality, what we have here is a rarity - a major league for an amateur sport. No well known precedents come to my mind. Anyway, it is the nature of this activity to be competitive. Since the stakes are so high (a world championship is on the line), and the activity is so resource intensive (150 players per team, long routines to learn, and all that equipment), it has always compelled some corps to extend their efforts into the realm of external fundraising as part of their overall effort to outdo each other.

No matter what DCI pays the corps, the corps are still going to fundraise in their attempts to outdo each other. The same is true of other competitive teams of that scale or larger. Do you see any NFL teams giving up their merchandising, letting fans into the stadium or free, and just living off the revenue share the NFL pays them? No. Does that mean the NFL "fails to keep up with the expenses" of football? No.

If there are other suggestions out there besides finding a way to make it more sellable to potential fans, or alternatively, growing the fan base enough so that the corps themselves can make more money by selling those new fans their merchandise, then everyone will be interested in seeing them.

But there doesn't seem to be a strong commitment to either idea right now.

I would be very interested in growing the fan base. That is where DCI was going to focus with their business plan starting in the 2009-2010 off-season, just as the G7 dissention began.

[cixelsyd]

Ok. How?

Is there some special discount code that can be applied to everyone's insurance bills that will lower them from $50,000 or more to a few thousand dollars? A special fuel pump where diesel is still $1.10 a gallon?

A world in which the members are all local, and live at mom and dad's on the weekdays, until late July, when they go out on their 10 day "summer tour?"

We all did that. It was 1960s and early 70s drum corps. Like muscle cars that got 12 mpg on $.29 gas, it was fun back in its day, but its day passed a long time ago.

I mean, there ARE cheaper ways of doing drum corps with mostly local members, but those corps are designed to be part-time, rather than full-time. Force every drum corps to adhere to the part-time, locals only model, and you can kiss national touring corps goodbye - or more likely, you can kiss at least 15 or 17 of the top corps goodbye, as they'll take off to form a new organization.

The old model simply doesn't work, and making changes designed to cheapen production doesn't have a long history of success in this world. It's why Schlitz is still held up as an example in business classes of the dangers of going cheap, rather than going bigger and better. They thought they could cheapen their way to survival, and they killed the brand instead.

The way forward rarely involves shifting into reverse, except for cases of purest survival, and even in those cases, it's usually the first step toward putting up the "going out of business" sign. Ironically enough, as I think of it, my moniker here is another example of the dangers of cheapening, rather than committing to growth. A once dominant brand, killed by a drive to make it cheaper, rather than make it better.

Generally speaking, I agree. So you must see why turning open class over to regional circuits is a non-starter.

[cixelsyd]

As a business, as a concept, drum corps today is very much like it was 40 years ago. That has to change.

Okay, we hear you. Must change. Change, change, change.

What change do you have in mind?

Edited March 8, 2013 by cixelsyd

[cixelsyd]

But I think you'd find many people would be all in favor of part-time junior corps forming an alliance in the DCA direction, if DCA is interested in having them join.

I think the first question that needs to be asked is whether the corps you now refer to as "part-time junior corps" are in favor of going to DCA.

[cixelsyd]

DCI could look at the NHL (even with the lockouts, a much bigger operation now than 20 years ago) or the NFL, both of which were once stale or failing operations, but got turned around with a dose of fresh blood and a desire to grow their businesses rather than accept second rate status.

Okay. The NHL expanded to 30 teams; the NFL to 32. What about expanding DCI membership to 32 corps?

[MikeD]

I mean, there ARE cheaper ways of doing drum corps with mostly local members, but those corps are designed to be part-time, rather than full-time.

It is there already...called competitive marching band...and its far larger than competitive drum corps ever was.

[Slingerland]

Okay. The NHL expanded to 30 teams; the NFL to 32. What about expanding DCI membership to 32 corps?

Absolutely, as long as each of those new corps bring additional value to DCI, with ownerships that buy their way in , and provide additional revenue to the organization, rather than just providing another mouth to feed. Just like in the NFL and NHL.

You add teams to your league when doing so creates benefit to the existing members of the partnership. DCI would probably love to be in that position, but right now, there just aren't enough experienced, qualified corps management teams and boards of directors to make it feasible. But if you can convince another 6 or 8 corps to step up their programs to the point where they are committed to funding a national tour, hiring a good staff, and going out there with 140-150 kids who are ready to compete at the highest levels, absolutely, go for it.

[MikeD]

Yes.

Its called DCA.

It pretty much works as designed.It fills the need for those who won't, or can't, spend a lot of money on their urge to do Drum Corps and has a loyal fan base that likes the product. It might not be everyone's cup a tea, but its been around longer than DCI and has been more organizationally more stable than DCI. It does follow the model of keeping expenses down for Corps, staff, and fans by keeping " touring " to a minimum. It fills a niche. And DCA's longevity of almost half a century in business now clearly demonstrates that its business model that it has chosen for itself works as intended.

I love DCA, but what do you mean by this?

If you look at the first DCA championships...2 of 6 corps still compete in DCA.

If you look at the 1972 champs, the first year of DCI, 4 of 12 DCA finalists still compete in DCA...one of them as a class 'A' corps (let's hope my favorite historical DCA corps comes back full steam ahead!). In DCI, 4 of 12 still compete in DCI.

If you go back 20 years, to 1992, 7 of 12 still compete, one of them anouncing 2013 as their last year, and another the same class 'A' corps noted above. Of the 12 DCI finalists from 1992, 9 of 12 still compete in DCI.

Go back 10 years. 8 of 12 still compete in DCA, plus the Yokohama Inspires...so we can call it 9 that compete somewhere. 11 of 12 DCI corps still compete in DCI.

I'm not seeing the evidence that supports that statement, unless you mean it in a different context.

DCA does work for its member corps and participating members; absolutely. It could not have a touring model and still survive, so to extoll it as somehow better than DCI is just plain wrong, IMO. DCI survives because it is what it is...and DCA survives as it is what IT is.