Gary Matczak Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 ................................ Now, with finals in the same place until the end of time, which is stupid,..........and to me a large reason for decline in attendance,.........and should be reconsidered,....... .................. but instead replaced with new lines of revenue. this is a stock "sound like you know what you are talking about" statement,...........a half dozen or so legitimate, bullet point, ideas is what is needed,........not a bunch of ramblings on ad nauseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 10, 2013 Author Share Posted March 10, 2013 Not as much as one would suppose, given the relatively large range of scoring from top to bottom. As demonstrated this past season, it's perfectly possible for a corps in the 16-19 range to have a budget as big as a corps who places in the top 5 or 6. Sure, it is possible for a big spending 16-19 corps to match the thriftiest top 6 corps. The trend, however, is 5 of the top corps spending 50% more than what is typical of the remainder of season-long touring corps. There isn't enough money coming in to DCI, and 15,000-17,000 paid at Finals isn't a sign of success. Those 12,000 seats that used to be sold but aren't now are worth at least $600-800k on just that one night. Which accomplishes what, exactly? You seem to expect DCI to provide payouts that completely cover all the expenses this amateur competitive activity incurs. Even if we cut that activity down to 18 corps as you suggest, that is still going to run about $16 million, based on the data from those 990s. How do you realistically expect DCI to raise that kind of revenue? You would have to sell an additional 12,000 seats at every show to pull that off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Friends of DCI was actually a ticket play. A lot of people buying the tickets have closer relationships to individual corps than to DCI. They ended up instead buying tickets through individual corps than DCI, because they were then able to buy tickets in good areas, in blocks where they could sit with others they knew from the corps they were buying from. When finals was moving around a lot to different cities and stadiums, availability and ticket blocks were less predictable, so it was always better to go through Friends of DCI to ensure you got great seats. Now, with finals in the same place until the end of time, individual corps have very predictable blocks... making the Friends of DCI program sort of obsolete for many individuals who have some sort of connection to (alumni, volunteer, donor, fan, etc.) any member corps. It is not so much that Friends of DCI is something that should be chased after (I do think member corps can likely do a better job of selling blocks of tickets than DCI), but instead replaced with new lines of revenue. This view is very skewed and, while you use enough straw men to make your explanation possible, you provide a solution with no proof. Friends was started as a charitable revenue stream that promised members great seats in exchange for their donation. Not completely dissimilar to getting tickets directly from corps, but distinct on one critical way - the loyalties of the members of FDCI. Besides the ability to get better seats than even the corps can provide, and despite the individual corps loyalties among Friends members, the vast majority of Friends donate directly to DCI via Friends instead of, or in addition to, donating to their favorite corps. In the block where I sit, there are staunch financial supporters of just about every corps, but the common thread throughout Friends is a desire to support the activity as a whole, and the direction of the activity, via Friends. Getting rid of the Friends program is a prime directive of the G7 because they believe, in their own hubris, that those dis-banded Friends will give to their favorite corps directly and, of course, those corps are all better at managing donations than DCI. Not to mention their belief that the portion of Friends revenue that ends up in the hands of the O-15 is wasted money. But I can also tell you that many of the Friends sitting around me would never consider giving the amount directly to corps that they give to DCI because they don't believe that the corps themselves will act in the best interest of the activity as a whole. I know this first hand and personally of several of the activity's largest financial supporters. They believe that DCI acts as a counterbalance against rogue ideas and/or directors and/or directions within the activity. If your explanation of the decline of Friends is correct, Dan, then we should see the charitable donations to the individual corps is increasing, particularly among the G7 who, incidentally, get the next-best pick of seat blocks at LOS. Yet, we do not see increases in charitable donations to the corps in general; in fact, just the opposite as those corps struggle to replace charitable contributions with "earned" income. So if Friends are buying tickets through their favorite corps then those are just ticket sales and not charitable contributions. With Friends, you always pay more for your package than the tickets themselves are worth - hence the charitable portion of the cost of membership. If the contribution levels of the corps is not increasing that either means that Friends are not giving as much to individual corps (as in just buying tickets), or Friends are leaving for some other reason. I've heard half-a-dozen Friends say that they continue to support DCI in spite of the actions of their favorite corps. And as long as there is this notion that the Friends program takes money from the individual corps coffers, there'll be little support behind actually asking ex-Friends why they are no longer donating. No matter how you slice it, the value of the premiums given to Friends is always less than the membership cost at any level. It was a revenue-generating idea at its core, and it worked well for many years until the leadership directors got it in their minds that those revenues belong to them. I contend that Friends is but another example of something that DCI did well that they stopped doing. And a fine example of why "going back" should be considered as a part of DCI's overall problems. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Not as much as one would suppose, given the relatively large range of scoring from top to bottom. As demonstrated this past season, it's perfectly possible for a corps in the 16-19 range to have a budget as big as a corps who places in the top 5 or 6. There isn't enough money coming in to DCI, and 15,000-17,000 paid at Finals isn't a sign of success. Those 12,000 seats that used to be sold but aren't now are worth at least $600-800k on just that one night. The justification promoted by DCI for declining finals attendance is that more emphasis is being placed on regional shows, and that the total attendance over an entire season is a better indicator of the health of the activity. Those total attendance numbers have been going up three years in a row, if we're to believe DCI's announcements. And combined with digital "attendance", DCI is reaching more people than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 This whole notion that touring corps spend about the same is hogwash. While we can all agree that a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and a mouth to feed is a mouth to feed, the fact is that across 2010 and 2011: BD spent $1.7million on their A-corps SCV spent $1.3million of their A-corps YEA spent $1.2million on Cadets Crown spent $982-thousand Bluecoats spent $950-thousand Do we agree that these corps all toured about the same? Then why a disparity in spending that approaches 45% in some of the cost comparisons? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Retracted Edited March 10, 2013 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Just placing these photos in context as to why he apparently felt the need to post them (by the way, anyone who is aware of photo psychology knows that the eye is drawn first to the most prominent and/or centered aspect in the photo, just sayin')... Stu, I have to say that you're coming perilously close to attacking Dan, the person, and that your suppositions about his motives for organizing those kids misses the fact those kids are standing there when they weren't before (according to Dan). Even if true, Dan wouldn't be the first person to start a "corps" with an ego the size of a barn (and I, personally, don't believe that Dan's ego is driving him). His motivations aside, is credit given for teaching kids to play and march? Your recent posts attacking him seem, increasingly, to forget that point. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Stu, I have to say that you're coming perilously close to attacking Dan, the person, and that your suppositions about his motives for organizing those kids misses the fact those kids are standing there when they weren't before (according to Dan). Even if true, Dan wouldn't be the first person to start a "corps" with an ego the size of a barn (and I, personally, don't believe that Dan's ego is driving him). His motivations aside, is credit given for teaching kids to play and march? Your recent posts attacking him seem, increasingly, to forget that point. Retracted Edited March 10, 2013 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) double post Edited March 10, 2013 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 This view is very skewed and, while you use enough straw men to make your explanation possible, you provide a solution with no proof. Friends was started as a charitable revenue stream that promised members great seats in exchange for their donation. Not completely dissimilar to getting tickets directly from corps, but distinct on one critical way - the loyalties of the members of FDCI. Besides the ability to get better seats than even the corps can provide, and despite the individual corps loyalties among Friends members, the vast majority of Friends donate directly to DCI via Friends instead of, or in addition to, donating to their favorite corps. In the block where I sit, there are staunch financial supporters of just about every corps, but the common thread throughout Friends is a desire to support the activity as a whole, and the direction of the activity, via Friends. Getting rid of the Friends program is a prime directive of the G7 because they believe, in their own hubris, that those dis-banded Friends will give to their favorite corps directly and, of course, those corps are all better at managing donations than DCI. Not to mention their belief that the portion of Friends revenue that ends up in the hands of the O-15 is wasted money. But I can also tell you that many of the Friends sitting around me would never consider giving the amount directly to corps that they give to DCI because they don't believe that the corps themselves will act in the best interest of the activity as a whole. I know this first hand and personally of several of the activity's largest financial supporters. They believe that DCI acts as a counterbalance against rogue ideas and/or directors and/or directions within the activity. If your explanation of the decline of Friends is correct, Dan, then we should see the charitable donations to the individual corps is increasing, particularly among the G7 who, incidentally, get the next-best pick of seat blocks at LOS. Yet, we do not see increases in charitable donations to the corps in general; in fact, just the opposite as those corps struggle to replace charitable contributions with "earned" income. So if Friends are buying tickets through their favorite corps then those are just ticket sales and not charitable contributions. With Friends, you always pay more for your package than the tickets themselves are worth - hence the charitable portion of the cost of membership. If the contribution levels of the corps is not increasing that either means that Friends are not giving as much to individual corps (as in just buying tickets), or Friends are leaving for some other reason. I've heard half-a-dozen Friends say that they continue to support DCI in spite of the actions of their favorite corps. And as long as there is this notion that the Friends program takes money from the individual corps coffers, there'll be little support behind actually asking ex-Friends why they are no longer donating. No matter how you slice it, the value of the premiums given to Friends is always less than the membership cost at any level. It was a revenue-generating idea at its core, and it worked well for many years until the leadership directors got it in their minds that those revenues belong to them. I contend that Friends is but another example of something that DCI did well that they stopped doing. And a fine example of why "going back" should be considered as a part of DCI's overall problems. The real issue... other than seats, why donate to DCI? For what? DCI is an events company. If you want to support performance opportunities for young people, engage with individual member corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts