Jeff Ream Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Mike, "Its marching band" to 99.9% of the country" So, there's our answer? The ability of this activity to ever become widely accepted, draw in public throngs, be seen on prime time TV, etc. is a pipe dream, and we need to move on. Not having enough money to continue is a moot point, because we are what we are, so deal with it. No change required. Close this thread? I guess what I'm saying is, the current product is not selling enough units. Not enough money is coming in for what we have to offer. Thus, one solution is to offer something different. funny, the more DCI tries to be big boy marching band, and not drum corps...the more issues the activity has and the more it shrinks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Look, I'm not here to really change anyone's mind that posts on DCP. That isn't really going to happen. I post for the lurkers, the ones I may not know personally... but who are actually in the game. Many involved in the activity that are in decision making or decision influencing capacities do read this site (whether they would publicly admit it or not :-) ). These are the guys I post stuff for. Not the ones that go into long counter arguments that are essentially more of the same, but for the ones that might go "hmmmm...". Also, DCI is fundamentally broken and is not repairable with the current toolset. If you have not arrived at that same conclusion, you either do not have the same information, you don't have the necessary experience or frame of reference to properly interpret it, or are simply in denial (a good number of those with this info are in the last two categories... mostly in the last one). DCI is damaged, but not broken....but few want to admit who caused the damage and ###### if they will own up to it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 Look, I'm not here to really change anyone's mind that posts on DCP. That isn't really going to happen. I post for the lurkers, the ones I may not know personally... but who are actually in the game. Many involved in the activity that are in decision making or decision influencing capacities do read this site (whether they would publicly admit it or not :-) ). These are the guys I post stuff for. Not the ones that go into long counter arguments that are essentially more of the same, but for the ones that might go "hmmmm...". Good for you. My mindset is slightly different. My posts should give those same lurkers things to think about, but they are also intended for public discussion so that the thoughts of people both in and out of "the game" can all contribute to the vetting of ideas. Also, DCI is fundamentally broken and is not repairable with the current toolset. I know, I know - the sky is falling. Oh, if only we had branded all DCI events with a common moniker, like "The Summer Music Games", everything would be okay. (We tried that back in, like, 1988.) If you have not arrived at that same conclusion, you either do not have the same information, you don't have the necessary experience or frame of reference to properly interpret it, or are simply in denial (a good number of those with this info are in the last two categories... mostly in the last one). Why not all three? a. Your "information" leads you to conclude that corps below a certain placement are uniformly smaller, younger, less experienced, touring less, more interested in education but less interested in competing, and more locally limited in recruiting. Either your information is limited to what you see on YouTube, and... b. ... you are not interpreting it correctly, or... c. ... you are in denial. Like you marketing types say, message focus is key. If your message is that DCI must change to serve fewer corps, you need to present a clearer, more logical case to support it. Tangential complaints about tangential issues, punctuated by the occasional hair-on-fire post claiming (without substantiation) that DCI will cease to exist in mere months, will not convince either the people posting here or the lurkers. You can revert to the routine where you claim that you are BFF with powers-that-be who show you secret data that proves DCI will self-destruct in five seconds. But enough of us have friends among the powers-that-be to know that the financial situation is not as dire as you say. Certainly, a reasonable dialogue is needed to chart the DCI course as they continue through a challenging economy. But it needs to be a reasonable dialogue, not an emergency takeover amid bug-eyed panic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) Oh, if only we had branded all DCI events with a common moniker, like "The Summer Music Games", everything would be okay. (We tried that back in, like, 1988.) There has never been a time where all drum corps shows have had a common name. Either your information is limited to what you see on YouTube, and... ... spending time face to face with a number of different corps directors... some of which I've spent the most time with recently are not finalist corps. You can revert to the routine where you claim that you are BFF with powers-that-be who show you secret data that proves DCI will self-destruct in five seconds. But enough of us have friends among the powers-that-be to know that the financial situation is not as dire as you say. Again, everything must be taken into full context. The current situation is not only DCI's financial state and lack of roadmap, but this combined with the state of many of the corps and the overall economy. It is a compound issue. Certainly, a reasonable dialogue is needed to chart the DCI course as they continue through a challenging economy. But it needs to be a reasonable dialogue, not an emergency takeover amid bug-eyed panic. It needs experienced and decisive leadership that can unify everyone involved, while making the tough decisions, that is completely objective and that has strong connections with potential investors, partners and sponsors. Bottom line, DCI needs money. A lot of it. The amount of money needed to keep this activity going is not something that can be made through near-term tweaking performances to try to get more people in the stands. DCI has other valuable assets that are absolutely not being properly monetized (ex: sponsorship potential for consumer brands) and is trying to generate money to support drum corps from only within the marching music sphere. This is pointless. Edited March 15, 2013 by danielray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 There has never been a time where all drum corps shows have had a common name. No longer sure precisely what you are expecting. NASCAR is often held up as a master of branding and corporate sponsorship. But every one of their races has a different name. The right to name an event belongs to the sponsor of that event. Likewise, in drum corps, where most shows are sponsored by TEPs, the right to name the event belongs to that TEP. If the day comes when a sponsor can provide such a massive combination of money and/or human resources that they can serve as TEP for every show on the DCI tour, then they can name all the shows "The (name of corporation here) Summer Music Games of (name of town here)". If doing that for a sponsor will get us that many millions of dollars in annual support, sounds like a good deal. But why would it have been beneficial back in 1988 DCI, with no such tour sponsor, to take the naming rights away from the event sponsors and change the names of long-running, successful shows in order to ensure that every last show was named "The Summer Music Games"? ... spending time face to face with a number of different corps directors... some of which I've spent the most time with recently are not finalist corps. Great. Hope Rick Odello and Steve Barnhill were able to set you straight. Bottom line, DCI needs money. A lot of it. The amount of money needed to keep this activity going is not something that can be made through near-term tweaking performances to try to get more people in the stands. DCI has other valuable assets that are absolutely not being properly monetized (ex: sponsorship potential for consumer brands) and is trying to generate money to support drum corps from only within the marching music sphere. This is pointless. I doubt that was the word you were looking for - unless you really think it is pointless to generate money from our own fan base. Anyway, it is starting to sound like you echo Slingerland in taking the cost side of the equation off the table. Just saying "the amount of money needed to keep this activity going", as if that is some fixed number carved in stone, makes it seem as if the prospect of corps trimming their expenses is not even under the remotest consideration. If, indeed, the zombie apocalypse is upon us, and the demise of DCI and every corps it touches will happen in the fall of 2013 as you predicted earlier, why only look at revenues and not costs? (Sorry. I should be more specific. You want other corps to cut costs by leaving DCI and joining DCA or regional circuits. You want DCI to slash their costs by jettisoning services and the people who perform them, and serving fewer corps. Do you not want top corps to look at their costs?) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normy diploome Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 The Cadets posted this yesterday on their website and FB, sent the same out to alums, volunteers, supporters and donors. http://www.yea.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle<emclass='amp'>&</em>id=21852&news_iv_ctrl=1002 To cut to the point it states, "Over the years, the number of donors from outside the alumni has risen, while the percentage of donating alumni has decreased" (emphasis is my own editing) While many causes may be speculated (move from Garfield which was a close blue collar town, move mainly to music majors who make limited salaries while incurring large educational costs , burning bridges by Hopkins, displeasure with administrative decisions and movement of the activity, disagreement with the focus of activity from core values of youth formation to an arts experience funding professional staffers, etc., etc.) the fact that this weakness is publicized underlines the requirement of other funding sources and the inferred acknowlegement that G7 corps administrators are changing their target audience in order to subsidize their perspectives and livelihood. The statement further demonstrates that the current situation is not merely adding other funding sources and maintaining alumni giving, but that the alums are seeing other places to donate their monies (e.g. Hurricane Sandy victims, soup kitchens, the unemployed, the increasing homeless, health charities, arts programs in their neighborhood and other programs more akin to the traditional values of an originally church-based corps.) Some corps like the Legends with their Nursing Home concerts and Jersey Surf with its Hurricane Sandy outreach, are benefitting due to their altruism on and off the field. their altruism. For the last several decades I have been involved with linking disgrunted and disenfranchised alums with current marching members, particularly age-outs, needing sponsors to march this and most World Class corps in the East and Midwest. With this economy, even those generousities have become more difficult as recent, modern, and aged alums do not feel the same allegiance to their corps or the activity. Huge corporation funding may be a requirement for the maintenance of the requirement, but at what cost to the activity itself as this World Class multi-time Champion now acknowledges? Bottom lines are oh so important but money is not the only bottom line which is in danger. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) Anyway, it is starting to sound like you echo Slingerland in taking the cost side of the equation off the table. No. But it's likely that Daniel has actually done the research, as I did, looked at the numbers breakdown, and come to the same conclusion; you can't produce a national touring drum corps that is anywhere near the standards we've come to expect from the best for $400,000. You just can't. And if the quality at the top of the activity drops to the levels we see from those who ARE working in that budget range, you can kiss the entire activity goodbye, because it will cease to have a reason to be. If the quality isn't what sells it, if you're no better than a good quality high school marching band, no one will want to watch it and no one will want to do it. Is that cruel? Tough. This activity could use a little dose of reality. The performance quality of the best 15 or 18 corps is what makes them interesting. The training aspects of those working in the lower ranks is what makes them worth supporting. But it's a mistake to equate those two very different ideas, even if it makes a few of you feel like saying the truth is 'elitist.' Edited March 15, 2013 by Slingerland 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 Slashing a top corps budget from $1.x million to $400,000 is not what I meant by "trimming" expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frachel Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) I do not think that show design is remotely a factor in the lack of widespread appeal. "Its marching band" to 99.9% of the country, and it is just not something large numbers of people outside the comparatively small world of marching/music have much interest in seeing, let alone paying to see, no matter how good it is. Blast! had a short run on Broadway, but you don't see all sorts of Blast!-like shows springing up and moving to Broadway. I've brought a decent amount of new people to shows over the past couple of years (including my kids) and the one thing I'll say about show design is that I think it has a huge impact on whether people come back to see another show. My anecdotal evidence is that nobody I've brought (out of around 15 people) except my daughter really has any interested in going back. They LOVED a few of the shows, but there were too many they really didn't like/get that it outweighed the ones they did. Also - I've found that when the show consists of the higher-placing, larger (ie, FULL) corps, they people enjoy it much more. Bringing people to Allentown I have found it's better to come in after the first few corps go on because they get a more negative impression than if they come in for just the top 6 or 7. Getting 'blown away' right off the bat makes a huge impression vs. watching a much smaller (and just not as good) corps does. The smaller corps remind them far too much of their local marching band(s). As a long-time viewer of the activity (30 years or so, jeez im old) and former member, I find something in all shows to appreciate and like, but the people I've brought aren't that in-the-know to do that. That's why if at all possible, I'll bring new people to the TOC (or whatever it's called now) show, because its just that more entertaining for them to see 7 high qualityh corps vs. 3 high quality and 4 "next tier down".. Edited March 15, 2013 by frachel 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 No longer sure precisely what you are expecting. Example: Corps Encore - Ogden, Utah becomes... Pepsi Hardcorps Tour 2014 - Ogden, Utah If the day comes when a sponsor can provide such a massive combination of money and/or human resources that they can serve as TEP for every show on the DCI tour, then they can name all the shows "The (name of corporation here) Summer Music Games of (name of town here)". If doing that for a sponsor will get us that many millions of dollars in annual support, sounds like a good deal. You're looking at this entirely backwards from how it works. But why would it have been beneficial back in 1988 DCI, with no such tour sponsor, to take the naming rights away from the event sponsors and change the names of long-running, successful shows in order to ensure that every last show was named "The Summer Music Games"? There was a push to try it... Bill Cook was actually trying to get people behind what was absolutely obvious. They only did this for DCI shows, not all shows... you still had DCM, DCE, DCW and so on.. and all of those other random shows. Was not complete. Was inconsistently executed as I recall... was at some shows then in Midwest and also West and very different. What I am talking about is an absolute consistent experience... think Starbucks. No matter where it is geographically, no matter what the architecture or layout of the place, there is consistent branding and a consistent experience. Great. Hope Rick Odello and Steve Barnhill were able to set you straight. You make a lot of assumptions here. I think the last time I saw Rick was 20 years ago and never met Steve. More like non-finalist WC corps and other WC corps not part of 7. Anyway, it is starting to sound like you echo Slingerland in taking the cost side of the equation off the table. Just saying "the amount of money needed to keep this activity going", as if that is some fixed number carved in stone, makes it seem as if the prospect of corps trimming their expenses is not even under the remotest consideration. If, indeed, the zombie apocalypse is upon us, and the demise of DCI and every corps it touches will happen in the fall of 2013 as you predicted earlier, why only look at revenues and not costs? No one is getting rich off drum corps and plenty of people are staying pretty poor because of their dedication to it. The money required to start up a drum corps (horns, drums, equipment, facilities, staff, etc.) is pretty consistent. Touring is also within a pretty predictable range. Running this thing is a known known. Was is also known is if you trim things down and make it even closer to the same sort of experience kids are getting in many high schools out there... interest in participation declines. Expenses need to remain at the level they are in order to keep the activity interesting for kids... otherwise.... marching band is enough for most. (Sorry. I should be more specific. You want other corps to cut costs by leaving DCI and joining DCA or regional circuits. You want DCI to slash their costs by jettisoning services and the people who perform them, and serving fewer corps. Do you not want top corps to look at their costs?) It is simply about making sense in terms of focus, marketability, etc. There are pretty much 3 clear competitive clusters. Pretending these don't exist, that groups have the same goals, serve the same youth and provide the same experience is counterproductive. There should, instead, be very clear classification of these 3 tiers with the best opportunities, support and outlet for each. Do I think that some corps could probably be better supported by DCA? Probably. Do I think DCA is the best option for these? Definitely not. I am strongly against mixing youth and adults. I think the best option could be a new organization closely aligned with DCI, but separately managed, that support the unique needs of local/regional organizations with younger membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts