TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[cixelsyd]

No. They would be separate brands, separate circuits. Aligned (sort of like major and minor leagues) but not same brand or operation.

Two clearly distinct things.... like DCA and DCI, except for a bit more aligned.

Oh, like world class and open class. Done!

All that remains, then, is to demote four corps, right?

[cixelsyd]

Cool. Then please expand on your argument that there is plenty of excess spending going on, with examples of where the vast majority of WC corps are spending too much. Most of them are in the $800k-1m range for drum corps program numbers, so the pattern must be consistent.

Make sure you separate out the drum corps expenses from the overall organizational expenses, since a number of orgs like BD, YEA, and SCV are supporting multiple programs with their budgets, and it wouldn't be helpful to include those non-drum corps related expenses in the conversation.

Thanks in advance.

I sense resistance.

Again, all I asked is that if one believes that financial armageddon is imminent and drastic measures are necessary, why should cost cutting not be on the table as one of the options for consideration? The only part of your response that addresses that question is the assertion that corps have similar expense levels, which is not borne out by the data (Cavaliers $1.2 million vs. Bluecoats $900,000, for example). But even if every corps was spending the exact same amount, why not consider a way in which that cost can be reduced for all corps?

[cixelsyd]

I gotta say, this seems like such obvious common sense that I can't understand why anyone would object.

You cannot understand why anyone would object to removing the 19th-22nd corps from world class?

I could understand why people associated with those corps would object. :doh:/>

Provide a path to promotion for the most aggressive "minor league" or whatever you call it corps, and a mechanism that would allow for relegation of those who fail to maintain standards (if all 18 maintain standards, then fine - add the minor leaguers who've proven their abilities and grow the 'major' league to 19 or 20)

Now wait a second. You said we need to limit this to 18 corps. If we keep changing the number, that will blur the marketing message. "Showcasing the top 18 19 20 however-many corps... ".

If the philosophy is to allow however many corps meet the standards, then how is that different from what we currently have?

[cixelsyd]

Well, they 7 make up all but 1 of the groups in existence who have won DCI (and the only other one that has, won once... years before any kid participating now was even born).

Madison Scouts won in 1975 and 1988. I believe that makes two titles, not one.

[Gary Matczak]

In NCAA, participants are all pretty much the same age. In DCI, it is not the case.

not true,...........in most DII and DIII college sports you can be up to age 30 IIRC,.............not so for DI,...........

Edited March 16, 2013 by Gary Matczak

[Slingerland]

You cannot understand why anyone would object to removing the 19th-22nd corps from world class?

If you're supposedly a major league team, yet you routinely lose to what are supposed to be minor league teams, you're not really a major league team. Either you need to step up your game, or be honest about your abilities and compete at the appropriate level.

A more focused, more competitive top division would be helpful in defining the product for potential sponsors, which would serve to increase the overall amount of money available to the activity. You seem to want to cut funds to the corps, rather than growing additional funds through improved communications, product development, and marketing techniques, but I'll guarantee you that your 'business philosophy', while useful as a temporary measure in recessions, is not a successful concept in the long term. The problem isn't overspending at the corps level; it's under-performance at the DCI level.

DCI, as an organization, needs to have a gut check of their member corps, and find out if they want to continue muddling along or whether they're ready to get aggressive about growing their market, even if it would require a major realignment, and being willing to change the programming and competition philosophy to improve the overall appeal. But right now there doesn't seem to be anyone at the DCI level who's willing to sit the corps down and start that process. If Dan Acheson doesn't feel confident enough of his abilities to be the guy who leads, than it would seem to be incumbent on him to acknowledge as much, and leave room for the Directors to hire someone else who will.

If it helps, I guarantee you that both Gibbs and Blenski would be unhappy with the direction that DCI needs to take in order to grow, for completely different reasons. Gibbs would hate the demands to make the product more sellable and less WGI, Blenski would hate hearing that he'd have to start playing to win or work at a different level.

But plodding along, the way they are now, is not really an option. If you want to save DCI, you're going to have to care about making it bigger and better, not more of the same.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Slingerland

[MikeD]

That's almost exactly my experience too. Almost no one is interested in going back.

I've seen the opposite as well, from strangers I have met at shows who were looking forward to the next one to people I have brought who wanted me to take them again the next time. I've also seen those who did not care to go back.

DCI and drum corps people are a peculiar bunch. If they were a for-profit business, I would guess none of the drum corps would survive. What could be going on here?

DCI decision makers are unaware that the return rate for newbies is close to zero. (inexcusible but possible)

DCI decision makers are fully aware but don't care. . Personally this has been my working theory for years. Arguing with their customers over what their customers should want. Doesn't get you very far.

DCI decision makers are fully aware, do care, but can't figure out how to change it. This is also possible.

DCI decision makers and corps director are so darn busy trying to keep up with the Joneses that they don't notice what's going on around them beyond their personal day to day grind. Perhaps in this case you would hope some of them would at least be self-aware of this, and put someone out there to be their eyes and ears.

If you read the G7 stuff, IMO they do see a problem and are trying to address it...you just don't like their suggested solution.

[cixelsyd]

If you're supposedly a major league team, yet you routinely lose to what are supposed to be minor league teams, you're not really a major league team. Either you need to step up your game, or be honest about your abilities and compete at the appropriate level.

Hey, you said you could not see why anyone would object to removing 4 or 5 corps from WC. I was only pointing out one such reason.

A more focused, more competitive top division would be helpful in defining the product for potential sponsors, which would serve to increase the overall amount of money available to the activity.

Okay. When people object, that is the justification you will present to them.

You seem to want to cut funds to the corps, rather than growing additional funds through improved communications, product development, and marketing techniques, but I'll guarantee you that your 'business philosophy', while useful as a temporary measure in recessions, is not a successful concept in the long term.

No, that is not how it seems.

I look at the data I have available, and I see corps at a whole range of different levels of spending. The one thing they have in common is that they are living within their means. There are a couple of glaring exceptions, but the other corps are balancing their budgets at all of those diverse levels. Seeing that, I think the rhetoric about "the model is broken" and how DCI and their corps will self-destruct in eight months is not an appropriate description of the situation.

So no, I do not come into this discussion thinking that corps must cut their spending. But if (and that is why I was underlining that "if" in earlier posts) we were to accept the premise that the drum corps financial apocalypse is here, then I have to ask (not declare, but ask) why cost reduction would not be part of the discussion. Why fight an apocalypse with one arm tied behind your back?

Again, I do not conclude that corps must cut spending. I only point out that if danielray is correct and every single touring corps will fold in September of 2013 due to finances, then in that case, why not look at options like shortening the season just this once in these apocalyptic times?

The problem isn't overspending at the corps level; it's under-performance at the DCI level.

Alright, if that is your opinion, so be it - as long as your solution fits the problem you identify.

DCI, as an organization, needs to have a gut check of their member corps, and find out if they want to continue muddling along or whether they're ready to get aggressive about growing their market, even if it would require a major realignment, and being willing to change the programming and competition philosophy to improve the overall appeal. But right now there doesn't seem to be anyone at the DCI level who's willing to sit the corps down and start that process. If Dan Acheson doesn't feel confident enough of his abilities to be the guy who leads, than it would seem to be incumbent on him to acknowledge as much, and leave room for the Directors to hire someone else who will.

DCI did have a gut check back in 2009. They developed a 5-year business plan designed to mobilize everyone in the activity to generate growth on a variety of fronts. When guts were checked, the vote ratifying the plan was nearly unanimous. Several months later, though, the lone dissenter and six other corps lost their guts, and returned to the familiar, comfortable ground of governance proposals to consolidate power among fewer corps (themselves included, of course).

And I do not know where the Dan Acheson criticism comes from, all of a sudden. He is merely an employee of the governing corps directors. He can lead only so far, because if he tries to lead them where they refuse to go, they will fire him.

But plodding along, the way they are now, is not really an option. If you want to save DCI, you're going to have to care about making it bigger and better, not more of the same.

Save DCI from what, exactly?

[danielray]

And I do not know where the Dan Acheson criticism comes from, all of a sudden. He is merely an employee of the governing corps directors. He can lead only so far, because if he tries to lead them where they refuse to go, they will fire him.

He was already fired, then somehow

.

Save DCI from what, exactly?

Irrelevance.

[danielray]

Seeing that, I think the rhetoric about "the model is broken" and how DCI and their corps will self-destruct in eight months is not an appropriate description of the situation.

I only point out that if danielray is correct and every single touring corps will fold in September of 2013 due to finances, then in that case, why not look at options like shortening the season just this once in these apocalyptic times?

You're confusing two different things here...

The point was simply about the current compromise being very temporary... in the hopes of possibly working something out, but if not ..