BRASSO Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) A well-known brass instructor said in an interview that if drum corps was focus-grouped, the product on the field might be quite a bit different than the one we see there now. Basically, a product more people can "get." I agree Fran. They say that " music is the universal language " of communication. It is the responsibility of the performer(s) thus to connect with their audience and to provide the entertainment communication that connects with that audience either emotionally or intellectually. The brilliance and genius of the creative performance in the Performance Arts by the instrumental musician, singer, or artist, interpretive dance performer, etc is that no spoken explanation is neccessary in this form of communication by the performer with their audience. Edited March 24, 2013 by BRASSO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The Drum Corps activity has far fewer marchers in the activity than in earlier decades. This provides the activity now with huge challenges when it loses former marchers who do not stick around to suppport the activity with both their financial support and attendance suppport. In my view, you are mistaken if you believe that this loss of the numbers of marchers over the years does not... and will not... present future problems of fan growth. You state here that " its not a negative at all". Well... yes it is. We have ALREADY observed its effects. In fact, is upon us now. There are indeed far fewer drum corps marching members today than in the past. I think I said that same thing a few posts back. The comments you were responding to were about the 'renewable resource' of those DCI is currently targeting to become fans...scholastic musicians at the HS and College level, not about those marching in drum corps already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes! Because I believe in the free market system. BD should not have an exclusive monopoly right to bingo revenue. They shouldn't, but when it's a main revenue source, they should be allowed to protect it. Glassmen lost their bingo program a couple of years back, and look what happened there. Do you really want more corps to fold? Do you honestly? Or are you and your amazing business savvy going to step in and save everyone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share Posted March 24, 2013 The best metric would be solid plan (something bold, not whatever may offend everyone involved the least) and for DCI to stop losing money, at the very least. Who says DCI is losing money? Reality, DCI is completely stationary as the world moves forward. Your assertions are so distanced from reality, I am not sure how to respond to you. How can you say that the same organization that has made so many major rule changes in recent years, formulated a 5-year plan, abandoned portions of it in favor of pursuing ideas from a 7-corps self-conceived committee, changed the composition of their BOD twice, reconfigured their tour, payouts and show format for the TOC shows, introduced SoundSport and Drumline Battle, and improved their financial performance in the worst economy since the Great Recession, is a "stationary" organization? Again, I don't think that there is really a strong unified definition of what exactly must change (not all corps directors within the 7 are entirely aligned and boards are definitely not), but would seem the main thing is that all are in clear agreement that the current situation is not sustainable and it if no bold steps are taken, it is better to be in a situation where you have greater control over your own destiny. It has never really been about money, but about destiny. So in your view, DCI is the Titanic, and directors are bickering over who gets to be first violin in the orchestra that will go down with the ship. Also, ask yourself.... if DCI was really doing such a bang up job, why is it that so many corps (directors, boards, etc.) have been entirely distracted by trying to salvage the situation. Because "the situation" they are dealing with is not financial - it is political. Again, DCI is not doing well financially. They are flat ####### broke, with no real plan on how to change the situation.Think about this for a second.... An organization with $10M in revenue has been averaging about a $100k gap in revenue vs. expenses over the past few years, sometimes ending the year with more expenses than revenue. And some people think there is nothing wrong??? From the 990s: TOTAL REVENUE: 2009: $8,592,976 2010: $8,838,914 2011: $9,722, 125 TOTAL EXPENSES: 2009: $8,542,134 2010: $8,875,705 2011: $9,429,827 REVENUE LESS EXPENSES: 2009: $50,842 2010: ($36,791) a loss 2011: $292,298 You are correct - that is an average of $100,000 gap between revenue and expenses. But that is $100,000 average DCI is making, not losing. This is getting tiresome. If DCI does not make substantial profit every single year, they are harshly criticized and declared "flat ####### broke". But if DCI does make profit, they are demonized for not paying it out to the corps because that is supposedly their only role in the activity. Obviously, nothing DCI does will placate the critics. Two of the principal demands of the G7 Report were to increase payouts to the top corps, and for DCI to develop some financial reserves. With the $100,000 per year DCI has been making, and the TOC shows providing double pay to the top corps, DCI is delivering on both of those demands despite the awful economy. The only reason we should be concerned, then, is if the G7 demands were misguided in the first place. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) when it's a main revenue source, they should be allowed to protect it. When it is their main revenue source they should be prepared to protect it compete in the open market. Glassmen lost their bingo program a couple of years back, and look what happened there. Yep; look what happened when they relied on Bingo and were not prepared for a shifting market. Do you really want more corps to fold? Do you honestly? 'Wanting' them to fold, no. 'Willing' to let them fold because they were not prepared to seek main outside revenue sources other than Bingo, absolutely. Or are you and your amazing business savvy going to step in and save everyone? It is not my, yours, ours, or even DCI's responsibility to save any corps; but it is the responsibility of the corps' Board and Executive Director to keep their own organization from going belly-up by either competing in the open market with Bingo or competing in the open market with other revenue sources. Edited March 24, 2013 by Stu 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Who says DCI is losing money? Your assertions are so distanced from reality, I am not sure how to respond to you. ... You are correct - that is an average of $100,000 gap between revenue and expenses. But that is $100,000 average DCI is making, not losing. This is getting tiresome. If DCI does not make substantial profit every single year, they are harshly criticized and declared "flat ####### broke". But if DCI does make profit, they are demonized for not paying it out to the corps because that is supposedly their only role in the activity. Obviously, nothing DCI does will placate the critics. Two of the principal demands of the G7 Report were to increase payouts to the top corps, and for DCI to develop some financial reserves. With the $100,000 per year DCI has been making, and the TOC shows providing double pay to the top corps, DCI is delivering on both of those demands despite the awful economy. The only reason we should be concerned, then, is if the G7 demands were misguided in the first place. $100,000 is a rounding error on $10M in revenues. Not only should they NEVER run that close to empty, they should be building up cash reserves year on year, while at the same time growing revenues. This is common sense stuff. Also, the 990s don't exactly tell the whole story (I've seen the actuals). The way some things are presented are not exactly inaccurate, but are a bit misleading (ex: it ain't revenue if you can't spend it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) But if we honestly evaluate the issue that was not really the reason BD was squawking; they were actually whining because another bingo hall was going to be close enough to 'compete' against their hall and thus take away much of what they selfishly considered as 'their' exclusive revenue source; so it really did not matter who owned the other hall. Stu,that is not the situation. There were some threads on this site that went into the actual situation in detail. You can learn more about it there, but the situation was a bit more complicated than what you think. Also, the BD Bingo operation not only generates financial support for the BD organization, but also for many other local youth organizations and charities (a food bank, for example). You can also be well assured that the boards of any drum corps out there that currently generate revenue from bingo are aggressively pursuing opportunities for revenue diversification. Anyway, not much more to say on this particular topic that has not been covered in the previous threads. Edited March 24, 2013 by danielray 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 'Wanting' them to fold, no. 'Willing' to let them fold because they were not prepared to seek main outside revenue sources other than Bingo, absolutely. That is what we in the real world call stupid. You're willing to let the most successful corps in DCI fold because they have a strong bingo operation that supports them, along with many other community programs? They don't just have their bingo operation, but it is a huge part of their income. It's the reason why SCV and BD are the most financially stable corps out there, because they have the big Bingo operations beneath them. Here's a scenario. You're a small business owner, but a WalMart is going to open up down the street. It's a free market system, right? So if they put you out of business, it's your own fault for not finding other revenue sources right? That about what you're saying? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Matczak Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Also, the 990s don't exactly tell the whole story (I've seen the actuals). I will certainly agree the subject has been dicussed at depth from many perspectives, but every once and a while you drop one like this,............ This question comes with no preconceived notions,.......How is it that you attend several DCI and WC corps board meetings, and get to see actuals on DCI's stuff?,............. are you invited?,......do you attend under sunshine laws?,.........right to know laws?,........seriously, who are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 seriously, who are you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts