Jeff Ream Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 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." well now we can't have that! I mean...imagine people tapping their toes? not reaching for the yearbook to get the concept! Horrors! :rolleyes:/> 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 $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). then man up and post the actuals 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Ahhhhhh.... so you did your own research and took it upon yourself to 'inform' some people. Hmmmm.... well many other people have also done their own research on various issues and also have sent those results to DCI. No. I was requested to do this. However, what you are maintaining is that you are 'directly' involved within the inner working process of DCI; so much so that you have the direct ear of say Dan Acheson, and he seeks out your advice in a one to one relationship as an adviser on say the G7/DCI issues, correct? I can't say that I'm on Dan's Christmas card list these days. I think the last project I worked directly with Dan on was a project "Crazy Dan's DCI Basement Blowout". :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 $100,000 is a rounding error on $10M in revenues. Now, that is just silly talk. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you make comments like that? I am sure you understand that unless every line item was in the tens of millions, that your "rounding error" comment does not apply. I cannot believe I have to explain this to you. 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. But if the only purpose of DCI is to return cash to corps, holding cash in reserve is in direct opposition to that purpose (especially when 7 corps are screaming particularly loudly for more cash). 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). Your characterization of DCI as "flat ####### broke" is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 Stu, you do realize the irony here, right? You are continually going on about free market... but at the same time complain that some corps are getting paid more than others and that some groups should essentially be subsidized because they are not able to raise enough funds. In the free market, corps are not compensated equally... and only the strongest or smartest survive. In the free market, corps could not make touring viable, so they created DCI to subsidize their own private "market" for member corps, within which annual touring could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Ok, I'll bite. How much? 24% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 No. I was requested to do this. Requested by who? Dan Acheson? DCI? I can't say that I'm on Dan's Christmas card list these days. I think the last project I worked directly with Dan on was a project "Crazy Dan's DCI Basement Blowout". :-) Thank you; this tells us that you are working with, for, on behalf of, and for the betterment of the G7 'not' for the betterment of DCI as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 In the free market, corps could not make touring viable, so they created DCI to subsidize their own private "market" for member corps, within which annual touring could be done. Not quite accurate... DCI, as an entertainment organization attempting to fill stadiums with paying customers, 'is' competing in the free-market against a plethora of other entertainment organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 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. Reality, DCI is completely stationary as the world moves forward. What bold steps are there to change this? 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. 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. 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??? Characterize the income statement correctly, and you'll see that "net" is what's left over after paying the corps. But, recall that the Seven charged DCI with building a $500m war chest, towards which they are about $250,000 to the good. So many corps and boards are focused on salvaging the situation because none of them suggest that the situation is tenable. Everyone is working on a solution that nobody completely likes (likely the best solution), and the Seven have put the activity in a situation where, instead of committing to work together, they've threatened to blow it up. The immediate result is that none of them trust one another enough to sign on to long-term commitments and, instead, are moving year-by-year with no actionable requirements laid down that would represent progress towards a shared goal. You, yourself, admit that there is no metric for success, and that the Seven don't even agree among themselves what a solution might be. Such a nebulous definition of "success" makes it nearly impossible to make progress towards any goal, much less the one that will preserve the activity as one. The Seven had such definitive demands not long ago. What happened to those and why were they replaced with "something bold"? If an organization can't iterate where it's going, it makes no difference what route they take to get there. "Something bold" is an even weaker goal than some here claim the 5-year plan represented. Yet it's OK for the Seven to lay down ridiculous expectations while Dan and the other directors are chastised for being "weak". It seems the only actual goal the Seven have in mind is to be put in charge, something the rest of the directors are not willing to do. If "success" is based on that demand alone, then I agree with you that the Seven will be disappointed, the activity will split, and the Seven will blithely stand by and blame the others for not acceding to their demands. Anyone paying attention can see the set-up and how the Seven intend to play the blame game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Now, that is just silly talk. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you make comments like that? I am sure you understand that unless every line item was in the tens of millions, that your "rounding error" comment does not apply. I cannot believe I have to explain this to you. If you don't get that $100k is a simply a rounding error on $10M ... we certainly do have a bit of a gap. $100k is not real money (less than what DCI spends on unnecessary printing). But if the only purpose of DCI is to return cash to corps, holding cash in reserve is in direct opposition to that purpose (especially when 7 corps are screaming particularly loudly for more cash). The FIRST purpose of DCI is to remain in business. In order to assue that, they need cash on hand, just in case. Those mentioning being able to hang on to $100k or even $300k as being a success... it is possible that an unplanned change in vendor or shift in market price of essential goods/services could put DCI well in the red when riding the margins that close. If the corps need more money and DCI exists to provide for the corps... DCI needs to go out and make/find more money... while at the same time keeping more in reserve. DCI could be making considerably more money than it currently is. It's like their milking the cow from only one teat. Your characterization of DCI as "flat ####### broke" is misleading. Let's put it like this... Let's say you make $100,000... and at the end of the year, after all your bills are paid, you have only $1,000. If any prices go up, or god forbid you have some sort of unplanned emergency over the next year... you're ####ed. DCI is in the same position here... $100k is nothing... and in recent years, they have been in the red. You can't run a sustainable business like this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts