TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[Jeff Ream]

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.

especially when one of the non 7 is terrfied they'll bail and leaks info

[Jeff Ream]

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).

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.

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.

then post the full returns to show the numbers you claim.

[Jeff Ream]

Something bold is simply my interpretation of the situation.

The 5 year plan was weak man.... be real. It was designed to upset the least amount of people, while really doing nothing. It was also a lot of statements, but no follow on action plan for how to get there.

Again, there needs to be a different kind of leadership at this stage or it is more of the same. That is entirely my own opinion, nothing else.

There is just a reality here that management is dramatically underperforming on the potential here. How many real sponsors does DCI have? There is loads of money there.... yet sponsorship revenue is pretty much next to nothing.

you want to blame management, then you need to look past Dan, and look at the 9 people who tell Dan what to do. The Board of Directors, of which 4 of the 7 are on and have been on for years. Per the bylaws, Dan can't just go out and create whatever he wants without their ok. We all know you have to spend money to make money, and if Dan does that, the BOD will have his head because it's money they think they deserve.

Or you have what you have now, where they claim Dan is not getting enough. They want their cake and eat it too....when in reality THEY are the problem, HAVE BEEN the problem, and refuse to acknowledge they are the problem.

[danielray]

then post the full returns to show the numbers you claim.

If anyone wanted stuff out there on DCP, it would most definitely be out there. Not my place to post anything here.

But, even the 990s can tell you things aren't great.

[Jeff Ream]

Over $2mm paid out to corps is certainly not largesse. But net of that, and the couple hundred thousand it left in reserve leaves them a "net" zero, and a few of you here suggest that the "net zero" part is a sign of failure. You conveniently forget about the payout to corps in that statement.

I included a metric of "efficiency" for every corps based on management and general expenses as a percentage of gross expenditures. There were only a couple of corps that had a higher efficiency than DCI (not coincidentally, they were mostly non-G7 corps), but you intimate that "another entity" (come on, you mean the Seven corps themselves, right?) would do better.

It's a pretty well-known fact that the average musical performance NPO produces only about 30% of its revenue from the gate. The rest comes from public support. DCI is not far off that mark.

DCI does a pretty good job of running a 105 show tour. Your suggestion is to let the corps run the tour, but not because they are "better" at it, or more efficient. Your suggestion is built around the thesis that "local", non-corps-run shows steal money from the corps pockets, and they want those profits (local school music programs be-darned.

You can't claim that "another entity" (the Seven) are more efficient at running a tour and generating profits when their own balance sheets prove the contention wrong. Just look at the Crown or Phantom or Cadets income statements and explain how your contention can possibly be true.

Cadets do run pretty much every show in their region, even if they aren't there, plus a TOC show G. How loaded does that have them?

[danielray]

you want to blame management, then you need to look past Dan, and look at the 9 people who tell Dan what to do. The Board of Directors, of which 4 of the 7 are on and have been on for years. Per the bylaws, Dan can't just go out and create whatever he wants without their ok. We all know you have to spend money to make money, and if Dan does that, the BOD will have his head because it's money they think they deserve.

Or you have what you have now, where they claim Dan is not getting enough. They want their cake and eat it too....when in reality THEY are the problem, HAVE BEEN the problem, and refuse to acknowledge they are the problem.

Look, the way DCI is structured... it is a neutered goat trying to mate with a beached squid. It is that effective and makes exactly that much sense.

You would have to try very hard to create a more ineffective structure than current... where no one has power, no one has authority, but everyone has responsibility.

[BRASSO]

Look, the way DCI is structured... it is a neutered goat trying to mate with a beached squid.

I was thinking of asking you who in your DCI analogy here are the " neutered goats", and who exactly is your DCI " beached squids "... but then thought... " nah... never mind "

Edited March 25, 2013 by BRASSO

[jeff_demello]

There are a lot of topics intermingled with this thread ... and all topics are valuable. Maybe this should be broken into a number of threads:

1) The Business of DCI: (IMHO) The "business of DCI" is to 1) Put Butts in Seats. Period. DCI is not "about the kids". It is (or should be) about marketing its product: Drum & Bugle Corps: 1) Advertising the product; 2) Contracting venues to present the product; 3) Sell the product; 4) Make sure the product sold is worth the price of admission. There is a "secondary business" of DCI, and that's the rules side, so that competing corps can compete fairly. There are a number of people who think DCI is a 'non-profit' business, and should have that "mindset". But, unfortunately most non-profits are run poorly. There are some (like me) who think it should be professionally run like the multi-million dollar organization it is (or should be ... check out 'Hughes Aircraft' ... the largest non-profit corporation that ever existed. They made airplanes, space capsules, rockets, etc., but were still non-profit). Governance is the main issue (IMHO) of DCI, as the BOD should be composed of individuals who are 1) Not connected directly with any single corps; 2) Passionate about the activity; and 3) experts in their business area (i.e., marketing, finance, legal, technology, business, etc.), and not individual Directors who are "interested parties" (which I think is the legal term).

2) The Business of Individual Drum Corps: The "business of each corps" is what each corps Board of Directors wants it to be! It could be the "business of excellence". It could be the "business of training youth". It could be both! It is NOT up to DCI to figure out what each corps wants / should be. However, if that business/corps wants to compete with other DCI corps, then it would probably go along with the standards that (should be) / are set by DCI. This is a big issue, since there are drum corps which are successfully running their business (which directly benefits the "kids"), and most corps which can barely brake even, or are loosing money (which, in the long run "hurts the kids"). This, is what most people think is the basic division of the G7, and they are correct! There are extremely successful businesses/corps, which can afford to put out a superior product ... just as with any other activity (car racing, etc.). Some businesses/corps are not as developed, and should be marketed / judged differently, and probably more than just the 2 "levels" we have now (world class, open class).

3) The Business of Show Sponsors: There are many show sponsors out there: a) individual drum corps; b) independent organizations; 3) DCI. Running a show is way different than running a drum corps, or running a marketing organization. This is not usually a "hot topic", but if DCI / G7 starts to market differently, you can bet there will be show sponsors who want to make some money, and will want to pay the top corps to be at their shows.

It seems to me like a lot of people in this thread (and previous threads) are p*ssed off because many are threatened by the G7 wanting to do business differently than the "bottom 7", or the "middle 7" (Given that there are, unfortunately, about 21 World Class corps, these are, IMHO, fair divisions). And these differences deal really with issues such as marketing, sustainability, and a viable touring model, that is both good for DCI, good for all the corps. I think that the "B(ottom)7" and the "M(iddle)7 should be screaming as much, if not louder, as the "G7", because they are forced into a nationwide touring model that is too costly for them, forcing them out of business.

IMHO! :tongue:/>

Edited March 26, 2013 by jeff_demello

[Stu]

1) The Business of DCI: (IMHO) The "business of DCI" is to 1) Put Butts in Seats. Period. DCI is not "about the kids". It is (or should be) about marketing its product: Drum & Bugle Corps: 1) Advertising the product; 2) Contracting venues to present the product; 3) Sell the product; 4) Make sure the product sold is worth the price of admission. There is a "secondary business" of DCI, and that's the rules side, so that competing corps can compete fairly. There are a number of people who think DCI is a 'non-profit' business, and should have that "mindset". But, unfortunately most non-profits are run poorly. There are some (like me) who think it should be professionally run like the multi-million dollar organization it is (or should be ... check out 'Hughes Aircraft' ... the largest non-profit corporation that ever existed. They made airplanes, space capsules, rockets, etc., but were still non-profit). Governance is the main issue (IMHO) of DCI, as the BOD should be composed of individuals who are 1) Not connected directly with any single corps; 2) Passionate about the activity; and 3) experts in their business area (i.e., marketing, finance, legal, technology, business, etc.), and not individual Directors who are "interested parties" (which I think is the legal term).

a) Saying DCI is not about the kids is like saying The Little League World Series is not about the kids. DCI is a youth activity; so by definition it is about the kids.

b) DCI is a business; and it is in the business of facilitating marketing, advertising, providing venues, and competitions just like The Little League World Series.

c) DCI is a non-profit, and it should be ran like other successful non-profits. And I agree about the Governance.

2) The Business of Individual Drum Corps: The "business of each corps" is what each corps Board of Directors wants it to be! It could be the "business of excellence". It could be the "business of training youth". It could be both! It is NOT up to DCI to figure out what each corps wants / should be. However, if that business/corps wants to compete with other DCI corps, then it would probably go along with the standards that (should be) / are set by DCI. This is a big issue, since there are drum corps which are successfully running their business (which directly benefits the "kids"), and most corps which can barely brake even, or are loosing money (which, in the long run "hurts the kids"). This, is what most people think is the basic division of the G7, and they are correct! There are extremely successful businesses/corps, which can afford to put out a superior product ... just as with any other activity (car racing, etc.). Some businesses/corps are not as developed, and should be marketed / judged differently, and probably more than just the 2 "levels" we have now (world class, open class).

a) The business of corps is what each board desires is true in that each corps can and should determine their own missions and goals.

b) Also true that if a corps wants to compete in DCI that the corps needs to follow the rules set forth by DCI.

c) I disagree with your premise as to why people are divided on the G7 because there are some G7 corps which are financially barely breaking even and some lower placing corps, and even some Open Class corps, which are way more financially sound. The division is about the egoism of the G7 directors attempting, by strong arm tactics, to downgrade and/or totally eliminate, other corps against their will in the name of their own elite exclusivity.

3) The Business of Show Sponsors: There are many show sponsors out there: a) individual drum corps; b) independent organizations; 3) DCI. Running a show is way different than running a drum corps, or running a marketing organization. This is not usually a "hot topic", but if DCI / G7 starts to market differently, you can bet there will be show sponsors who want to make some money, and will want to pay the top corps to be at their shows.

a) Look to the Little League World Series. That organization does not support and facilitate services just for an elite 7 or 8. Teams of all levels are allowed to compete provided that they meet the organizational criteria. And sponsors are found for the first rounds, where the lower teams play, as well as sponsors are found for the final championship between the top two teams. It is about the sweat and blood of finding sponsors which DCI may need to focus their efforts.

b) If DCI, and G7, really want to reach the people through marketing and make a ton of money all they need to do is watch the newest Sensa commercial to find out how the public views, has viewed, and will always view, the marching music activity. Otherwise DCI, and the G7, need to tone down their belief that this activity will ever appeal to a large enough audience to sustain their completely fill pro stadiums delusions.

It seems to me like a lot of people in this thread (and previous threads) are p*ssed off because many are threatened by the G7 wanting to do business differently than the "bottom 7", or the "middle 7" (Given that there are, unfortunately, about 21 World Class corps, these are, IMHO, fair divisions). And these differences deal really with issues such as marketing, sustainability, and a viable touring model, that is both good for DCI, good for all the corps. I think that the "B(ottom)7" and the "M(iddle)7 should be screaming as much, if not louder, as the "G7", because they are forced into a nationwide touring model that is too costly for them, forcing them out of business.

a) We are not threatened by the G7; nor are we upset at possibly changing the business strategy of DCI; what we are is really ticked off that the G7 want to 'hijack' DCI for their own glorification, they want to 'steal' DCI from other corps which have just as much ownership in the activity as they do, and do this instead of having the guts to go out on their own.

b) I do agree with you that the other corps need to raise holy **** about taming down this unsustainable coast to coast and back again national touring.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Stu

[Jeff Ream]

Look, the way DCI is structured... it is a neutered goat trying to mate with a beached squid. It is that effective and makes exactly that much sense.

You would have to try very hard to create a more ineffective structure than current... where no one has power, no one has authority, but everyone has responsibility.

right. And who made the structure?

Not Dan. yet they want to make Dan the scapegoat. He can't just go and change the rules. Dan should have more power, but the greedy ######## will never give it up. hell they threatened to walk if they didn't get some. yet you, like they, want to keep chucking Dan under the bus.

And you keep referencing numbers yet you show no proof.