TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[Stu]

With all due respect, thats nonsense, Stu.

DCI made the approach to ESPN2 and provided them viewership expectation numbers for the show, and to sponsors alike. ESPN2 no doubt was pleased enough with those viewership projected numbers to give it a shot. The natural conclusion is that ESPN2 would be pleased if those 1st show viewership numbers projected could be achieved. If you are reasonably close to those projected numbers, the station is pleased, and they will give you a 2nd chance. The directors of programming have sometimes been known to " carry " a new show... even sat an initial loss.. if they themserlves believe in it, and expect that there is a decent chance the audience numbers might increase even if down a bit in the beginning. Thats how it works in this Biz, Stu. But lets now look what the press release from DCI was stating. They are clearly stating that the numbers they thought they could generate were BETTER than projected to ESPN2. And that their sponsors were more than happy as well with the numbers.

Now, reading this press release, are you even a little bit skeptical that DCI could not find sponsors to underwrite a 2nd show when the first one was allegedly better than projected ? And if this press release WERE to be believed, does it not then make you mad that it would mean that DCI dropped the ball for a 2nd show if the 1st results were ""better than advertised ? Do you sense a disconnect here from the initial press release and subsequent release that for all intents and purposes shut DCI out of TV ?

If you think that the owners of ESPN are about viewership or broadcasting competitions and being pleased enough with DCI to give them some sort of altruistic shot you are naive; this is about money and profit plain and simple. If the market share was low and DCI coughed up millions and millions and millions of dollars, ESPN would lease air time to DCI; period.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Stu

[JimF-LowBari]

DCI made the approach to ESPN2 and provided them viewership expectation numbers for the show, and to sponsors alike. ESPN2 no doubt was pleased enough with those viewership projected numbers to give it a shot. The natural conclusion is that ESPN2 would be pleased if those 1st show viewership numbers projected could be achieved. If you are reasonably close to those projected numbers, the station is pleased, and they will give you a 2nd chance. The directors of programming have sometimes been known to " carry " a new show... even at an initial loss to them.. if they themselves believe in it, and expect that there is a decent chance the audience numbers might increase in time even if down a bit in the beginning. Thats how it works in this Biz, Stu. But lets now look what the press release from DCI was stating. They are clearly stating that the numbers they thought they could generate were BETTER than projected to ESPN2. And that their sponsors were more than happy as well with the numbers. Presumably then, if true, ESPN would be pleased as well.

My understanding is DCI approched ESPN with the money and said "We want to buy a chunk of programming time, let's talk". IOW - it was paying for two hours sealed the deal, not talk of viewership. As far as sponsorship, ESPN already had their money, so the sponsor money was to help DCI recover some of it's losses.

Also understand whatever the numbers were for the two years, DCI decided the cost was not worth the benefit it created so DCI dropped the idea. Willing to bet ESPN would have been very happy to have someone pay for two hours of programming for a third year.

IMO - this was more like an Infomercial than a standard show. IOW - the station of network gets paid for the Infomercial time and could give a crap what the ratings are.

Edited April 12, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[HockeyDad]

You are the one who brought up the Yale/Qunnipiac Hockey comparison to Pioneer/Mandarins drum corps; not me. I was just pointing out that Hockey is objective (which is why Yale/Qunnipiac can have a shot at 1-2) and that DCI is subjective (which is why Pioneer/Mandarins cannot have that same shot).

Yay hockey !

[HockeyDad]

Most people that follow a sport as " fans " of a team like to believe that there is a legitimate chance that their " team " can win... even if its long... very long... odds. When other long odds teams get to the Championship, even if they have not, it gives them hope for the immediate future for THEIR team down the road.

For example, the 2012-2013 NCAA preseason rankings for the Div. 1 College Ice Hockey program's liklihood of getting to the Championship game this Saturday were 1 ) Boston College ( defending Champion ) 2 ) Minnesota and 3) Michigan. The two teams however that made it to Saturdays Final are Yale and Qunnipiac. In preseason, neither college Ice Hockey programs were ranked in the TOP 20. If this was DCI Drum Corps, it would be akin to Pioneer and Mandarins to be fighting it out this August in Indy come Finals as #1 and #2. But we know that not only is this an insurmountable odds, it falls into the realm of a total impossibility for such Corps in the same Division as BD and the Cadets to do so. DCI Drum Corps is not well served when it has just 3 Corps winning more than 80% of the Titles the last 35 years. That is a hegemony that is counterproductive to generating future growth of the activity in terms of the interest in starting up new Corps, and growing an audience base that wants to witness genuine " competition " not " perpetual entrenchment " with Titles won.

What? Who wouldn't like 30 years of "Brian vs. Brian" ?

(don't make me explain it)

[MikeD]

I am most grateful that you brought up DCI's press release immediately after that ESPN2 broadcast on this MikeD, as the remarks in the this press release bear a rereading now based upon what later was reported in a follow up press release by this same DCI Office.

Read what is being reported initially here in your link. Dan Acheson is reporting ( quote ) " tremendous response on the part of our Corporate Sponsors ".( with DCI 's announced viewership numbers for the show ) So lets accept these Sponsor " temendous " happiness at face value.( as well as the accuracy of these viewership numbers from DCI in this. )

Later, months later, DCI reports that its future broadcast of DCI Finals can not be agreed to with ESPN because of ( quote ) " lack of sponsor underwriting ". Well, this begs the question : if DCI sponsors were allegedly thrilled with the first broadcast, then why did they not agree to underwrite the 2nd broadcast ?

Actually, I think it was a third broadcast, not a second, for 2007.

I thought, and this is primarily what I have read here, that DCI funded the first two broadcasts themselves woth ESPN2, and then they tried to get the sponsors to kick in some $$$ support back to them.

I have zero idea how well that effort worked out for the first two; what percentage of the broadcast costs in those years were covered by sponsors, back to DCI?

By the third year, apparently they decided it was not worth the net cost...maybe DCI felt the addition of the theater 1/4-finals and web semis covered any broadcast needs they wanted to cover. Pesonally, I agree with them. I love the 1/4 finals in the movie theaters, far mroe than any TV show.

[normy diploome]

Now we will have Brain vs. Brawn?

Or at least Cats vs. Dogs...Bobcats vs. Bulldogs... Quinnipiac vs. Yale. HockeyDad, are those heads still spinning in Minnesota and North Dakota???

Even funnier than the Pioneer/Mandarin analogy is that Yale and Quinnipiac are less than five miles apart on the same street ! But it will be Southern CT U. on the other side of New Haven who will host DCI this summer,

[Slingerland]

My understanding is DCI approched ESPN with the money and said "We want to buy a chunk of programming time, let's talk". IOW - it was paying for two hours sealed the deal, not talk of viewership. As far as sponsorship, ESPN already had their money, so the sponsor money was to help DCI recover some of it's losses.

Also understand whatever the numbers were for the two years, DCI decided the cost was not worth the benefit it created so DCI dropped the idea. Willing to bet ESPN would have been very happy to have someone pay for two hours of programming for a third year.

That is correct.

I'm not sure that ESPN was ever going to be a good fit for DCI in the first place, given their demos (overwhelmingly middle-aged men). There are other cable networks whose demos would probably be better fits - particularly Bravo - but even still, DCI would need enough sponsorship money in the bank to underwrite the cost of the airtime enough so that the cable channel felt that it was a good deal.

What's sad is that Saturday night is the dregs of television programming as is, and DCI still can't find anyone willing to put on their major event as a live program.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Slingerland

[Stu]

My understanding is DCI approched ESPN with the money and said "We want to buy a chunk of programming time, let's talk". IOW - it was paying for two hours sealed the deal, not talk of viewership. As far as sponsorship, ESPN already had their money, so the sponsor money was to help DCI recover some of it's losses.

Also understand whatever the numbers were for the two years, DCI decided the cost was not worth the benefit it created so DCI dropped the idea. Willing to bet ESPN would have been very happy to have someone pay for two hours of programming for a third year.

IMO - this was more like an Infomercial than a standard show. IOW - the station of network gets paid for the Infomercial time and could give a crap what the ratings are.

Pretty much dead-on there with your assessment Jim. ESPN2 sold air time; DCI could not secure enough money to pay for said air time; it did not matter one iota that the viewership numbers or share rating was increasing; no money from DCI meant no air time for DCI; this was, and is, about a business transaction with ESPN plain and simple.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Stu

[JimF-LowBari]

Pretty much dead-on there with your assessment Jim. ESPN2 sold air time; DCI could not secure enough money to pay for said air time; it did not matter one iota that the viewership numbers or share rating was increasing; no money from DCI meant no air time for DCI; this was, and is, about a business transaction with ESPN plain and simple.

Thanks to you and Slingerland. I just couldn't wrap what's left of my brain of why DCI was trying to do this or how it fit into TV programming until I hit the Infomercial idea. Usual Infomercials pay for the air time themselves and sell a physical product. DCI paid for the air time but went to it's usual sponsors to help with the costs. And instead of a physocal product, DCI was selling the idea of joing the corps and coming to shows.

Edited April 12, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[Stu]

What's sad is that Saturday night is the dregs of television programming as is, and DCI still can't find anyone willing to put on their major event as a live program.

It is not the Networks 'unwillingness' to broadcast the DCI event. The problem is that DCI cannot find the sponsors to pay for broadcast time, even for the dregs time slots of Saturday night.