BRASSO Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) What it did cost DCI to be broadcast on PBS? Especially during the early years when PBS was making (pledge) money from the live Finals broadcast? And who decided to pull the plug on the PBS broadcasts? Pretty sure PBS bailed on the live Finals and no idea why the taped shows were no longer produced. All I know is in my area the interest in those shows went downhill to the point, the local station didn't bother to say when they woudl be on. Comparing PBS (75-90s?) to ESPN (2000s) is apple and oranges IMO.... I did not compare ESPN with PBS, and understand the difference between each. DCI is on NEITHER anymore. The reason of course is different because their formats are different. What is the SAME however it seems to me is that we have fewer fans willing to step up to the plate and spend money on the enterprise ( as they once did ).... AND sponsors that once were involved financially, no longer involved to the degree they once were financially, except as mostlly sideliners. We have to ask ourselves..... why ? And then make the changes neccessary to try and turn it around. Edited April 12, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I did not compare ESPN with PBS, and understand the difference between each. DCI is on NEITHER anymore. The reason of course is different because their formats are different. What is the SAME however it seems to me is that we have fewer fans willing to step up to the plate and spend money on the enterprise ( as they once did ).... AND sponsors that once were involved financially, no longer involved to the degree they once were financially, except as mostlly sideliners. We have to ask ourselves..... why ? And then make the changes neccessary to try and turn it around. I was responding to: "For DECADES DCI was on TV. Was DCI making a business mistake.. and for for decades.... going this route ? Should DCI in retrospect have decided to spend their investment monies elsewhere ?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 SO.... DCI decided to forgo the opportunity to go into approx. half a million households ( the number that DCI provided in their press release ), and opted instead to broadcast its Finals on tape delay via subscription basis to a couple of hundred people via computers ? And this business decision, if true, by DCI makes sense to you ? There has been more to it than that 'couple of hundred people'. Showing 1/4-finals in the theaters and semis online is, IMO, a much better use of any broadcasting funds DCI has available than the ESPN2 show. For finals on TV...I'd rather see a PPV event funded before I'd spend a dime on an ESPN2 show....MHO anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I was responding to: "For DECADES DCI was on TV. Was DCI making a business mistake.. and for for decades.... going this route ? Should DCI in retrospect have decided to spend their investment monies elsewhere ?" Yes. What do you think ? Should they have been on TV, ( either ESPN, PBS ) or was that a folly business mistake to do so ? Keep in mind that the alternative now opted for by DCI is for subscriptions to a few hundred people on their Personal Computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) Yes. What do you think ? Should they have been on TV, ( either ESPN, PBS ) or was that a folly business mistake to do so ? Keep in mind that the alternative now opted for by DCI is for subscriptions to a few hundred people on their Personal Computers. Have you been missing the part where I talk about the COST of being on TV as opposed to the BENEFIT DCI was getting from the telecasts? I'd have to see the numbers (and I'm not an accountant) to see if I thought the right mvoe was made. To put it in a sound bite: "If the benefit of being on TV is greater than the cost, then it's good business sense to be on TV. If not, then it's good business sense not to be on TV". Edited April 12, 2013 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Yes. What do you think ? Should they have been on TV, ( either ESPN, PBS ) or was that a folly business mistake to do so ? Keep in mind that the alternative now opted for by DCI is for subscriptions to a few hundred people on their Personal Computers. Actually, the ESPN thing was a mistake in a lot of ways... too expensive and they couldn't get it covered. It wasn't that DCI isn't interesting enough to be on TV or interesting enough to be on that channel. It is simply that they couldn't make the numbers work. Numbers didn't work because they didn't have experienced and connected people out trying to sell the opportunity to sponsors. Simple as that. So, the result was that DCI had to foot the bill... which made little sense, particularly with online growing. Getting back on TV would be a great thing, if you can make the numbers work and if the restrictions imposed by the media partner are worth it in the end. Bottom line - DCI on ESPN2 made a hell of a lot of sense if sponsors were footing the bill, but little sense if it is DCI covering the costs. I think they should explore the TV opportunity again... but with sponsors locked in first. Drum corps can get major brand sponsors... if the right people are out there pitching the right story. These people are very expensive, but very worth it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I did not compare ESPN with PBS, and understand the difference between each. DCI is on NEITHER anymore. The reason of course is different because their formats are different. What is the SAME however it seems to me is that we have fewer fans willing to step up to the plate and spend money on the enterprise ( as they once did ).... AND sponsors that once were involved financially, no longer involved to the degree they once were financially, except as mostlly sideliners. We have to ask ourselves..... why ? And then make the changes neccessary to try and turn it around. Why, and what is the fix? Well here it is in simple terms: > we have fewer fans willing to step up to the plate and spend money on the enterprise ( as they once did ) We have way fewer corps which yields way fewer fans which yields way fewer people to spend money on the enterprise (as they once did). The fix number 1: increase the number of corps which in turn increases the number of fans which in turn increases the number of those willing to spend money on the enterprise (as they once did). > sponsors that once were involved financially, no longer involved to the degree they once were financially, except as mostly sideliners. We have fewer fans for those same companies to market to, ergo they became sideliner sponsors. The fix number 2: See fix number 1 which will also in turn bring back those same sponsors who will in turn want to spend their ad dollars to the degree they once were financially supporting so as to market to the increased fan base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Actually, the ESPN thing was a mistake in a lot of ways... too expensive and they couldn't get it covered. And starting at 10PM East Coast Time middle of the week was a real PITA...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 And starting at 10PM East Coast Time middle of the week was a real PITA...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 So's trying to stay on a diet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts