TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[BRASSO]

No there was not; PBS dropped DCI because there was not enough underwriting (and viewer donation) interest; and ESPN2 dropped DCI because there was not enough advertising interest.

You miss the point. DCI Drum Corps was broadcast live for over 2 decades. It has been only recently... at a time we all seem to agree that the product is " better " that DCI Drum Corps lost its tv sponsorships. For decades the pledges and viewing audience WAS INDEED sufficient enough for stations to underwrite the Finals and show it on live TV. Some stations even broadcast live to millions the EAST Coast Regional Championships... up and down the entire East Coast. It was only RECENTLY that the public's interest in DCI Drum Corps has waned to the point that fewer people were pledging AND fewer of those pledging were sending in the checks sufficient enough for PBS to want to continue the live( or even tape delay) broadcasts any longer after doing so for decades. ESPN2 broadcast the show a few years back on tape delay, then looked at the tiny and disapppointing viewership numbers to the broadcast and concluded that they were no longer interested. ALL of this are RECENT developments. We need to do some serious soul searching here as an activity if we have any hopes at all of generating sufficient funds in the future to make this all work financially.

Edited April 11, 2013 by BRASSO

[wallace]

Perhaps PBS viewership and underwriting waned becaused the product had changed so much that it took drum corps even further from mainstream musical tastes. Maybe the marketing of drum corps as a sport to people who never had a high opinion of the marching arts in the first place was one of the reasons ESPN shot down the TV deal. It's hard to get national sponsors when the core audience is not the average sports fan.

More than likely it is a societal shift in viewing habits. With so much entertainment available at one's fingertips and considering the attention span of today's viewers, did a niche activity with an image problem really stand a chance in that marketplace? I say no.

Unless drum corps takes the best from today (visual presentation, theatrics, etc.) and couples it with yesterday's attention to musical detail and arragement (It doesn't necessarily have to be tried and true arrangements. Good music is good music. It will sell itself if it emotionally connects with the audience.) then I don't see the activity growing beyond its current circle of influence.

[JimF-LowBari]

As for PBS viewing/giving in my area it was declining in the 80s just like DC was declining in general compared to before. As the money being pulled in was going down, PBS did the smart thing and looked for shows that brought in more money. Few years back it was 50s Do-Wop groups run during Pledge Drives and now it's 60s music shows. IOW - go for the age group with the disposible income. Also Pledge Time used to be for the entire week and done twice a year. Now it's one or two nights (or afternoons) but done multiple times.

IOW - PBS kept it's eyes and mind open and changed to meet changing times..... lesson for DC there somewhere

Edited April 11, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[JimF-LowBari]

No there was not; PBS dropped DCI because there was not enough underwriting (and viewer donation) interest; and ESPN2 dropped DCI because there was not enough advertising interest.

Thought DCI dropped the ESPN2 telecast because the money spent wasn't worth the benefit gained.

[Kamarag]

PBS dropped DCI not because viewership was low, but rather because it was aired as pledge-drive programming, and DCI had the highest number of pledge-reneges on the network. That means people call in with a pledge but never follow through with the money. That's information directly from a friend who was in senior administration with several PBS stations during the 70s, 80s and 90s.

[JimF-LowBari]

PBS dropped DCI not because viewership was low, but rather because it was aired as pledge-drive programming, and DCI had the highest number of pledge-reneges on the network. That means people call in with a pledge but never follow through with the money. That's information directly from a friend who was in senior administration with several PBS stations during the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Also understand that the money that did came thru was going downhill the last few years of the live broadcast. Great ways for corps fans to shoot themselves in the foot.

Edit: Added 'giving' to the post John replied to as it was misleading.... I said 'viewing' but was also thinking pledges with the viewing....

Edited April 11, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[Stu]

To me here are the various 'combined' reasons DCI viewership has waned, why we have a hard time getting an increase in audience now, and why an elite only DCI system today will not yield more butts in the seats.

a) In the '70s and early 80's there were only 4 nationally broadcast stations to receive entertainment (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS). There was a niche viewership for drum corps from those who had interest in the marching activity. However, even back then people channel surfed, albeit on just 4 channels; and for those surfers the DCI broadcast had a whopping 25% chance of capturing those surfers. Many of those surfers were not really that interested in drum corps, it was just the station they stopped on while surfing (sort of like creating a way to get some nice 'musak' for a while to fill up the house). Then came Cable which vastly increased the number of stations which gave those surfers more options and diluted the entertainment viewership. Meanwhile, many of the 400+ corps began to fold which began the dwindling of those involved in the activity and in turn meant less and less family/friends of corps members attending live shows.

b) In the '90s and the new millennium we had the advent of Satellite, Internet, Youtube, Streaming, etc... which further deluded the entertainment viewership and gave the surfers even more options. Fulfilled pledges began to plummet for the PBS broadcast so the PBS broadcast went away, and not enough advertising money was available to sustain a run at an ESPN2 broadcast. Many more corps were still folding which continued the dwindling of those involved in the activity. Again, less family/friends of corps members attending live shows.

c) DCI, even when broadcast on PBS, always was a niche activity that mainly appealed to just those within that or similar activities (ie band), and on a smaller scale appealed to the home town community to support the home town corps. As the choices in TV/Satellite/Internet are now vast those who used to stop on PBS while surfing are dispersed onto thousands if not millions of other outlets. Also, now that there is Youtube and Streaming those interested in the DCI activity are going there instead of PBS or ESPN2; and due to the folding of the majority of corps over the years the live audiences at show to show (which did, and still do, overwhelmingly consist of family, friends, wanna-bees, and former performers) are dwindling. This all indicates that, to me, even if an Elite 'Only' DCI System is put into action that will not really influence getting more butts in the seats.

Note: Please be aware that I am not against an elite set of corps competing within DCI (we have that on Saturday of DCI Finals with the top 12). I am, however, of the belief that if DCI becomes and elite 'only' system it will die a horrible death.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Stu

[cixelsyd]

So go start a drum corps .Go start a bunch of them. Do that, and you'll have thousands and thousands of new fans. Your premise, which is sound, in some ways, is based on a belief that more drum corps of every stripe is what will grow the audience back to being in the millions.

Thank you for the underlined part. With you, there is some hope for civil discussion.

I agree with the general principle. More participants should cause more audience and support.

The only problem is that the moment your premise runs into reality, it crumbles. Sure, if there were 300 drum corps, with 40 of them being so good that they were threats to win nationals in any given year, you would likely have more people in the stands. But there isn't the interest or the capital out there to create and grow those additional 260 drum corps to get to that level.

I also agree that increasing participation will be a challenge. And it appears we will agree on many of the reasons why, explained below.

But drum corps isn't like WGI guard. One tuba costs as much or more than a floor covering. The economies of equipment expense are so different as to make trying to compare the costs of startup and operation an exercise in absurdity.

Agreed. I will point out, though, that it is not just equipment. The enormity of corps size (now 150, with no encouragement for anything smaller) and the focus on national travel, leave us with very little in the way of lower cost options.

Ok, so scale it back. Let's say the goal is 100 drum corps instead of 300. That's surely more achievable, right?

How many Open Class corps are still struggling to come up with anything near a 50 man horn line? How many mid-level World Class corps are entering June still looking to pick up 10 or 12 more guard members? If we're having a hard time filling the ranks of the existing corps, what evidence is there that creating more opportunities for marching would do anything to boost the participation level, when there are existing participation opportunities that go untaken?

Agreement here too. To be fair, though, we had 4 OC hornlines over 50, and 3 others around the 40 mark.

DCI is, in some ways, a victim of their own success. Because it's been so effective about showcasing how excellent the product can be to those who are already easily reached, it's unintentionally damaged the marketability of others who want to compete, but who don't have the talents or resources of those corps at the top of the activity. Kids are so used to the idea of DCI being "the best" in marching arts, that they're not that interested in participating at a "good" level, even if doing so is cheaper and easier than marching in a top corps.

More participants, sure. But people who believe that you can automatically grow the number of participants without first doing a better job of selling the corps that we already have are the drum corps equivalents of South Park's underwear gnomes.

1. Say that we need more drum corps

2. ?????

3. Millions of new drum corps fans!!!

Well, like you already pointed out, step 2 would require solutions to significant financial and recruiting challenges. A third resource worth mentioning at that same level of urgency is adults. We need the interest and participation from adults who serve as corps directors, support staff and volunteers. A world class corps often has 40 or more adults filling those roles, and with the lack of alternative operating models, open class corps need nearly as many to attain health.

If we want to talk about possible rules changes that would encourage a wider variety of competitive results, then I'm right there with ya. If we want to talk about changes to make the programming more fun to mainstream audiences, yup, put me down for ten bucks. But believing that the way to long term growth involves muting the message when it comes to the most impressive products the activity has, I'm gettin' out at that stop. There's no science or history to support the notion.

So we made it to the last two sentences of your post in agreement. We agree on the theory. We agree it would be challenging. We agree on the specific resources that cause those challenges. We probably even agree that the idea is worth pursuing, to some extent.

Now, by that phrase I underlined above, I take it you are not willing to compromise on (as the DCI mission states it) "showcasing the top corps" in order to raise focus or redirect resources to the effort of creating more corps. I expect we have different views there. But how far apart are we?

Getting back to something you said above - you admitted DCI has been successful in "showcasing the top corps", even to the extent that it may well be blunting interest in any other flavor of the activity. This is kind of what I was saying about how there are few alternative operating models. For instance, there are no longer any non-touring junior corps east of the Rocky Mountains. Unless your corps hails from a west coast state, it tours to DCI Championships every year. When you look at the three primary resources I identify above (money, recruits, adults), a less travel intensive model would certainly help reduce the money requirement for a startup corps, but we are not seeing enough recruits or adults turn out for such an effort.

What if it is like you say? What if the 40-year DCI focus on showcasing top corps and national tours really is partly responsible for attracting interest of both the kids and the grownups away from local and regional corps? And what if DCI could reverse that trend by changing their focus, even just in cheap-and-easy ways, to include more (i.e. any) support for local and/or regional operating models? What if interns spending more time covering open class in depth on DCI.org led to greater interest from potential members and administrators? What if some planning made it possible to include open class corps in fixed location, annual focal events in their area? What if we stop talking about raising the size limit to 200, and make small corps bigger instead of making big corps bigger still?

Ideas like those would not, in my estimation, mute the message for the top division.

[MikeD]

You miss the point. DCI Drum Corps was broadcast live for over 2 decades. It has been only recently... at a time we all seem to agree that the product is " better " that DCI Drum Corps lost its tv sponsorships. For decades the pledges and viewing audience WAS INDEED sufficient enough for stations to underwrite the Finals and show it on live TV. Some stations even broadcast live to millions the EAST Coast Regional Championships... up and down the entire East Coast. It was only RECENTLY that the public's interest in DCI Drum Corps has waned to the point that fewer people were pledging AND fewer of those pledging were sending in the checks sufficient enough for PBS to want to continue the live( or even tape delay) broadcasts any longer after doing so for decades. ESPN2 broadcast the show a few years back on tape delay, then looked at the tiny and disapppointing viewership numbers to the broadcast and concluded that they were no longer interested. ALL of this are RECENT developments. We need to do some serious soul searching here as an activity if we have any hopes at all of generating sufficient funds in the future to make this all work financially.

The ESPN2 broadcast was paid for by DCI, from what I read.

The PBS broadcast was reduced not because pledges were low...but because fulfilling those pledges was worse than with other beg-a-thon programs they ran.

Personally, I prefer the current movie theater for quarters and web for semis, and I'd love a PPV for finals if possible.

[JimF-LowBari]

The ESPN2 broadcast was paid for by DCI, from what I read.

I saw it as a two hour Infomercial for DCI. Biggest difference was DCI tried to sell advertising time to other companies to offset the cost of buying the air time.

And the PBS telecast.... anyone have real years when it ran? In my area the live show started 1975 and ran at latest the mid 80s. Then we had the two hour deal that was until about mid 90s (just found a VHS tape ca 1996).

Edited April 11, 2013 by JimF-LowBari