TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[normy diploome]

Now if only this would happen between BD and the Cadets at Finals DCI attendance would skyrocket!!!

Stu,

Just because the one guy in your link is from a California unit with a blue uniform...

You'll have to check with Craiga about what Eastern corps (ahem) were known for their fighting skills BITD. I don't think Holy Name was one of them, although Angels and Demons may give us a pre-view.

[MikeD]

You appear to have it backwards Stu.

I never said that ESPN2 was going to operate with DCI in any other fashion but as a business decision. As they should. But recall what the INITIAL DCI press release said immediately after the show. It said that allegedly the sponsors, DCI, and ESPN itself were more than pleased with the higher than expected ( an projected by DCI) viewership. If true, and everyone.. including sponsors.... is so happy as we were told, then it is inconceivable that ESPN2 would not have given DCI a 2nd year's show, epecially since we were told by DCI that the viewership numbers projected and provded to ESPN2 were exceeded. Something is amiss here in the DCI storyline, you know ? Can't you see that ?

There were two years of ESPN2 shows.

However, why would ESPN care whether or not DCI got paid by sponsors? As far as ESPN was concerned, DCI paid them for the time. If DCI had wanted to fund the effort a third year, ESPN would gladly have taken their $$$ for the time.

DCI decided not to continue the broadcast for 2007, not ESPN.

[Stu]

If DCI had viewership numbers that allegedly exceeded what they initially projected and told to ESPN2, then the " infomercial " approach to ESPN2 would have been a thing of the past, and ESPN2 would have made the business decision that DCI was " so tremendous.. and better than the NHL regular season gamees,etc " that ESPN would have negotiated with DCI a 2nd format.. not an infomercial format paid by sponsors.... that would work for all. Can't you see that ? There is a disconnect between the initial press release of DCI ( not a joint press release by the way ) and the subsequent later annoucement that DCI could not find suitable sponsors willing to underwrite a 2nd broadcast, nor apparently the willingness of ESPN 2 to negotiate on something we're told by DCI was a tremendous success. If such a DCI press release storyline seems plausable to you then I don't know what else to tell you, Stu.

You are a brick wall when it comes to seeing the ESPN side of the issue; this is purely about profit for ESPN and has nothing to do with DCI; ESPN could care less about the competitive content of the broadcast as long as it makes them more and more money; this is about DCI not being able to secure enough advertising support to pay ESPN for increasing air time fees; ergo it is also about ESPN seeing that DCI could not garner enough sponsor support as a DCI produced event, so why in the world would ESPN agree to take over the monetary risk of making it an ESPN produced broadcast when DCI could not even sell their own product to potential sponsors?

[BRASSO]

DCI decided not to continue the broadcast for 2007, not ESPN.

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 ?

Edited April 12, 2013 by BRASSO

[JimF-LowBari]

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 ?

How much did it cost DCI to go the ESPN route?

How much benefit did DCI get from the ESPN route?

Same questions for subscription.....

Let's put it this way. If I'm a business owner and my advertising plan costs $1,000 and only brings in $100 in new business (IOW benefit), then it's time to come up with a new plan.

My guess is DCI expected/was hoping for generating a larger number of potential members and fans from the telecasts. Results weren't as expected and because DCIs pocketbook isn't that deep they decided to spend the money in other ways.

Edited April 12, 2013 by JimF-LowBari

[BRASSO]

You are a brick wall when it comes to seeing the ESPN side of the issue; this is purely about profit for ESPN and has nothing to do with DCI; ESPN could care less about the competitive content of the broadcast as long as it makes them more and more money; this is about DCI not being able to secure enough advertising support to pay ESPN for increasing air time fees; ergo it is also about ESPN seeing that DCI could not garner enough sponsor support as a DCI produced event, so why in the world would ESPN agree to take over the monetary risk of making it an ESPN produced broadcast when DCI could not even sell their own product to potential sponsors?

You seem to believe that I think that that ESPN is not a business, and that I believe that ESPN operates.. or should.. in an altruistic fashion. How you conclude such from any of my remarks above on here is unfortunate for you. This is because you have apparently misunderstood my remarks here. This is probaby why you have " run up against a brick wall "and it has become frustrating for you as result. But I am not reponsible for this if you so fundamentally misinterpet how I understand how a business ,such as ESPN , operates and what motivates them in their decision making. That said, you obliquely were correct that if ESPN saw DCI as bringing eyeballs to the screen in sufficient numbers that they would find a way to make a buck on that. Such eyeballs to the screen would likewise bring a share of those profits back to DCI as well.Thats Business 101, Stu. The notion that DCI would forgo access to reportedly half a million households with their Finals and opt instead... as a business decision to generate more revenues instead...to sell subscription service of the Finals on tape delay to a couple of hundred people via their computer, neither passes the storyline smell test, nor the revenue generating business test. If you can't see that, then I don't know what further to tell you, Stu.

Edited April 12, 2013 by BRASSO

[HockeyDad]

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 ?

first question: Yes

second question: I don't know. At some point you need to stop bleeding money.

[BRASSO]

How much did it cost DCI to go the ESPN route?

How much benefit did DCI get from the ESPN route?

Same questions for subscription.....

Let's put it this way. If I'm a business owner and my advertising plan costs $1,000 and only brings in $100 in new business (IOW benefit), then it's time to come up with a new plan.

My guess is DCI expected/was hoping for generating a larger number of potential members and fans from the telecasts. Results weren't as expected and because DCIs pocketbook isn't that deep they decided to spend the money in other ways.

For DECADES DCI Finals was on TV. Some years, even live. 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 ? Should we chalk this all up to just another in as series of missteps by DCI ? Or is DCI's Finals confinement( beyond attendance ) now to just a few computers, have other factors that have played perhaps a bigger role to the public's blackout now of DCI on TV , despite hundreds of more stations now available to us than in the 70's and 80's ?

Edited April 12, 2013 by BRASSO

[JimF-LowBari]

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 ? Should we chalk this all up to just another in as series of missteps by DCI ? Or is DCI's Finals confinement now to a few computers, have other factors that have played perhaps a bigger role to the public's blackout now of DCI on TV , despite hundreds of more stations now available to us than in the 70's and 80's ?

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....

[Stu]

You seem to believe that I think that that ESPN is not a business, and that I believe that ESPN operates.. or should.. in an altruistic fashion. How you conclude such from any of my remarks above on here is unfortunate for you. This is because you have apparently misunderstood my remarks here. This is probaby why you have " run up against a brick wall "and it has become frustrating for you as result. But I am not reponsible for this if you so fundamentally misinterpet how I understand how a business ,such as ESPN , operates and what motivates them in their decision making. That said, you obliquely were correct that if ESPN saw DCI as bringing eyeballs to the screen in sufficient numbers that they would find a way to make a buck on that. Such eyeballs to the screen would likewise bring a share of those profits back to DCI as well.Thats Business 101, Stu. The notion that DCI would forgo access to reportedly half a million households with their Finals and opt instead... as a business decision to generate more revenues instead...to sell subscription service of the Finals on tape delay to a couple of hundred people via their computer, neither passes the storyline smell test, nor the revenue generating business test. If you can't see that, then I don't know what further to tell you, Stu.

I have discussed this with people in DCI as well as business execs outside of the music industry; those millions of eyeballs watching DCI do not factor in at all if, for some reason, corporate sponsors do not want to market their products via advertising to those eyeballs. That is also business 101. Corporate sponsor executives outside of our little world of the marching arts, for the most part, have absolutely no desire whatsoever to market their products to eyeballs which are watching what they will always interpret as a goofy marching band activity; whether on a network broadcast or watching in the stands at a pro stadium. My gut tells me that those corporate execs are in the category of seeing this as a "One time, at band camp..." activity, and they just want to stay away from that association. However, if DCI went the direction of the TV shows like Big Bang Theory or Glee, which have fun and make light of their perceptions, then those corporate execs might want to advertise their products to the eyeballs watching in that manner; or, as I pointed out in another thread, if DCI donated much of their proceeds to charities, corporate execs may come aboard as sponsors in the vein of good public relations. But again this has everything to do with making a profit for ESPN and nothing more.

Note: Honda got involved with the Battle of the Bands for public relations reasons on supporting a traditional minority based activity (again, a public relations move).

Edited April 12, 2013 by Stu