TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[BRASSO]

It's my contention that DCI has a lot of unrealized value, but they are afraid of exploiting it to the fullest because it would necessarily involve selling some elements of their package harder than others.

The game plan should be to get the product cleaned up and clarified enough to make it understandable to your potential sponsors, with the understanding that you're asking them to be part of the expansion of the product and brand, rather than delivering them a ready-made item. Sell them on the unrealized value and potential of the product, and be willing to do what you have to do to help them - and yourself - realize the full potential.

DCI already has about a dozen Corporate sponsors that view DCI Drum Corps as compatible with their product lines, customer base, etc.

As of now, none of them see a potential healthy future return of capital to them by heavily investing their current dollars to the venture. Some of these sponsors have been Corporate sponsors of DCI Drum Corps for years too. If these Corporates believed there was money to be made and returned to their stockholders investing in this activity then they would have stepped forward and done so by now it seems to me. If the G7 thought they were sitting on " unrealized value " they would have found a Venture Capital firm or some such to front end invest in the G7's venture, and the G7... or a few of the G7 anyway.... would have been long gone by now as well.

Edited March 4, 2013 by BRASSO

[Slingerland]

DCI already has about a dozen Corporate sponsors that view DCI Drum Corps as compatible with their product lines, customer base, etc.

As of now, none of them see a potential future return of capitol to them by heavily investing their current dollars to the venture. Some of these sponsors have been Corporate sponsors of DCI Drum Corps for years too. If these Corporates believed there was money to be made and returned to their stockholders investing in this activity then they would have stepped forward and done so by now it seems to me. If the G7 thought they were sitting on " unrealized value " they would have found a Venture Capitol firm or some such to front end their venture, and they would have been gone by now as well.

Zildjian, D'Addario (Evans), etc, are all relatively small family-based companies. Yamaha is a multi-national, but they do most of their support through product donations/sales to the corps themselves, not DCI, so you're unlikely to see them want to drop another $100-250k in cash, when they already get their promotions taken care of via the corps themselves.

The idea that drum corps is a fixed product that has no potential for growth is tantamount to saying "our product is dumb, and no one will ever like us." Sorry if I don't buy into that idea. If your product is really so sucky, either change the product or shut down.

[cixelsyd]

IN 2011, Troopers and Bluecoats had more or less the same expenses (about $850k). Also in that range were Boston, Glassmen, and Madison. There was no significant difference in the program expenses among a wide array of corps. If you use SCV or BD, you have to acknowledge that both corps also have a range of other programs that get figured into their overall organizational expenses, so aren't easily compared.

Cavaliers, Cadets and Crown all had much higher expenses. Phantom Regiment was in between.

[BRASSO]

The idea that drum corps is a fixed product that has no potential for growth is tantamount to saying "our product is dumb, and no one will ever like us." Sorry if I don't buy into that idea. If your product is really so sucky, either change the product or shut down.

hmnn... no, I did not state that " the product is dumb and noone will ever like us ". Nor did I state that the product is " sucky ". Nor do I belive that it is an " either, or " situation here either.

I do believe however that the product as currently constructed does indeed have limited appeal to the general public. So " yes ", I do believe that if this activity is really serious about growth that it needs to substantively address this. On the other hand, as I mentioned before, DCI has recently identified its PRIMARY customer as decidedly NOT the public at large. DCI's PRIMARY customer at present is the parent of a musically inclined or Performing Arts inclined Son or Daughter, and their SECONDARY customer the High School and College Marching Band Directors that feed them these potential PRIMARY customers. While enobling, and certainly elevating the quality of the product, such a customer base by its very nature is limiting in its future fan base growth potential. A ' customer " is someone that buys your product once. A ' fan " is someone that comes back year after year after year to buy your product by repeatedly going out to the shows each summer. And a repeat customer is " to die for " if you are an organization. How many " parent customers " that foot the bill for their child's summer Drum Corps are there after their Son or Daughter finish their brief tenure in DCI Drum Corps ? Your answer to that should give you some insight to the dilemna that DCI has faced in audience growth of this activity.

DCI ... and DCA.... both limit their potential by in effect working in separate spheres. The day is coming, and it should have happened much earlier, imo, when both DCI and DCA will come to the realization that they would be better off eliminating costly duplication and simply merge the two organizations. Its not a panacea, but in these times, both need to look to a merged single endeavor. If done, the larger organization could speak with a unified and larger voice to potential investors. Secondly, it would serve the multipliciy of " customer " demands, ie schools, fans, full tour, part time tour, alumni groups, etc. You could have separate Divisions as you and others are calling for, and each with a customer base attracted to that division, and they'd no doubt be cross over. You would literally have every aspect covered, with each age group, demographic, etc and under one umbrella. You need critical mass in any endeavor. A merged DCI and DCA increases that critical mass, and that would be a start right there that I would recommend. So " no " its not an " either, or " situation. There are things that can be done now that do not require reconstructive surgery, imo. And this is but just one recommendation that I believe needs to occur.. and sooner rather than later. Its both neccessary and ultimately inevitable, imo.

Edited March 4, 2013 by BRASSO

[Slingerland]

Cavaliers, Cadets and Crown all had much higher expenses. Phantom Regiment was in between.

None of which disproves my point; that corps who place 4th place and corps that come in at18th place corps can and do spend comparable amounts of money. There's not necessarily a correlation between budget and placement once you get to certain spending levels.

The noticeable difference comes once you drop below 20th place, or so. There, the budgets are likely to be much lower. Since DCI has no mechanism in place (or means) to allow for the type of revenue boost that might make those organizations more competitive with those who are already at a higher level, it makes more sense to put those organizations into a league that allows them to compete more meaningfully with each other. The current designations of Open Class and World Class clearly have no real meaning, competitively.

Someone asked what would happen if a particular pro franchise was so bad that they'd continually lose to minor league teams. Well, I would imagine that the if the gates in that team's city fell so much that the other teams in the League were feeling the effect of that poor performance, the other owners would find a way to either pressure the owner to bring in a new staff or pressure him to sell the franchise to someone who could do more with it. If you have a sucko team, and can still sell tickets to events, you still bring value to the other members of the league. (See "Cubs, Chicago"), but if the day comes when you neither sell tickets or bring other value to the enterprise, someone will do something to make a change.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Slingerland

[Slingerland]

DCI ... and DCA.... both limit their potential by in effect working in separate spheres. The day is coming, and it should have happened much earlier, imo, when both DCI and DCA will come to the realization that they would be better off eliminating costly duplication and simply merge the two organizations.

That might be a solution to some issues, but are you merging two strong organizations for the purposes of creating an even better entity, or are you merging two organizations just because you can save a few dollars by doing so? In other words, what does this do to make the entire package stronger and more viable?

DCA is only a $290k a year organization, and I'd imagine is run almost purely on a volunteer basis, so you're not really talking about a merger of equals there; you're looking at having DCI take over DCA (would the DCA corps even want that?)

Another solution might be to have DCA expand their all-ages roster to include corps that are currently in the Open Class and lower tiers of World Class, which would serve to increase their roster of available performing organizations and increase their visibility in markets where they're not currently that active.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Slingerland

[MikeD]

DCA is only a $290k a year organization, and I'd imagine is run almost purely on a volunteer basis, so you're not really talking about a merger of equals there; you're looking at having DCI take over DCA (would the DCA corps even want that?)

You just gave the DCA folks here a heart attack!

[BRASSO]

That might be a solution to some issues, but are you merging two strong organizations for the purposes of creating an even better entity, or are you merging two organizations just because you can save a few dollars by doing so? In other words, what does this do to make the entire package stronger and more viable?

Both.

I believe the 2 organizations merging would cut down on duplicative costs, AND such a larger entity would have a bigger potential to both keeps current Corps afloat AND potentially grow an audience base. When both organizations are at so historically low numbers now, BIG is better. As I said, its not a panacea, but it would be a start. imo.

I believe that creating a third division within DCI might make for competitive equality, but it simply cuts the available pie into more sections and does little to increase the growth of the fan base which is presumably what you are driving at and wanting to see happen. ( or I think anyway )

Edited March 4, 2013 by BRASSO

[Slingerland]

You just gave the DCA folks here a heart attack!

Wait until they see Gibbs telling them how he wants them to program their shows!

[Slingerland]

Both.

I believe the 2 organizations merging would cut down on duplicative costs, AND such a larger entity would have a bigger potential to both keeps current Corps afloat AND potentially grow an audience base. When both organizations are at so historically low numbers now, BIG is better. As I said, its not a panacea, but it would be a start. imo.

I believe that creating a third division within DCI might make for competitive equality, but it simply cuts the available pie into more sections and does little to increase the growth of the fan base which is presumably what you are driving at and wanting to see happen. ( or I think anyway )

All good points. In terms of competitive ranges, to an extent, there are already three different tiers of activity for drum corps at the junior level, with differences that are large enough to make a three-tier approach a possible solution (or maybe Sound Sport is the third division? That would make some sense.)

I'd actually go a step further and say that maybe what needs to happen is to have DCI, WGI, and DCA sit down together with an eye toward a potential merger of all three. DCI would still be the senior circuit (from a budget standpoint), but there are enough crossovers in terms of marketing, potential sponsorships, etc, that it could make sense for each of them to have a particular portion of their area of expertise while still sharing certain costs related to marketing and promotions of the three related activities.